He's Indian and was picked for his race. You're not going to win him over by using facts. I worked with him just over twenty years ago here at Microsoft, and the only thing that seem to motivate him then was ignorance and hate.
He isn't talking about strong AI, which not many AI researchers are actually working on and where no significant progress has been made in the past decades. The AI being discussed is narrow AI (or weak AI), where there are real world applications right now which could be very disruptive to our society.
It is fairly safe to assume any discussion of AI does not mean strong AI unless specifically stated.
In fairness, his essay doesn't say this is what will happen. In his own words, he has reflected on what are the principles and goals, as an industry and a society, that we should discuss and debate.
But as you have implied, this type of thoughtful discussion on how technology should be used for the greater good of society is not how it works. Those with the most resources will develop the most advanced technologies, and those technologies will primarily benefit the creators. If you want to guess how artificial intelligence will affect society, determine how it can be used to make people money. That is how you predict how it will be used. Basing predictions on how it benefits society the most is childish dreaming.
I have to disagree about NYC. There absolutely *is* a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour's commute of Manhattan, on both sides: Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City by PATH, a large part of northern NJ by bus and train, etc.
I cannot claim to know that much about the area, other than the complaints of two friends who live in the New York city area (Brooklyn and New Jersey). From their accounts, if you want low crime, great *public* schools (9+ Great Schools rating, 90%+ college enrollment of graduates, etc), a private yard where your children can play (at least quarter acre), and a decent commute to Manhattan (an hour or less), your home will cost well over $200 per square foot of living space.
No one absolutely needs all of these things, especially a large house with a private yard, but most major cities (including Chicago) offer this in suburbs within an hour of the city (during rush hour).
If you do know of particular neighborhoods near New York city that do offer all of this, please respond and let me know. As I said I have a couple friends who have moved there within the last five years who are both planning families right now and would love any assistance they can get. Right now they both expect to pay over $1 million for 2000 sq ft 4-bedroom homes with low crime and access to merely decent schools. They both also assume private school is in their children's future. It would be great if they are wrong about this being their best option.
She is amazingly quick to tailor promises based on who she is talking to. The tech community should be aware of this.
Some big examples would be gay marriage, TPA, patriot act, Iraq War, etc.
None of these are examples of tailoring promises based on who she is talking to. They are examples of her public policies being influenced by the electorate she is courting at the time. This is branded as "flip flopping", but only if you are looking for a politician who has agreed with you on everything for the past 30 years and has never cared about the opinions of anyone else. That is not the type of politician I want. I would prefer a politician who listens to the will of the people at the time and molds a political platform based on that.
Hillary Clinton has always been a very moderate progressive. She leans progressive, but waits for a monumental level of support before acting. Who knows what her thoughts on marriage equality were in the 90's, but she wasn't going to back that agenda until it won enough support to win in the courts and the legislature. Hillary will probably never lead a movement. But she listens to successful movements and fights with them to turn public support into tangible results. I don't feel this is flip flopping, I feel it is being an effective leader.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries because I wanted someone to lead a progressive movement, but it is now obvious the country is not ready for that yet. Hillary Clinton is still a great second choice, because she will fight hard for values that were progressive 10-20 years ago but are now starting to gain mainstream support.
If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users,
It isn't. It would be fined for listing an accommodation that had not registered. Their listing.
This is precisely the type of legal semantics which requires the courts to sort out. Is it an Airbnb listing or a customer listing on the Airbnb marketplace? For full disclosure I agree with you, but I am not a lawyer so my opinion on this is irrelevant. You may be a lawyer, but even in that case lawyers often disagree which is why we have the courts.
AirBnB is being "compelled" to not list unregistered accommodations. AirBnB does't have to tell the government anything.
I agree this complaint seems to be based on a technicality, since Airbnb is only being compelled to publish the rental registration number publicly. Airbnb is claiming it should require a subpoena to force a company to provide customer information like this if it is against the will of the customer. Seems shaky to me, but I am not familiar with all of the case law surrounding the Stored Communication Act.
And any attempted government regulation of a website's contents are likely to bring up First Amendment claims.
Commercial speech has a long history of government regulation.
Based only on what I have read from the Internet, there seems to be extensive case law on how the First Amendement applies to public advertising, which Airbnb is claiming they are. If Airbnb is being treated differently than newspapers, TV, or billboards then I agree that is wrong. It is not clear to me if they are being treated differently, however. Once again, that is a good thing for the courts to decide.
