The classes are only protected insofar as being a member is the reason for hostile action. This means a Buddhist can't fire you for BEING Christian, but she could fire you for driving customers away because you kept threatening them with the whole, "going to Hell" thing. Personal political affiliation is generally protected, but at the same time behavior which is inherently tied to the Company and is controversial enough to harm the Company can be cause for termination as I understand it. However, I'm also not a lawyer, so make of that what you will.
Do I think this guy was a misogynist? Not really. Do I think his lack of art in phrasing his arguments make it easy to see him as one? Yes. Do I think creating a sense of misogyny can create a workplace hostile to women? To a degree, yes. Without knowing what this person's pattern of behavior was at work, though, any judgments are idle speculation.
2005's $214.8BN is in line with 2017's $313.89BN. So without the exact number this may mean an overall tie. As for a percentage of GDP, this was 1.6% in 2005. If 2016 numbers are used, $314.89BN is almost fully 2%. This means that while it roughly is following inflation, it is outstripping GDP growth. This also means that inflation is outstripping GDP growth, which itself is very interesting.
Not exactly. Slander, at least as defined in the US, requires the information be generally false. Further, I was somewhat limited in my available time to write a full dissertation, but "The Deplorables" you point out would not be a group in the sense I was referring to, any more than people who own Fords would be a group. One can acknowledge a person's right to an opinion or position without having to respect them or the position.
It's actually more insidious than that. The Nazis specifically called out Communists as enemies of the State. Further, they only adopted the word "Socialist" in the name to capitalize on the support actual Socialists were gaining. Fascism has features of both capitalism and socialism, combined with a co-opting of religion and strict social and/or legal means to support authority.
A bigger concern for all is how Fascism resembles an economic oligarchy. We are facing a problem wherein philosophical authoritarianism is being embraced by broader swathes of the population. Fear is being leveraged to spur this tendency. Hate speech, which I would personally define as generally intended to slander a group or encourage harm toward such a group, generally promotes authoritarian attitudes by promoting fear. Hitler and his cronies tapped into this, as have most authoritarians. If someone is quick to point to a scapegoat group for any complex issue, I strongly advise you treat them as suspect.
In fairness the Mars Climate Explorer wasn't a bug, it was utter failure by a contractor to RTFM! All programming modules were good, just not compatible.
Given that Detroit essentially enabled the economic success of America's best years following WWII, your statement is questionable at best. However, I will admit, if you limit that statement to the 1970s and 1980s, you are utterly correct.
As for the rest... Respectable to whom? Who adjudicates "promiscuous" or not? Is it binary, or defined by degrees?
Further, if the woman I am/was with violated my trust, I dismiss her from my life. I expect her to do the same if I behave that way. That you see treating women as human beings who have the right to control the use of their own image as a problem indicates to me a great deal of insecurity. This takes me back to the trauma thought.
Your existence in the high school locker room must have been very traumatic.
That said, humanity is not tied to ethnicity. Our natural state is, in fact, nudity; the foundation of humanity exists upon our animal nature. My point is simply that nudity and sex being so "taboo" or "naughty" is the origin of a great deal of our societal problems. This seems to come from a lack of respect for other people's choices.
Sorry, but if a woman trusts me with nude photos of herself, I'm going to hold them in the highest of confidences. If she trusted me with them, it says more about me if I choose to disseminate those than it does about her trusting me. Intentionally sharing them may or may not be criminal in some jurisdictions, but it would imply I was scum were I to do so.
I think that's overly simplistic. Take non-volitional AI, for example. I want to see it applied with care and caution. I want to see as part of technology management the notion of implementing intelligent policy in other areas to account for the impact. Likely I will only profit very little from it, while those with power and money will profit greatly. What concerns me is the notion of starving out vast swathes of people who used to be productive members of society. Similar issues exist with big data, genetic engineering, various types of 3D printing, etc. Banning the tech isn't the idea. Making sure we manage the changes it brings is the only wise course of action.
