In other words you have a %2.6 chance of being a millionaire in the U.S vs a %1 in France.
Note quite. If you work both hard and at least a little smart in the US you are almost sure to become a millionaire by retirement. It would take less than 10% of median income in retirement savings over a 45 year career to reach millionaire status (in 2017 dollars). Either way for it to be nearly 3x harder to become a millionaire, which is by no means rich for a someone in the developed world, in France vs the USA is a serious problem.
Well I guess %99 of France is smarter then the %97.4 of the U.S in demanding policies that work for them instead of hoping that one day they will get lucky and be one of those tiny percentages
As long as the 97.4% don't need salaries paid for by millionaire owners your logic is valid.
What about somebody that gets shot? Perhaps in the liver? You don't think that person might be healthy? Hell, they could be an olympic gold medalist. Prime condition.
I think the term you are looking for is "otherwise healthy". The healthiest person in the world who then gets shot and is dying is no longer healthy, he is otherwise healthy. Being healthy is being generally free of disease, weakness or malfunction. No one with a failing organ which is killing them can claim to be healthy.
All these hot housing markets just show where there should be more development in new housing, especially more compact housing. Put some high rises in and around those neighborhoods along with more public transit and problem solved.
I agree this could probably only work if significant processing was offloaded to a device plugged into a wall socket and/or cloud services. I find it hard to believe a headset, or eventually just modified glasses, could do all of this for extended periods without running out of battery.
I would trust their conclusions a little more if they didn't have a history of lying about absolutely everything to justify unjustifiable wars. I can't remember the last time the CIA told the truth. About anything.
Generally those lies come from administrations cherry picking information from the intelligence community. For instance the CIA did provide the Bush administration evidence that Iraq likely didn't have WMD (no agency knew for certain), but it was ignored.
In this case you have politicians on both sides of the aisle looking at the classified evidence and concluding the Russians are guilty of these acts. You have an FBI director who also actively manipulated the media to hinder Clinton come out in agreement with the CIA. You need to have a pretty thick foil hat to believe this is all a massive conspiracy.
I don't get you people, I really don't. You bitch at Apple because they release a new phone so often. Saying it's Apples forced obsolete model. Yet you run out and switch from Samsung to LG to Google to bumfuck. What is the difference? You are buying phones just as often as Apple people are, if not more.
You do realize there are more than one sets of opinions among Android users, and not everyone shares the complaints you mentioned. I for one never complain about Apple (or Samsung) releasing new phones so often, and while I don't like planned obsolescence it certainly doesn't affect me as I get a new phone every other year.
All those android phones do the same god damn thing. So you are upgraded for the sake of upgrading. Why does Apple have to have multiple phone options? They already have the regular model and the plus. That is all one needs. A small screen model and a higher end large screen model.
First off, Apple did not have a large screen until it had become common for at least two years in Android phones, so lets not pretend iPhone users always had that option. But still if you want the largest screen, best battery, best resolution, a stylus, best camera, a microSD slot, a headphone jack, or most RAM, you need to go Android. You might not get all of those in the same phone, but you can choose what is most important to you.
There was a time when the iPhone was the best of the best and worth putting up with the lack of options to get the best. That ended around 3-4 years ago. It is still a very good flagship phone but the only thing it is best at now is PR (and it is much better at that than its competitors).
Apple's product line is too limited for me to ever consider them for my primary personal computing device (I have a PC and laptop, but neither see as much total use as my phone). I have had HTC, Motorola, and Samsung Android phones in the past and it is important to me that I have options when refreshing my phone. The Android ecosystem allowed me to leave Motorola for Samsung without even a minor disruption, and it will allow me to leave Samsung for probably LG or Google next year if the Galaxy S8 doesn't make up for the Note 7 debacle.
Apple doesn't offer that flexibility, so its nearly unthinkable that I would ever choose an iPhone. Especially now that phones are being commoditized enough that each new generation is almost indistinguishable from the last.