Airbnb is fucking up the entire real estate market which is already horrible enough in SF of all places.
Airbnb is not fucking up anything, it is doing its best to un-fuck an already horrible situation. The city could either allow more housing to be built or reduce the number of companies in the city through regulation and zoning. But they have chosen pricing controls which only make the problems much worse. Anything that brings prices back to equilibrium is a good thing.
If you like large cities, you would like San Francisco. If you do not like large cities, you probably would not like San Francisco. There are very few problems unique to the city.
Extreme housing prices inside the city without a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour commute is the main problem San Francisco has, that is probably only shared by New York city and maybe Los Angeles. And after visiting many times for work and for vacations attached to work trips, San Francisco doesn't have the same kind of entertainment / culture and food options you get from a city like New York to make the COL worth it.
I live in the Chicago suburbs, and areas such as the northwest suburbs (where I live) provide great public schools, low crime, a 3000 sq ft home for around $400k, and about an hour commute to downtown. If you are okay with just decent schools, you can get the same but for only $300k. And Chicago is still among the largest and most expensive cities in the country.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure where I would live to have an hour commute into San Francisco where there is low crime, great public schools, and have a large house for under even $2 million. Maybe someone will reply and educate me.
Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business.
Fighting local regulations in court and with lobbyists is also the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb is not trying to break the law, it is trying to change the laws. Nothing new to see here.
If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does seem relevant. The Stored Communication Act also seems relevant since Airbnb is being compelled to notify local governments of user information that could potentially be protected by the law. And any attempted government regulation of a website's contents are likely to bring up First Amendment claims.
I'm not saying Airbnb will win, but claiming this is a frivolous lawsuit is a pretty weak argument. I personally think San Francisco has a strong case since they are attempting to regulate Airbnb's business processes and not necessarily its website's content, but the lawsuit appears far from frivolous.
You are correct that I was not precise enough in my statements. I was referring only to the natural selection of traits which aid in species survival, not to the natural selection of traits based on attraction or other choices. In the context of the comment I was responding to it did not cross my mind to make that distinction. But not clarifying this was a mistake on my part and thank you for correcting it.
The only question is how long until we can trust them to work totally autonomously.
That's not a question at all. The answer is clear. Never. If a decision is to be made to take a human life then a human needs to make that decision.
The answer is obviously not that clear. When it comes to predicting technological advancement, you can never say something will never be possible. You simply don't know. Perhaps 100 years from now AI will develop a perfect moral compass, with no internal bias. It can never be angry at its enemy because its brother died in a previous battle. It can never be afraid of its own death and act with disregard for others because of its fear. The list goes on.
An AI capable of being more moral than humans may never happen. But it might happen. So saying we should never trust AI with when to take a human life is hopelessly wrong. Stick with saying we should never do this with current technology.
First off, modern humans are no longer under any meaningful evolutionary pressure, other than perhaps traits which contribute to male or female infertility. Almost everyone who wants children can have them unless they are infertile. Secondly, modern humans will be capable of genetic engineering very soon from an evolutionary point of view. It may be a decade, it may be 200 years, but almost no evolutionary changes would happen in either time frame. Once that happens natural selection will no longer play any significant part in the human genome.
So even if your thesis that dangerous and menial jobs are necessary for continued human evolutionary development, that will absolutely not be the case in the near future. So as much as I disagree with your statements, its pointless to even discuss them because scientific developments will certainly make you wrong either way.
So, how long do the democrats have to hold total power until they actually start being responsible for bad stuff they do, and can't just blame republicans? 20 years? 100? 1000?
The Democrats would be responsible for starting any war they actually start. Its not that hard to figure out. Wars which are cleaning up the mess of previous administrations can certainly last decades, as it did during the Vietnam War. I'd agree that after about 50 years you could no longer blame the original administration which started the war, but that is an arbitrary figure.
Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Obama (hardly a "right winger") is going to go down in history as the first president to have been effectively at war for 8 solid years.
This is only almost true because US presidents have not had a good track record of staying in power for 8 solid years during times of extended warfare. But it isn't true anyway, since Woodrow Wilson was in power for 8 years during the US occupation of Nicaragua, which lasted 19 years spanning his entire presidency. Theodore Roosevelt was in power for 8 years during the Moro Rebellion, which lasted 14 years spanning his entire presidency.
And if you count the American Indian Wars, every President with an eight year term before Woodrow Wilson was at war for eight solid years.