Has said every aging generation to every up-and-coming generation since time immemorial. A large part of the problem is puritanical culture, frankly. Nudity should not be as big a deal as it is.
I've been making this argument for years. The problem is no one thinks it's coming in their lifetime. They don't register the fact that their argument, "People won't have to do these jobs anymore. Yay!" runs directly into the big problem of, "And now how will they make a living?" I know plenty of hard workers struggling to function in this economy already. This is going to become more of an issue as traditionally decently paid jobs get fully automated. There are few things a well-programmed AI won't be able to do.
Simple solution: You buy the TV at a "discount", you get ads. You then get a code for X number of dollars and deactivate ads. The messed up part of this solution, though, is that people with the money to buy the stuff advertised will be the ones to opt-out for the fee. The people who don't probably can't afford to, and thus are have less disposable income, which means in the long run this is just stupid in the first place. I buy a device, it should be mine, period, and I should have the right to modify it as I see fit as long as it doesn't compromise safety. Disabling software on my own device to remove a service I don't want (really a service FOR the manufacturer) should never be an issue.
Either way, if I buy a set and it starts showing me ads that are not from my content provider, I'm returning it as defective - It is improperly displaying my media.
That's the rub, isn't it? That we could be days away from general, even volitional AI, and really have no idea. My suspicion is, it'll be an emergent property of some random AI or two and some odd interaction.
When the people who will benefit most greatly from an impending change tell the people who will be most harmed (possibly starved out in this case) by the same impending change that change is good, worry. When they say, "You're too smart/wise to be harmed by this change," worry more. I don't fear Skynet. I fear VIKI.
The truth is, volitional AI is nowhere seen to be on the horizon, but non-volitional AI is already here, following our rules. Or, should I say, the rules of a few people who control the system. What are the odds those rules will be good for the people already in power?
Models based on observations indicated that 4% of the universe's mas/energy composition had to be normal, baryonic matter. Half of that 4% was missing until today. Dark matter, based on observations, needs to be approximately 23% of the mass of the universe. Otherwise galaxies would not have formed and would spin apart. Further, most of the mass of dark matter is associated with galaxies, and this matter was found between them. Details "matter" (unless of course they "energy").
Careful. Real facts can be interpreted many different ways. However, while free enterprise certainly has resulted in economic growth, it is difficult to know if it was simply "better" than other potential options. Consider that Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations stated that any capitalist system would need regulation or it would spin wildly out of control. We allow corporations to shield investors from liability on the principle that this encourages economic growth. We allow the concept of the corporation to promote the general welfare of society. If you're going to wade into a debate about corporations, let's make sure we're honest about the debate.
I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.
I'm not as convinced it's a horrible plan, but you make some excellent points. The problem with allowing Sprint's assets to be simply auctioned off are not minor.
T-Mobile, being the smallest of the "Big 3" means they will probably be priced out of the auction for the best assets, further pushing them aside. As for CEOs helping each other out., that's not entirely wrong, but I have good reason to suspect the reality is more complicated.
I had to do an ethical analysis of CEO compensation for a class some time ago, and it got pretty deep. Most executives have big egos and hate the notion of getting help from each other, but love being the one the other person needs. As for competition, T-Mobile likely wants to gain specific assets that are in Sprint's portfolio that can't simply be siphoned off in an auction anyway. More to the point, T-Mobile's CEO is not going to take a hit on his personal balance sheet to help a "not-really-a-friend" friend.
Thank you, though, for pointing out Adam Smith wasn't full-on laissez-faire. It seems most miss this.
Google defines "aware" as "having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." Taken at face value, one would be hard-pressed to say the computer has "knowledge". Merely a bunch of switches have cascaded according to a predetermined setup to trigger an action. It's essentially the equivalent a complex domino setup. The simplest cell is several orders of magnitude more complex.