AWS is wonderful for R&D usage because it makes procuring money for R&D equipment far easier. My guess is you weren't part of the group which obtained the $5 million investment in your 1000 node cluster (or hypothetical cluster if your example doesn't exist). If you were then you wouldn't think it was easier than obtaining a monthly R&D budget for AWS on demand spending. Most companies prefer discretionary spending which can be adjusted later as opposed to huge up front expenditures which limit flexibility in the future.
Of course the R&D group would prefer to not be accountable to anyone but that is rare in the real world.
I saw one article today saying 47 famous celebrities died this year, and they included people I had never heard of like Greg Lake, AA Gill, Rick Parfitt, etc. That doesn't seem like that many people to me. If you assume the average celebrity lives 50 years after initial stardom, it would only take 2500 total celebrities for 50 of them to die each year. I would bet there are at least a few thousand people in the world we would consider celebrities.
There's also no reason to believe that it is possible.
Yes there is. We have an example of it already (the human brain), so thinking it is possible the replicate is the only rational opinion to have. You are correct it may require a biological construct but what does that matter?
My father has a pacemaker, and is therefore a cyborg. I don't think anyone has ever considered removing human rights from cyborgs.
I said more similar, not equal.
There are those who want to strip a person's rights over how to use their assets because those assets are covered by articles of incorporation, so its certainly possible people could try to limit rights of those who significantly augment their bodies. A pacemaker may not be enough of a change, but how about someone who could actually cheat death permanently because of augmentation? The law may start to treat this man differently.
Marriage as a contract is actually quite a strange thing. If you essentially opt-in to your state's default marriage contract terms by having no explicit contract when you marry your partner, the terms can be changed after the fact without your consent. For example, the state in which you are married can change its laws regarding property split upon divorce. This retroactively applies to you, having been married many years earlier, even though you had no opportunity to agree, and may not have even been notified.
This can happen with nearly any legal contract. For instance your state could change how it treats forced arbitration which could impact an existing contract. The judiciary could rule that a clause of your contract is unenforceable based on case law created after your contract was signed. It may not be common but is certainly possible.
You have it reversed. Marriage is a religious sacrament that government interfered in (repeatedly) for millennia. Since the separation of Church and State is still relatively new in history, this still has not yet been widely understood or appreciated.
I am sorry but you have it reversed. From the earliest recorded examples of marriage in the 5th century BC marriage has been a civil construct. Religions have added their own baggage to marriage over the years, the Council of Trent in the 16th century being an egregious example, but that doesn't change the true purpose of a marriage. Two people can live together without any involvement from society, but a marriage involves being recognized by the state for legal purposes.
Marriage started as a "hands off my wife" thing, it conveyed no particular legal rights only moral rights.
There were surely periods of early human history where there was no difference between moral and legal rights. For ancient humans that distinction is just playing with semantics.
The earliest known records of marriage come from the Elephantine Papyri, which date back to the 5th century BC. And within these documents it discussed legal arrangements such as the dowry, what would happen if the marriage dissolved, and the emancipation of a previous child. So there is no basis to believe marriage started as anything other than a legal construct. Different societies have different legal interpretations of marriage, such as the concept of transfer of ownership from father to husband you mention, but those are not the core of marriage itself. At its core it is and has always been a legal construct to describe how society treats the union created by the marriage.
If corporations are allowed to have this right, then it seems plausible that robots may be granted this right as well.
Corporations are only allowed these rights because it is composed of humans who have these rights, so its not really a useful comparison. A cyborg still being allowed human rights would be a more similar situation to what you described.
A robot's brain can be checkpointed and restored today. A human brain can't yet.
FTFY
No one knows how complex robot brains will be once they gain consciousness, so they may be no easier to backup and restore than a human brain by then. Conversely, by that time we may have the ability to backup and restore a human brain. It's pointless to make such definitive declarations about our technological capabilities 30 years from now. Based on current research into human memories, I find it hard to believe that human memories could not be significantly manipulated a few decades from now. We already know eye witness testimony is among the weakest forms of evidence because of how faulty and suggestible our memories can be.
How would separation of church and state impact how our tax law treats marriage? Marriage is a civil institution, which some religions add additional spiritual meaning to if they like. In the US there is already a proper separation considering all marriages require a marriage certificate issued by the state. Whether or not the couple wants a religious leader to preside over a ceremony is purely up to the couple and has no impact on the marriage's legality. Considering my brother in law officiated over my wedding with a certificate he easily obtained online (he is an atheist too), the government does not discriminate over who is allowed to officiate over a legal wedding.