Unfortunately for the UK, due to the fall of the GBP, it is no longer the 5th largest economy.
Depends on who is measuring I think. The IMF would probably still feel the UK beats out France, but the World Bank and United Nations had the two countries close enough in GDP for France to claim the #5 spot. The UK is still #6 at worst though.
unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
As opposed to examples of what happens when you let aliens take over the country? Or could we just ask the American Indians that question? Or see what happened to the Romans in the fifth century?
You are comparing military conquests with Hispanics migrating to the US or refugees migrating to the UK? Once Hispanics or Syrian refugees start killing tens of thousands of Americans or Brits per year, and setting up their own governments after conquering cities, your comparison would hold some weight. Until then it is xenophobic nonsense.
No one is fearing strange or foreign concepts or people. They are doing little more than realizing that an over abundance of immigrants is harming their or their loved ones well being when it taxes a finite system of opportunities.
That is xenophobia. Thinking poor immigrants, or even educated immigrants, are taking your jobs is a justification for those who want to find an easy scapegoat for the problems in their life. It is an irrational fear of these immigrants, which defines xenophobia. Immigrant populations are almost always a boon on the host country. In some cases the first generation immigrants can be a burden for a short time, but second generation immigrants beat out average citizens in just about any positive metric you can find. Greater college education attainment, business ownership, lower poverty, etc. The US in particular has been riding on the coat tails of immigrants since WW2.
This doesn't even include the moral argument for taking in the poor of the world to give them opportunities and increase the economic pie with the immigrant work ethic that natives rarely match.
But I think they should empty the prisons of all non violent drug offenders and put illegal immigrants in their stead. I cannot see how violating a law which largely makes yourself the victim is any worse than violating a law that tears apart national sovereignty.
You take one group of people who are only criminals because of horrible laws and are inadvertently comparing them with another group who are only criminals because of horrible laws. If the speed limit was 10 mph, and you were considered an illegal driver for breaking it, almost everyone would be illegal drivers. That wouldn't make them dangerous drivers, it would make them a victim of horrible laws.
We need to stop calling them illegal immigrants, and just consider them people who have broken some laws. Just like I did earlier today when I drove 45 mph in a 35 mph speed limit zone. The only reason we have 11 million immigrants breaking or immigration laws is because we do not have a sufficient naturalization process.
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
(many probably won't watch)
Sadly, we won't see many real results until well after the 2016 election. So unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?
I'll have to go with both there.
The UK may be the 5th largest economy in the world, but there is a huge cliff after the top 2. The UK has economy roughly the size of California. The European Union exists so European countries can sit at the big boy table with the US and China. Even countries like the US and China can be very fragile at times, so claiming the UK is not putting itself at a huge risk here is childishly naive.
The EU also has a huge incentive to make this breakup as harsh as possible for the UK. The EU will almost certainly make deals which even hurt the EU as long as they hurt the UK more, since if the UK has a successful secession it will mean doom for the EU. The EU can essentially risk its own demise to hurt the UK because if the UK is successful the EU is doomed anyway.
I rarely watch any movies on Netflix. For quite some time the only relevant content for me is binge watching TV shows. And it would probably take lifetimes to get through all of them. Well, if I didn't have Amazon Prime and Hulu also I might get through the Netflix TV shows quicker.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
The human species is basically done evolving by natural means. Some time in the next 100 years we will start genetic engineering on humans, and guided evolution will begin. This period of genetic stagnation will not last long.
Wow. One in four to nearly one in three. So that's, what, a jump from 25% to 30%? At this rate, it will be all Linux by 2030.
You think a 32% increase in a single year is a small thing? If it kept growing at this rate (which it won't) you would be looking at 100% Linux in only four years.
If we want humans in general (and not just our own) to improve in the long run, pay bonuses to those who survive diseases.
Humanity has long since passed the stage of evolution where natural selection weeds out people with poor eye sight, asthma, or susceptibility to treatable diseases. None of these traits harm a person's ability to contribute at the highest levels of society.
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
He's Indian and was picked for his race. You're not going to win him over by using facts. I worked with him just over twenty years ago here at Microsoft, and the only thing that seem to motivate him then was ignorance and hate.
Hello pot, meet kettle.
He isn't talking about strong AI, which not many AI researchers are actually working on and where no significant progress has been made in the past decades. The AI being discussed is narrow AI (or weak AI), where there are real world applications right now which could be very disruptive to our society.