Well, awareness has to be the minimum aspect of consciousness. I think part of the problem is that it's inherently difficult to treat consciousness as a binary state. Clearly there are gradients involved. How narrowly do we want to define this? A slime mold reacts to various stimuli, and so do we. On the other hand, most higher orders of life have the ability to process more complex stimuli and have a richer choice of decisions in most scenarios. But I've seen cats make strategic decisions when playing (as well as wild animals doing the same). Is a cat as conscious as an adult human? Probably not. But I submit that a cat is also more conscious than a typical lizard, which is more conscious than a typical insect, which is more conscious than a typical microbial colony.
But if you think about it, consciousness has to be an emergent property partially related to complexity. We are aggregates of cells, none of which is conscious on its own; but then how does one determine how many cells are required to begin to define something as conscious? Until consciousness is far more clearly defined, a lot of the argument is going to be over the definition.
You are defining "self consciousness", the self-reflective awareness as distinct from the environment. However, recognizing your own reflection is essentially connecting an outside image with yourself. Not recognizing your reflection as a representation of yourself does not disprove self-consciousness, but recognizing it does prove self-consciousness. What babies seem to lack early on is "meta" consciousness and abstract reasoning. There is a level of abstraction to recognizing that your reflection is a representation (read "symbol") of yourself. We are getting away from consciousness in general, and debating what level of consciousness is "conscious".
Is a baby conscious? In the binary sense, then the answer seems to be yes. Babies make decisions about what is important to pay attention to, recognize faces,
etc. Are they self-aware? Again, yes, but with essentially zero abstraction.
No... Objects are not aware, nor do they respond. They are acted upon by extraneous forces. Responses involve decisions. If you pick up your keys, they cannot "decide" to resist or not. Cats do make decisions (the favorite example here), for example whether to come when called.
Slashdot Mirror
The classes are only protected insofar as being a member is the reason for hostile action. This means a Buddhist can't fire you for BEING Christian, but she could fire you for driving customers away because you kept threatening them with the whole, "going to Hell" thing. Personal political affiliation is generally protected, but at the same time behavior which is inherently tied to the Company and is controversial enough to harm the Company can be cause for termination as I understand it. However, I'm also not a lawyer, so make of that what you will.
Do I think this guy was a misogynist? Not really. Do I think his lack of art in phrasing his arguments make it easy to see him as one? Yes. Do I think creating a sense of misogyny can create a workplace hostile to women? To a degree, yes. Without knowing what this person's pattern of behavior was at work, though, any judgments are idle speculation.
Correction - 1.7% Which still makes the overall point valid, but less pointed.
2005's $214.8BN is in line with 2017's $313.89BN. So without the exact number this may mean an overall tie. As for a percentage of GDP, this was 1.6% in 2005. If 2016 numbers are used, $314.89BN is almost fully 2%. This means that while it roughly is following inflation, it is outstripping GDP growth. This also means that inflation is outstripping GDP growth, which itself is very interesting.
Not exactly. Slander, at least as defined in the US, requires the information be generally false. Further, I was somewhat limited in my available time to write a full dissertation, but "The Deplorables" you point out would not be a group in the sense I was referring to, any more than people who own Fords would be a group. One can acknowledge a person's right to an opinion or position without having to respect them or the position.
It's actually more insidious than that. The Nazis specifically called out Communists as enemies of the State. Further, they only adopted the word "Socialist" in the name to capitalize on the support actual Socialists were gaining. Fascism has features of both capitalism and socialism, combined with a co-opting of religion and strict social and/or legal means to support authority.
A bigger concern for all is how Fascism resembles an economic oligarchy. We are facing a problem wherein philosophical authoritarianism is being embraced by broader swathes of the population. Fear is being leveraged to spur this tendency. Hate speech, which I would personally define as generally intended to slander a group or encourage harm toward such a group, generally promotes authoritarian attitudes by promoting fear. Hitler and his cronies tapped into this, as have most authoritarians. If someone is quick to point to a scapegoat group for any complex issue, I strongly advise you treat them as suspect.
In fairness the Mars Climate Explorer wasn't a bug, it was utter failure by a contractor to RTFM! All programming modules were good, just not compatible.