The entire purpose of a marriage is to be a legal agreement between a couple and the rest of their society. It provides legal rights to the couple as a whole, and to each individual member of the couple. Other aspects of marriage such as love, religious meaning, etc are what society adds on as it sees fit, but the core of marriage is its legal meaning.
The question of whether robots and humans will be allowed to marry is not the important one. The important question is whether robots will be allowed to own property and be given unalienable human rights. If that happens, marriage between robot and human is inevitable. But until that happens marriage between man and machine is pointless.
We need more corporate charity where corporations find ways to both help others and improve their business at the same time. This type of giving only makes it more likely the charity will continue and feed off itself. Good things happen when you can align corporate profits with societal benefit.
A company that behaves in an unethical manner in the marketplace also deceives employees.
Or in this case, a company that behaves in an unethical manner towards low paid employees also deceives their more skilled employees. These developers didn't seem to care they were helping their company create a new servant class, but they sure noticed once their company started acting in a similarly unethical manner towards them. It's kind of like a spouse who knows their partner makes money being deceptive and ignoring regulations at work and then is outraged when that spouse has another lover on the side.
So it's all been narrowed down to two decisions for you and that works for you? The subset of things around you that you have control over satisfies you? Do you and your offspring have a future in a few generations? How can you sit there and act like that is out of your control when it has everything to do with you?
What are you rambling about? Before there are presidential elections you have primaries. I donated a few hundred to Bernie before he lost. But you are correct, after our democratic elections narrowed it down to two decisions, I chose from them. The third parties only exist because some voters don't know what "first past the post is" so they damage our elections by voting third party.
I also donated the same amount of money to down ballot candidates than to Clinton, because the President isn't the only position up for election. My state is one of the places where Democrats did pick up seats in Congress, not that it was enough.
I do obviously put more of my effort into areas of my life I do have more control over. Elections only get my vote and around $1k every other year, but my career and family get far more attention. I will benefit society far more improving the economy in my own small way than becoming a political activist, especially since I don't think I would make a good one. I will also benefit my family more by giving them a comfortable life regardless of who is in the white house.
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
Nearly everyone excited about either a Clinton or Trump Presidency is/was in a bubble. I certainly am. I grew up in a rural area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, but I cannot honestly say I can relate or fully understand a large portion of voters who voted Trump. I understand those who had 2nd amendment, abortion, and/or LGBT issues as their primary issues (and probably a few more I'm missing). I strongly disagree with them, but they will most likely get what they want out of a Trump presidency.
But Trump voters who take pride in rejecting educated experts, who overwhelmingly have stated Trump's campaign rhetoric was dangerously unrealistic to the point of being outright lies, are ones I cannot relate to. To some extent I can see how people who feel they have nothing to lose don't care about the risk of significantly damaging our country. But considering the experts also agree they would be hurt far more than the educated elite, I still cannot understand people who think through their decisions so poorly.
Ultimately you have people who have been incapable of keeping up with a changing economy who think they are more capable of predicting the economic ramifications of a Trump presidency than actual professional economists. Instead of trying to learn from those who have been more capable of adjusting, these working class voters convince themselves they personally are the enlightened ones and the educated elite are ignorant of the "real issues". These voters can look at 9 economists saying one thing and 1 economist saying the opposite, and think they are qualified to claim the outlier is correct.
On the other hand the wealthy of the world, which they claim to respect, go on making more and more money hiring and listening to those same educated professionals the working class rejects. It is such backward thinking that I cannot wrap my head around it. In my bubble, it seems the correct answer is to reject that thinking and find a way to change it, not embrace it. I simply cannot see how placating this behavior helps anyone except the demagogues who exploit it.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words you have a %2.6 chance of being a millionaire in the U.S vs a %1 in France.