It is fairly safe to assume any discussion of AI does not mean strong AI unless specifically stated.
In fairness, his essay doesn't say this is what will happen. In his own words, he has reflected on what are the principles and goals, as an industry and a society, that we should discuss and debate.
But as you have implied, this type of thoughtful discussion on how technology should be used for the greater good of society is not how it works. Those with the most resources will develop the most advanced technologies, and those technologies will primarily benefit the creators. If you want to guess how artificial intelligence will affect society, determine how it can be used to make people money. That is how you predict how it will be used. Basing predictions on how it benefits society the most is childish dreaming.
I have to disagree about NYC. There absolutely *is* a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour's commute of Manhattan, on both sides: Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City by PATH, a large part of northern NJ by bus and train, etc.
I cannot claim to know that much about the area, other than the complaints of two friends who live in the New York city area (Brooklyn and New Jersey). From their accounts, if you want low crime, great *public* schools (9+ Great Schools rating, 90%+ college enrollment of graduates, etc), a private yard where your children can play (at least quarter acre), and a decent commute to Manhattan (an hour or less), your home will cost well over $200 per square foot of living space.
No one absolutely needs all of these things, especially a large house with a private yard, but most major cities (including Chicago) offer this in suburbs within an hour of the city (during rush hour).
If you do know of particular neighborhoods near New York city that do offer all of this, please respond and let me know. As I said I have a couple friends who have moved there within the last five years who are both planning families right now and would love any assistance they can get. Right now they both expect to pay over $1 million for 2000 sq ft 4-bedroom homes with low crime and access to merely decent schools. They both also assume private school is in their children's future. It would be great if they are wrong about this being their best option.
She is amazingly quick to tailor promises based on who she is talking to. The tech community should be aware of this.
Some big examples would be gay marriage, TPA, patriot act, Iraq War, etc.
None of these are examples of tailoring promises based on who she is talking to. They are examples of her public policies being influenced by the electorate she is courting at the time. This is branded as "flip flopping", but only if you are looking for a politician who has agreed with you on everything for the past 30 years and has never cared about the opinions of anyone else. That is not the type of politician I want. I would prefer a politician who listens to the will of the people at the time and molds a political platform based on that.
Hillary Clinton has always been a very moderate progressive. She leans progressive, but waits for a monumental level of support before acting. Who knows what her thoughts on marriage equality were in the 90's, but she wasn't going to back that agenda until it won enough support to win in the courts and the legislature. Hillary will probably never lead a movement. But she listens to successful movements and fights with them to turn public support into tangible results. I don't feel this is flip flopping, I feel it is being an effective leader.
I voted for Bernie in the primaries because I wanted someone to lead a progressive movement, but it is now obvious the country is not ready for that yet. Hillary Clinton is still a great second choice, because she will fight hard for values that were progressive 10-20 years ago but are now starting to gain mainstream support.
If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users,
It isn't. It would be fined for listing an accommodation that had not registered. Their listing.
This is precisely the type of legal semantics which requires the courts to sort out. Is it an Airbnb listing or a customer listing on the Airbnb marketplace? For full disclosure I agree with you, but I am not a lawyer so my opinion on this is irrelevant. You may be a lawyer, but even in that case lawyers often disagree which is why we have the courts.
AirBnB is being "compelled" to not list unregistered accommodations. AirBnB does't have to tell the government anything.
I agree this complaint seems to be based on a technicality, since Airbnb is only being compelled to publish the rental registration number publicly. Airbnb is claiming it should require a subpoena to force a company to provide customer information like this if it is against the will of the customer. Seems shaky to me, but I am not familiar with all of the case law surrounding the Stored Communication Act.
And any attempted government regulation of a website's contents are likely to bring up First Amendment claims.
Commercial speech has a long history of government regulation.
Based only on what I have read from the Internet, there seems to be extensive case law on how the First Amendement applies to public advertising, which Airbnb is claiming they are. If Airbnb is being treated differently than newspapers, TV, or billboards then I agree that is wrong. It is not clear to me if they are being treated differently, however. Once again, that is a good thing for the courts to decide.
Airbnb is fucking up the entire real estate market which is already horrible enough in SF of all places.
Airbnb is not fucking up anything, it is doing its best to un-fuck an already horrible situation. The city could either allow more housing to be built or reduce the number of companies in the city through regulation and zoning. But they have chosen pricing controls which only make the problems much worse. Anything that brings prices back to equilibrium is a good thing.