Sex: A healthy part (though optional) of a normal, functional human being's life.
Violence: A destructive aspect of life which is not a part of a functional human being's life under the vast majority of circumstances.
Guess which we need to restrict the visibility of according to the "God-fearing" crowd?
Though in fairness, porn is not a very accurate portrayal of sex.
Given that Detroit essentially enabled the economic success of America's best years following WWII, your statement is questionable at best. However, I will admit, if you limit that statement to the 1970s and 1980s, you are utterly correct.
As for the rest... Respectable to whom? Who adjudicates "promiscuous" or not? Is it binary, or defined by degrees?
Further, if the woman I am/was with violated my trust, I dismiss her from my life. I expect her to do the same if I behave that way. That you see treating women as human beings who have the right to control the use of their own image as a problem indicates to me a great deal of insecurity. This takes me back to the trauma thought.
Were you born clothed?
Your existence in the high school locker room must have been very traumatic.
That said, humanity is not tied to ethnicity. Our natural state is, in fact, nudity; the foundation of humanity exists upon our animal nature. My point is simply that nudity and sex being so "taboo" or "naughty" is the origin of a great deal of our societal problems. This seems to come from a lack of respect for other people's choices.
Sorry, but if a woman trusts me with nude photos of herself, I'm going to hold them in the highest of confidences. If she trusted me with them, it says more about me if I choose to disseminate those than it does about her trusting me. Intentionally sharing them may or may not be criminal in some jurisdictions, but it would imply I was scum were I to do so.
I think that's overly simplistic. Take non-volitional AI, for example. I want to see it applied with care and caution. I want to see as part of technology management the notion of implementing intelligent policy in other areas to account for the impact. Likely I will only profit very little from it, while those with power and money will profit greatly. What concerns me is the notion of starving out vast swathes of people who used to be productive members of society. Similar issues exist with big data, genetic engineering, various types of 3D printing, etc. Banning the tech isn't the idea. Making sure we manage the changes it brings is the only wise course of action.
Has said every aging generation to every up-and-coming generation since time immemorial. A large part of the problem is puritanical culture, frankly. Nudity should not be as big a deal as it is.
I've been making this argument for years. The problem is no one thinks it's coming in their lifetime. They don't register the fact that their argument, "People won't have to do these jobs anymore. Yay!" runs directly into the big problem of, "And now how will they make a living?" I know plenty of hard workers struggling to function in this economy already. This is going to become more of an issue as traditionally decently paid jobs get fully automated. There are few things a well-programmed AI won't be able to do.
Simple solution: You buy the TV at a "discount", you get ads. You then get a code for X number of dollars and deactivate ads. The messed up part of this solution, though, is that people with the money to buy the stuff advertised will be the ones to opt-out for the fee. The people who don't probably can't afford to, and thus are have less disposable income, which means in the long run this is just stupid in the first place. I buy a device, it should be mine, period, and I should have the right to modify it as I see fit as long as it doesn't compromise safety. Disabling software on my own device to remove a service I don't want (really a service FOR the manufacturer) should never be an issue.
Either way, if I buy a set and it starts showing me ads that are not from my content provider, I'm returning it as defective - It is improperly displaying my media.
That's the rub, isn't it? That we could be days away from general, even volitional AI, and really have no idea. My suspicion is, it'll be an emergent property of some random AI or two and some odd interaction.
When the people who will benefit most greatly from an impending change tell the people who will be most harmed (possibly starved out in this case) by the same impending change that change is good, worry. When they say, "You're too smart/wise to be harmed by this change," worry more. I don't fear Skynet. I fear VIKI.
The truth is, volitional AI is nowhere seen to be on the horizon, but non-volitional AI is already here, following our rules. Or, should I say, the rules of a few people who control the system. What are the odds those rules will be good for the people already in power?
Apologies, but almost all of this is wrong.