Note quite. If you work both hard and at least a little smart in the US you are almost sure to become a millionaire by retirement. It would take less than 10% of median income in retirement savings over a 45 year career to reach millionaire status (in 2017 dollars). Either way for it to be nearly 3x harder to become a millionaire, which is by no means rich for a someone in the developed world, in France vs the USA is a serious problem.
Well I guess %99 of France is smarter then the %97.4 of the U.S in demanding policies that work for them instead of hoping that one day they will get lucky and be one of those tiny percentages
As long as the 97.4% don't need salaries paid for by millionaire owners your logic is valid.
What about somebody that gets shot? Perhaps in the liver? You don't think that person might be healthy? Hell, they could be an olympic gold medalist. Prime condition.
I think the term you are looking for is "otherwise healthy". The healthiest person in the world who then gets shot and is dying is no longer healthy, he is otherwise healthy. Being healthy is being generally free of disease, weakness or malfunction. No one with a failing organ which is killing them can claim to be healthy.
Yeah this was probably planned two years ago but it took that long for them to sell their last four units.
It's not a solved problem if people don't want to live in a high-rise. I want a yard, on land that I own.
High prices is a solved problem. Everyone always getting everything they want is not a realistic goal.
All these hot housing markets just show where there should be more development in new housing, especially more compact housing. Put some high rises in and around those neighborhoods along with more public transit and problem solved.
I agree this could probably only work if significant processing was offloaded to a device plugged into a wall socket and/or cloud services. I find it hard to believe a headset, or eventually just modified glasses, could do all of this for extended periods without running out of battery.
I would trust their conclusions a little more if they didn't have a history of lying about absolutely everything to justify unjustifiable wars. I can't remember the last time the CIA told the truth. About anything.
Generally those lies come from administrations cherry picking information from the intelligence community. For instance the CIA did provide the Bush administration evidence that Iraq likely didn't have WMD (no agency knew for certain), but it was ignored.
In this case you have politicians on both sides of the aisle looking at the classified evidence and concluding the Russians are guilty of these acts. You have an FBI director who also actively manipulated the media to hinder Clinton come out in agreement with the CIA. You need to have a pretty thick foil hat to believe this is all a massive conspiracy.
I don't get you people, I really don't. You bitch at Apple because they release a new phone so often. Saying it's Apples forced obsolete model. Yet you run out and switch from Samsung to LG to Google to bumfuck. What is the difference? You are buying phones just as often as Apple people are, if not more.
You do realize there are more than one sets of opinions among Android users, and not everyone shares the complaints you mentioned. I for one never complain about Apple (or Samsung) releasing new phones so often, and while I don't like planned obsolescence it certainly doesn't affect me as I get a new phone every other year.
All those android phones do the same god damn thing. So you are upgraded for the sake of upgrading. Why does Apple have to have multiple phone options? They already have the regular model and the plus. That is all one needs. A small screen model and a higher end large screen model.
First off, Apple did not have a large screen until it had become common for at least two years in Android phones, so lets not pretend iPhone users always had that option. But still if you want the largest screen, best battery, best resolution, a stylus, best camera, a microSD slot, a headphone jack, or most RAM, you need to go Android. You might not get all of those in the same phone, but you can choose what is most important to you.
There was a time when the iPhone was the best of the best and worth putting up with the lack of options to get the best. That ended around 3-4 years ago. It is still a very good flagship phone but the only thing it is best at now is PR (and it is much better at that than its competitors).
This.
Apple's product line is too limited for me to ever consider them for my primary personal computing device (I have a PC and laptop, but neither see as much total use as my phone). I have had HTC, Motorola, and Samsung Android phones in the past and it is important to me that I have options when refreshing my phone. The Android ecosystem allowed me to leave Motorola for Samsung without even a minor disruption, and it will allow me to leave Samsung for probably LG or Google next year if the Galaxy S8 doesn't make up for the Note 7 debacle.
Apple doesn't offer that flexibility, so its nearly unthinkable that I would ever choose an iPhone. Especially now that phones are being commoditized enough that each new generation is almost indistinguishable from the last.