If you like large cities, you would like San Francisco. If you do not like large cities, you probably would not like San Francisco. There are very few problems unique to the city.
Extreme housing prices inside the city without a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour commute is the main problem San Francisco has, that is probably only shared by New York city and maybe Los Angeles. And after visiting many times for work and for vacations attached to work trips, San Francisco doesn't have the same kind of entertainment / culture and food options you get from a city like New York to make the COL worth it.
I live in the Chicago suburbs, and areas such as the northwest suburbs (where I live) provide great public schools, low crime, a 3000 sq ft home for around $400k, and about an hour commute to downtown. If you are okay with just decent schools, you can get the same but for only $300k. And Chicago is still among the largest and most expensive cities in the country.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure where I would live to have an hour commute into San Francisco where there is low crime, great public schools, and have a large house for under even $2 million. Maybe someone will reply and educate me.
Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business.
Fighting local regulations in court and with lobbyists is also the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb is not trying to break the law, it is trying to change the laws. Nothing new to see here.
If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does seem relevant. The Stored Communication Act also seems relevant since Airbnb is being compelled to notify local governments of user information that could potentially be protected by the law. And any attempted government regulation of a website's contents are likely to bring up First Amendment claims.
I'm not saying Airbnb will win, but claiming this is a frivolous lawsuit is a pretty weak argument. I personally think San Francisco has a strong case since they are attempting to regulate Airbnb's business processes and not necessarily its website's content, but the lawsuit appears far from frivolous.
You are correct that I was not precise enough in my statements. I was referring only to the natural selection of traits which aid in species survival, not to the natural selection of traits based on attraction or other choices. In the context of the comment I was responding to it did not cross my mind to make that distinction. But not clarifying this was a mistake on my part and thank you for correcting it.
The only question is how long until we can trust them to work totally autonomously.
That's not a question at all. The answer is clear. Never. If a decision is to be made to take a human life then a human needs to make that decision.
The answer is obviously not that clear. When it comes to predicting technological advancement, you can never say something will never be possible. You simply don't know. Perhaps 100 years from now AI will develop a perfect moral compass, with no internal bias. It can never be angry at its enemy because its brother died in a previous battle. It can never be afraid of its own death and act with disregard for others because of its fear. The list goes on.
An AI capable of being more moral than humans may never happen. But it might happen. So saying we should never trust AI with when to take a human life is hopelessly wrong. Stick with saying we should never do this with current technology.
First off, modern humans are no longer under any meaningful evolutionary pressure, other than perhaps traits which contribute to male or female infertility. Almost everyone who wants children can have them unless they are infertile. Secondly, modern humans will be capable of genetic engineering very soon from an evolutionary point of view. It may be a decade, it may be 200 years, but almost no evolutionary changes would happen in either time frame. Once that happens natural selection will no longer play any significant part in the human genome.
So even if your thesis that dangerous and menial jobs are necessary for continued human evolutionary development, that will absolutely not be the case in the near future. So as much as I disagree with your statements, its pointless to even discuss them because scientific developments will certainly make you wrong either way.
So, how long do the democrats have to hold total power until they actually start being responsible for bad stuff they do, and can't just blame republicans? 20 years? 100? 1000?
The Democrats would be responsible for starting any war they actually start. Its not that hard to figure out. Wars which are cleaning up the mess of previous administrations can certainly last decades, as it did during the Vietnam War. I'd agree that after about 50 years you could no longer blame the original administration which started the war, but that is an arbitrary figure.
Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Obama (hardly a "right winger") is going to go down in history as the first president to have been effectively at war for 8 solid years.
This is only almost true because US presidents have not had a good track record of staying in power for 8 solid years during times of extended warfare. But it isn't true anyway, since Woodrow Wilson was in power for 8 years during the US occupation of Nicaragua, which lasted 19 years spanning his entire presidency. Theodore Roosevelt was in power for 8 years during the Moro Rebellion, which lasted 14 years spanning his entire presidency.
And if you count the American Indian Wars, every President with an eight year term before Woodrow Wilson was at war for eight solid years.
Unfortunately for the UK, due to the fall of the GBP, it is no longer the 5th largest economy.
Depends on who is measuring I think. The IMF would probably still feel the UK beats out France, but the World Bank and United Nations had the two countries close enough in GDP for France to claim the #5 spot. The UK is still #6 at worst though.
unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
As opposed to examples of what happens when you let aliens take over the country? Or could we just ask the American Indians that question? Or see what happened to the Romans in the fifth century?
