I especially like how if you don't parrot the common lie but instead post facts, it immediately makes you someone who "wants" teachers to work 100-hour weeks, apparently.
In North America, Teachers are consistently one of the... poorest paid professionals
I constantly hear this trotted out, but if you look at the actual facts and figures, salaries teachers in the USA are amongst the highest in the world (basically within the top 10 of all countries on the planet), and also basically on par with teacher salaries amongst first-world countries. Where does this meme come from?
What they really mean by 'giving them rights' is 'limiting the rights of the human owners', and that is the underlying driving motivation (effectively, fascism disguised as some sort of attempt at implementing some alleged morality). So expect there will be many more pushes to come as robots become more a part of our lives.
Yes, all of those that forbid cruel and inhumane treatment of humans, because to 'treat a corporation inhumanely' means to treat its owners/shareholders/employees in that way. Try it, go into Monsanto, ask to speak to a manager, then kick him in the nuts and see if he howls in pain (and see if you get arrested).
Corporations are not literally people, but they are owned by actual people, and they're also formally groups of actual people, and those people most certainly have the ability to suffer. You might not believe it, but (for example) the CEO of the Coca Cola corporation really can feel pain and suffer. The shareholders of the Coca Cola corporation really can feel pain and suffer.. if you buy shares in a corporation, believe it or not, you don't lose the capacity to suffer. Try it, buy some shares, see if you lose the capacity to suffer.
Yeah, the logic is retarded - I mean, consider:
"If we treat computers in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
"If we treat plants/trees in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
"If we treat cars in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
"If we treat mobile phones in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
"If we treat furniture in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
"If we treat fleas and mosquitos in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons."
The way we treat something has fuck-all to do with whether or not we 'become inhuman persons', and everything to do with what it is that we're treating that way.
Animals can't fight for their rights, but in most legal jurisdictions worldwide have various rights and protections against undue harm/cruelty, so that's not necessarily true.
Institutionalizing and standardizing Asimov's vision is ultimately a technological impossibility. But aside from that, and with all due respect and reverence for Asimov and his works - on critical examination, the 'three laws' don't reeaaally hold up as an ultimate ideal rational morality to program into robots. Consider the first law, for example:
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
Now, what if you are employing a robot guard in a court whose purpose is to take away convicted criminals to jail after sentencing - e.g. say a rapist or murderer is found guilty and sentenced, and as a robot you are told to haul the perpetrator to jail. This would constitute, on immediate examination, an act of harm to the rapist or murderer, and without being able to incorporate the broader context, such a robot would have to refuse.
But if I send my robot down the street to get groceries, I don't want someone yanking its memory modules or salvaging its servos just because it was running around loose and had no feelings.
I don't want someone to be allowed to just damage my car. Therefore, my car needs legal rights, like a sentient being!
There is no danger of producing a 'nation of programmers' in this, but being exposed to some programming makes everyone a little bit better at everything else --- for example, an accountant or manager with some exposure to programming has a better idea of the kinds of tasks that could be automated by a programmer, and for how much. What is more likely to happen though in this case is that the few talented individuals who do take a liking to it eventually do become good programmers, and then probably most of them will ultimately emigrate from Estonia to other countries like the USA. (I was exposed to limited amount of programming at a young age through things like this at a forward-thinking school, and it did trigger a love for it that stayed with me.)
Strange as it seems, not everyone wants to program
Since when are school courses determined by what kids "want" to do? That said, I also think school courses should also include logic, reason, critical thinking etc. for all students. The problem is that a nation of actual thinkers (as opposed to cogs who are productive in a limited specialization but otherwise pass their time with bread and circuses) would pose a danger to a government, which is why governments like to control schooling.
We don't require all kids to know automotive design or repair
Why not? I would have loved to learn some basic automotive repair at school, it would have been much more useful to me than a lot of the other stuff we learned at school that I've never used and long forgotten.
If I look at the school courses on offer in my area for my kids, I'd say there is an awful lot of stuff that can be happily crowded out a little for a bit of extra thinking-related course material.
I am afraid of the unintended consequences - that the kid might be psychologically scarred for life
You really think a child might be 'scarred for life' from being introduced to programming at age 6? Really? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.
I'm guessing he's doing it on principle, as he doesn't want his daughters to formally be criminals. If I was rich I would also use my money to help fight for principles, and I don't think that's a bad thing, I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. When someone fights for principles you attack them? That's low man.
However, having quickly scanned through it, I don't immediately see where it states the licenses are non-transferable (it does state that APP licenses are non-transferable, but this is a separate section to the music).
I can't tell what's sadder, the fact that you called the name of a logical fallacy a "buzz phrase"
Attacking logical fallacies by calling them things like "buzz phrases" seems to be a pattern on slashdot lately, I've seen almost the exact same attack from other users recently, virtually the same words, in other contexts. At first I thought it was just random stupidity, but now I'm starting to think it might be more systematic somehow. I mean, looking at the other comments by 'Nethemas the Great', he seems perfectly capable of Googling what 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' means, and it only takes a few seconds. He also appears smart enough to understand what a logical fallacy is. This must mean that his attacking of logical fallacies is based on malicious intent, rather than ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I especially like how if you don't parrot the common lie but instead post facts, it immediately makes you someone who "wants" teachers to work 100-hour weeks, apparently.