AWS is wonderful for R&D usage because it makes procuring money for R&D equipment far easier. My guess is you weren't part of the group which obtained the $5 million investment in your 1000 node cluster (or hypothetical cluster if your example doesn't exist). If you were then you wouldn't think it was easier than obtaining a monthly R&D budget for AWS on demand spending. Most companies prefer discretionary spending which can be adjusted later as opposed to huge up front expenditures which limit flexibility in the future.
Of course the R&D group would prefer to not be accountable to anyone but that is rare in the real world.
I saw one article today saying 47 famous celebrities died this year, and they included people I had never heard of like Greg Lake, AA Gill, Rick Parfitt, etc. That doesn't seem like that many people to me. If you assume the average celebrity lives 50 years after initial stardom, it would only take 2500 total celebrities for 50 of them to die each year. I would bet there are at least a few thousand people in the world we would consider celebrities.
There's also no reason to believe that it is possible.
Yes there is. We have an example of it already (the human brain), so thinking it is possible the replicate is the only rational opinion to have. You are correct it may require a biological construct but what does that matter?
My father has a pacemaker, and is therefore a cyborg. I don't think anyone has ever considered removing human rights from cyborgs.
I said more similar, not equal.
There are those who want to strip a person's rights over how to use their assets because those assets are covered by articles of incorporation, so its certainly possible people could try to limit rights of those who significantly augment their bodies. A pacemaker may not be enough of a change, but how about someone who could actually cheat death permanently because of augmentation? The law may start to treat this man differently.
Marriage as a contract is actually quite a strange thing. If you essentially opt-in to your state's default marriage contract terms by having no explicit contract when you marry your partner, the terms can be changed after the fact without your consent. For example, the state in which you are married can change its laws regarding property split upon divorce. This retroactively applies to you, having been married many years earlier, even though you had no opportunity to agree, and may not have even been notified.
This can happen with nearly any legal contract. For instance your state could change how it treats forced arbitration which could impact an existing contract. The judiciary could rule that a clause of your contract is unenforceable based on case law created after your contract was signed. It may not be common but is certainly possible.
You have it reversed. Marriage is a religious sacrament that government interfered in (repeatedly) for millennia. Since the separation of Church and State is still relatively new in history, this still has not yet been widely understood or appreciated.
I am sorry but you have it reversed. From the earliest recorded examples of marriage in the 5th century BC marriage has been a civil construct. Religions have added their own baggage to marriage over the years, the Council of Trent in the 16th century being an egregious example, but that doesn't change the true purpose of a marriage. Two people can live together without any involvement from society, but a marriage involves being recognized by the state for legal purposes.
Regular non-lawyer or local gov admin types do not focus on legal merits of marriage when they fall in love.
But the people issuing marriage certificates do focus on the legal merits of marriage, which is all that matters here.
Marriage started as a "hands off my wife" thing, it conveyed no particular legal rights only moral rights.
There were surely periods of early human history where there was no difference between moral and legal rights. For ancient humans that distinction is just playing with semantics.
The earliest known records of marriage come from the Elephantine Papyri, which date back to the 5th century BC. And within these documents it discussed legal arrangements such as the dowry, what would happen if the marriage dissolved, and the emancipation of a previous child. So there is no basis to believe marriage started as anything other than a legal construct. Different societies have different legal interpretations of marriage, such as the concept of transfer of ownership from father to husband you mention, but those are not the core of marriage itself. At its core it is and has always been a legal construct to describe how society treats the union created by the marriage.
If corporations are allowed to have this right, then it seems plausible that robots may be granted this right as well.
Corporations are only allowed these rights because it is composed of humans who have these rights, so its not really a useful comparison. A cyborg still being allowed human rights would be a more similar situation to what you described.
A robot's brain can be checkpointed and restored today. A human brain can't yet.
FTFY
No one knows how complex robot brains will be once they gain consciousness, so they may be no easier to backup and restore than a human brain by then. Conversely, by that time we may have the ability to backup and restore a human brain. It's pointless to make such definitive declarations about our technological capabilities 30 years from now. Based on current research into human memories, I find it hard to believe that human memories could not be significantly manipulated a few decades from now. We already know eye witness testimony is among the weakest forms of evidence because of how faulty and suggestible our memories can be.