You are comparing military conquests with Hispanics migrating to the US or refugees migrating to the UK? Once Hispanics or Syrian refugees start killing tens of thousands of Americans or Brits per year, and setting up their own governments after conquering cities, your comparison would hold some weight. Until then it is xenophobic nonsense.
No one is fearing strange or foreign concepts or people. They are doing little more than realizing that an over abundance of immigrants is harming their or their loved ones well being when it taxes a finite system of opportunities.
That is xenophobia. Thinking poor immigrants, or even educated immigrants, are taking your jobs is a justification for those who want to find an easy scapegoat for the problems in their life. It is an irrational fear of these immigrants, which defines xenophobia. Immigrant populations are almost always a boon on the host country. In some cases the first generation immigrants can be a burden for a short time, but second generation immigrants beat out average citizens in just about any positive metric you can find. Greater college education attainment, business ownership, lower poverty, etc. The US in particular has been riding on the coat tails of immigrants since WW2.
This doesn't even include the moral argument for taking in the poor of the world to give them opportunities and increase the economic pie with the immigrant work ethic that natives rarely match.
But I think they should empty the prisons of all non violent drug offenders and put illegal immigrants in their stead. I cannot see how violating a law which largely makes yourself the victim is any worse than violating a law that tears apart national sovereignty.
You take one group of people who are only criminals because of horrible laws and are inadvertently comparing them with another group who are only criminals because of horrible laws. If the speed limit was 10 mph, and you were considered an illegal driver for breaking it, almost everyone would be illegal drivers. That wouldn't make them dangerous drivers, it would make them a victim of horrible laws.
We need to stop calling them illegal immigrants, and just consider them people who have broken some laws. Just like I did earlier today when I drove 45 mph in a 35 mph speed limit zone. The only reason we have 11 million immigrants breaking or immigration laws is because we do not have a sufficient naturalization process.
Why was this downvoted ? He's abdolutely right. Are the mods here all blacks or muslims or something ?
Not everyone is misguided enough to think poor immigrants are the reason their life is screwed up.
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
(many probably won't watch)
Sadly, we won't see many real results until well after the 2016 election. So unless we fix our own xenophobic problems by ourselves, the world will be looking at the UK and USA for examples of what happens when you let xenophobia take over the country.
The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?
I'll have to go with both there.
The UK may be the 5th largest economy in the world, but there is a huge cliff after the top 2. The UK has economy roughly the size of California. The European Union exists so European countries can sit at the big boy table with the US and China. Even countries like the US and China can be very fragile at times, so claiming the UK is not putting itself at a huge risk here is childishly naive.
The EU also has a huge incentive to make this breakup as harsh as possible for the UK. The EU will almost certainly make deals which even hurt the EU as long as they hurt the UK more, since if the UK has a successful secession it will mean doom for the EU. The EU can essentially risk its own demise to hurt the UK because if the UK is successful the EU is doomed anyway.
He means he won't be able to afford it.
I rarely watch any movies on Netflix. For quite some time the only relevant content for me is binge watching TV shows. And it would probably take lifetimes to get through all of them. Well, if I didn't have Amazon Prime and Hulu also I might get through the Netflix TV shows quicker.
Yet we ensure that they all grow up to reproduce, even those who would have died through their own lack of "intelligence, creativity, willpower etc." if we didn't actively intervene. That doesn't seem like a good recipe for improvement.
Take away risk, and you also take away reward. Evolution requires unequal rewards. Without that, you have stagnation at best, and degeneration at worst.
The human species is basically done evolving by natural means. Some time in the next 100 years we will start genetic engineering on humans, and guided evolution will begin. This period of genetic stagnation will not last long.
Wow. One in four to nearly one in three. So that's, what, a jump from 25% to 30%? At this rate, it will be all Linux by 2030.
You think a 32% increase in a single year is a small thing? If it kept growing at this rate (which it won't) you would be looking at 100% Linux in only four years.
If we want humans in general (and not just our own) to improve in the long run, pay bonuses to those who survive diseases.
Humanity has long since passed the stage of evolution where natural selection weeds out people with poor eye sight, asthma, or susceptibility to treatable diseases. None of these traits harm a person's ability to contribute at the highest levels of society.
It is a very good thing nature no longer weeds out people for physical problems, because all of the important attributes now are mental in nature. Intelligence, creativity, willpower, etc. are our most important traits now and we want as many people with these traits to live as possible.