Models based on observations indicated that 4% of the universe's mas/energy composition had to be normal, baryonic matter. Half of that 4% was missing until today. Dark matter, based on observations, needs to be approximately 23% of the mass of the universe. Otherwise galaxies would not have formed and would spin apart. Further, most of the mass of dark matter is associated with galaxies, and this matter was found between them. Details "matter" (unless of course they "energy").
Careful. Real facts can be interpreted many different ways. However, while free enterprise certainly has resulted in economic growth, it is difficult to know if it was simply "better" than other potential options. Consider that Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations stated that any capitalist system would need regulation or it would spin wildly out of control. We allow corporations to shield investors from liability on the principle that this encourages economic growth. We allow the concept of the corporation to promote the general welfare of society. If you're going to wade into a debate about corporations, let's make sure we're honest about the debate.
I like how they add that innocent little phrase. "...as well as some citizens".
If you're a naturalized citizen, you're as much of a citizen as the Founding Fathers. Don't let anyone tell you different. Unlike citizens that were born here, you've proven that you can actually pass a civics test. You belong here. You have all the rights of any American.
This. This all day.
I'm not as convinced it's a horrible plan, but you make some excellent points. The problem with allowing Sprint's assets to be simply auctioned off are not minor. T-Mobile, being the smallest of the "Big 3" means they will probably be priced out of the auction for the best assets, further pushing them aside. As for CEOs helping each other out., that's not entirely wrong, but I have good reason to suspect the reality is more complicated.
I had to do an ethical analysis of CEO compensation for a class some time ago, and it got pretty deep. Most executives have big egos and hate the notion of getting help from each other, but love being the one the other person needs. As for competition, T-Mobile likely wants to gain specific assets that are in Sprint's portfolio that can't simply be siphoned off in an auction anyway. More to the point, T-Mobile's CEO is not going to take a hit on his personal balance sheet to help a "not-really-a-friend" friend.
Thank you, though, for pointing out Adam Smith wasn't full-on laissez-faire. It seems most miss this.
Google defines "aware" as "having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." Taken at face value, one would be hard-pressed to say the computer has "knowledge". Merely a bunch of switches have cascaded according to a predetermined setup to trigger an action. It's essentially the equivalent a complex domino setup. The simplest cell is several orders of magnitude more complex.
Well, awareness has to be the minimum aspect of consciousness. I think part of the problem is that it's inherently difficult to treat consciousness as a binary state. Clearly there are gradients involved. How narrowly do we want to define this? A slime mold reacts to various stimuli, and so do we. On the other hand, most higher orders of life have the ability to process more complex stimuli and have a richer choice of decisions in most scenarios. But I've seen cats make strategic decisions when playing (as well as wild animals doing the same). Is a cat as conscious as an adult human? Probably not. But I submit that a cat is also more conscious than a typical lizard, which is more conscious than a typical insect, which is more conscious than a typical microbial colony.
But if you think about it, consciousness has to be an emergent property partially related to complexity. We are aggregates of cells, none of which is conscious on its own; but then how does one determine how many cells are required to begin to define something as conscious? Until consciousness is far more clearly defined, a lot of the argument is going to be over the definition.
You are defining "self consciousness", the self-reflective awareness as distinct from the environment. However, recognizing your own reflection is essentially connecting an outside image with yourself. Not recognizing your reflection as a representation of yourself does not disprove self-consciousness, but recognizing it does prove self-consciousness. What babies seem to lack early on is "meta" consciousness and abstract reasoning. There is a level of abstraction to recognizing that your reflection is a representation (read "symbol") of yourself. We are getting away from consciousness in general, and debating what level of consciousness is "conscious".
Is a baby conscious? In the binary sense, then the answer seems to be yes. Babies make decisions about what is important to pay attention to, recognize faces, etc. Are they self-aware? Again, yes, but with essentially zero abstraction.
No... Objects are not aware, nor do they respond. They are acted upon by extraneous forces. Responses involve decisions. If you pick up your keys, they cannot "decide" to resist or not. Cats do make decisions (the favorite example here), for example whether to come when called.