How would separation of church and state impact how our tax law treats marriage? Marriage is a civil institution, which some religions add additional spiritual meaning to if they like. In the US there is already a proper separation considering all marriages require a marriage certificate issued by the state. Whether or not the couple wants a religious leader to preside over a ceremony is purely up to the couple and has no impact on the marriage's legality. Considering my brother in law officiated over my wedding with a certificate he easily obtained online (he is an atheist too), the government does not discriminate over who is allowed to officiate over a legal wedding.
The entire purpose of a marriage is to be a legal agreement between a couple and the rest of their society. It provides legal rights to the couple as a whole, and to each individual member of the couple. Other aspects of marriage such as love, religious meaning, etc are what society adds on as it sees fit, but the core of marriage is its legal meaning.
The question of whether robots and humans will be allowed to marry is not the important one. The important question is whether robots will be allowed to own property and be given unalienable human rights. If that happens, marriage between robot and human is inevitable. But until that happens marriage between man and machine is pointless.
We need more corporate charity where corporations find ways to both help others and improve their business at the same time. This type of giving only makes it more likely the charity will continue and feed off itself. Good things happen when you can align corporate profits with societal benefit.
A company that behaves in an unethical manner in the marketplace also deceives employees.
Or in this case, a company that behaves in an unethical manner towards low paid employees also deceives their more skilled employees. These developers didn't seem to care they were helping their company create a new servant class, but they sure noticed once their company started acting in a similarly unethical manner towards them. It's kind of like a spouse who knows their partner makes money being deceptive and ignoring regulations at work and then is outraged when that spouse has another lover on the side.
So it's all been narrowed down to two decisions for you and that works for you? The subset of things around you that you have control over satisfies you? Do you and your offspring have a future in a few generations? How can you sit there and act like that is out of your control when it has everything to do with you?
What are you rambling about? Before there are presidential elections you have primaries. I donated a few hundred to Bernie before he lost. But you are correct, after our democratic elections narrowed it down to two decisions, I chose from them. The third parties only exist because some voters don't know what "first past the post is" so they damage our elections by voting third party.
I also donated the same amount of money to down ballot candidates than to Clinton, because the President isn't the only position up for election. My state is one of the places where Democrats did pick up seats in Congress, not that it was enough.
I do obviously put more of my effort into areas of my life I do have more control over. Elections only get my vote and around $1k every other year, but my career and family get far more attention. I will benefit society far more improving the economy in my own small way than becoming a political activist, especially since I don't think I would make a good one. I will also benefit my family more by giving them a comfortable life regardless of who is in the white house.
What more do you think I should be doing?
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
Nearly everyone excited about either a Clinton or Trump Presidency is/was in a bubble. I certainly am. I grew up in a rural area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, but I cannot honestly say I can relate or fully understand a large portion of voters who voted Trump. I understand those who had 2nd amendment, abortion, and/or LGBT issues as their primary issues (and probably a few more I'm missing). I strongly disagree with them, but they will most likely get what they want out of a Trump presidency.
But Trump voters who take pride in rejecting educated experts, who overwhelmingly have stated Trump's campaign rhetoric was dangerously unrealistic to the point of being outright lies, are ones I cannot relate to. To some extent I can see how people who feel they have nothing to lose don't care about the risk of significantly damaging our country. But considering the experts also agree they would be hurt far more than the educated elite, I still cannot understand people who think through their decisions so poorly.
Ultimately you have people who have been incapable of keeping up with a changing economy who think they are more capable of predicting the economic ramifications of a Trump presidency than actual professional economists. Instead of trying to learn from those who have been more capable of adjusting, these working class voters convince themselves they personally are the enlightened ones and the educated elite are ignorant of the "real issues". These voters can look at 9 economists saying one thing and 1 economist saying the opposite, and think they are qualified to claim the outlier is correct.
On the other hand the wealthy of the world, which they claim to respect, go on making more and more money hiring and listening to those same educated professionals the working class rejects. It is such backward thinking that I cannot wrap my head around it. In my bubble, it seems the correct answer is to reject that thinking and find a way to change it, not embrace it. I simply cannot see how placating this behavior helps anyone except the demagogues who exploit it.