The middle class was created when wealth was redistributed down
That would be amazing considering the middle class really began to emerge during the industrial revolution before there was even an income tax.
http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml ... US teacher salaries are amongst the highest in the world even after PPP adjustment.
In North America, Teachers are consistently one of the ... poorest paid professionals
I constantly hear this trotted out, but if you look at the actual facts and figures, salaries teachers in the USA are amongst the highest in the world (basically within the top 10 of all countries on the planet), and also basically on par with teacher salaries amongst first-world countries. Where does this meme come from?
"All the people you've seen"? Wow, that must constitute almost everyone on the whole planetedy planet!!1!
What they really mean by 'giving them rights' is 'limiting the rights of the human owners', and that is the underlying driving motivation (effectively, fascism disguised as some sort of attempt at implementing some alleged morality). So expect there will be many more pushes to come as robots become more a part of our lives.
Yes, all of those that forbid cruel and inhumane treatment of humans, because to 'treat a corporation inhumanely' means to treat its owners/shareholders/employees in that way. Try it, go into Monsanto, ask to speak to a manager, then kick him in the nuts and see if he howls in pain (and see if you get arrested).
Corporations are not literally people, but they are owned by actual people, and they're also formally groups of actual people, and those people most certainly have the ability to suffer. You might not believe it, but (for example) the CEO of the Coca Cola corporation really can feel pain and suffer. The shareholders of the Coca Cola corporation really can feel pain and suffer .. if you buy shares in a corporation, believe it or not, you don't lose the capacity to suffer. Try it, buy some shares, see if you lose the capacity to suffer.
Yeah, the logic is retarded - I mean, consider: "If we treat computers in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." "If we treat plants/trees in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." "If we treat cars in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." "If we treat mobile phones in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." "If we treat furniture in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." "If we treat fleas and mosquitos in inhumane ways, we become inhuman persons." The way we treat something has fuck-all to do with whether or not we 'become inhuman persons', and everything to do with what it is that we're treating that way.
Animals can't fight for their rights, but in most legal jurisdictions worldwide have various rights and protections against undue harm/cruelty, so that's not necessarily true.
Institutionalizing and standardizing Asimov's vision is ultimately a technological impossibility. But aside from that, and with all due respect and reverence for Asimov and his works - on critical examination, the 'three laws' don't reeaaally hold up as an ultimate ideal rational morality to program into robots. Consider the first law, for example: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." Now, what if you are employing a robot guard in a court whose purpose is to take away convicted criminals to jail after sentencing - e.g. say a rapist or murderer is found guilty and sentenced, and as a robot you are told to haul the perpetrator to jail. This would constitute, on immediate examination, an act of harm to the rapist or murderer, and without being able to incorporate the broader context, such a robot would have to refuse.
But if I send my robot down the street to get groceries, I don't want someone yanking its memory modules or salvaging its servos just because it was running around loose and had no feelings.
I don't want someone to be allowed to just damage my car. Therefore, my car needs legal rights, like a sentient being!
He didn't miss the reference, just the point of humor itself .. could be a robot posting, they're not known for their senses of humor.
Strange as it seems, not everyone wants to program
Since when are school courses determined by what kids "want" to do? That said, I also think school courses should also include logic, reason, critical thinking etc. for all students. The problem is that a nation of actual thinkers (as opposed to cogs who are productive in a limited specialization but otherwise pass their time with bread and circuses) would pose a danger to a government, which is why governments like to control schooling.
We don't require all kids to know automotive design or repair
Why not? I would have loved to learn some basic automotive repair at school, it would have been much more useful to me than a lot of the other stuff we learned at school that I've never used and long forgotten.
If I look at the school courses on offer in my area for my kids, I'd say there is an awful lot of stuff that can be happily crowded out a little for a bit of extra thinking-related course material.
I am afraid of the unintended consequences - that the kid might be psychologically scarred for life
You really think a child might be 'scarred for life' from being introduced to programming at age 6? Really? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read in my life.
Oops, sorry, that comment of mine above was supposed to be attached to this one: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3091163&cid=41214165
I'm guessing he's doing it on principle, as he doesn't want his daughters to formally be criminals. If I was rich I would also use my money to help fight for principles, and I don't think that's a bad thing, I'm not sure why you think that's a bad thing. When someone fights for principles you attack them? That's low man.
The link is right there in TA:
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
However, having quickly scanned through it, I don't immediately see where it states the licenses are non-transferable (it does state that APP licenses are non-transferable, but this is a separate section to the music).
What patent law has effectively become, in practice, is a law against inventing (for anyone except the the big entrenched players.)
I can't tell what's sadder, the fact that you called the name of a logical fallacy a "buzz phrase"
Attacking logical fallacies by calling them things like "buzz phrases" seems to be a pattern on slashdot lately, I've seen almost the exact same attack from other users recently, virtually the same words, in other contexts. At first I thought it was just random stupidity, but now I'm starting to think it might be more systematic somehow. I mean, looking at the other comments by 'Nethemas the Great', he seems perfectly capable of Googling what 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' means, and it only takes a few seconds. He also appears smart enough to understand what a logical fallacy is. This must mean that his attacking of logical fallacies is based on malicious intent, rather than ignorance.
Do you also think Rosa Parks 'got what she deserved' when they arrested her?
Until they walk into a McDonalds. We're going to see a lot of blind people beaten up.
Why yes, I'm all for more efficient methods for re-creating 1984.