Take the MSF class, it's good. And, if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to safely operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done... precise control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, constantly thinking about vehicle performance parameters, etc.
Not to mention that the picture shows that the display is up at the top the visor, yet in a fighter, the display is superimposed (mostly) over the center front of the field of view. Meaning, a fighter pilot looks *through* the HUD, not up to the HUD (though it's obviously not the only place he looks).
It's a good concept overall, but in the form that I saw it's really no different than the indicators I already have on my bike. Look up real quick or look down real quick, what's the difference...
It's late, and I need to go to bed, but I'll make one last response.You have convenced me that constitutionally, the founders were not aware of, or did not believe in, any sort of Natural right of ownership of one's own works.
However, I still belive that there is a Natural right, the lack of recognition of it by our government notwithstanding! I don't hold that the rights recognized by are government are a definitive list of human rights, only a partial list. For example, take the subject of abortion. Our government does not recognize that
unborn children have basic rights as human beings. I believe they do, and should be recognized. But, I digress... My point is, I believe there are rights that the constitution does not recognize, but that doesn't mean to me that they are non-existant. To me, Natural rights and our constitutional rights do not necessarily intersect.
Finally, your last analogy does not seem to hold. It appears that you're comparing a patent on a process to a copyright...:)
I think you and I are just simply going to disagree on this one.
The text reads:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
When one inserts the first definition that you included, it would read "by obtaining...to authors and inventors the exclusive right", but that doesn't work, obtain is not grant. Nor is "procure", "gain", or "aquire".
I will agree, though, that the 2nd definiton doesn't quite work as well. Hence the thought that we're just going to disagree.
But something else you wrote, "It would be absurd to say that congress may only make an existing right "safe or free from harm" for a limited time.", doesn't appear to be absurd to me at all. There is nothing that precludes a government from making an existing right safe for a limited time. Granted, a government would have to ignore a (natural) right after such time, but there is nothing other than morals to stop this. Governments throughout history have both ignored and supported people rights, because they were institutions that had the physical power to do so. My point is, though, that there isn't a barrier that presents itself to preclude this concept from being true, and, though we may not be able to believe that the US government would be able to do so, we can still be proven wrong.
Your comment "There is no right to copyright protection anywhere in the constitution" is a red-herring. I never suggested that there was a constitutional right, but rather that the wording did not, as you asserted, say that there was no right. I do still believe that there is a natural right in a certain sense.
Just another note to add to your comment. One very valid use of guns isn't to kill/destroy, it is to protect. In fact, it appears that there's more of that going on, by an order of magnitude, than murders/accidents/etc.
So...all of these posts that say "they're only designed to kill" are somewhat correct, but are missing half of the concept.
Personally? I own several firearms. And, yes, I would use them as they're designed if I HAD to. But only if, so the implication that they're only for evil/bad/etc is incorrect, at least for me and two other people that I know (guaranteed).
Copyright law is not based on any sort of personal right. If you look at that constitutional wording it actually says that authors and inventors do not already possess any such right.
Nowhere that I see.
Congress MAY secure such rights for them IF THEY CHOOSE TO, and they may only do so for a specific purpose - the purpose of benefiting the public. Any profit and benefit to the creator is irrelevant side effect. It is only relevant as a means to an end.
Note, however, that the word used is "secure". Not create, not give, but secure. One can only secure something that already exists.
It seems to me, then, that a proper understanding of the constitution would take that into accout (each word has significance). So, it doesn't appear to even imply that the inventor/author doesn't have that right inherently, only that the government doesn't necessarily have to secure that right for that person. But, the constitution grants the power to do so to the government (permission, rather than obligation).
Looks like one is arguing from a moral basis, and another is arguing from the basis of law. The two do not necessarily intersect (that which is lawful is not always moral, and that which is moral is not always lawful). Personally, I don't care a slight bit for what the laws made by men say as men can be very corrupt. Rather, I side with my understanding of the moral. Regardless, I think you're not on solid ground with your writing on the subject, but then I've said before that I'm not a constitutional scholar (though I'd bet that you're not either).
The sword cuts both ways. You say that "Without seeing the rest of it, you have no basis for your belief." Yet, without seeing the rest of the universe, you have no basis for your belief. Both are "beliefs", but only one is supported by experience.
The cold hard fact of the matter is that we are all that we know to exist. No amount of "you haven't seen it all" or "the universe is soooo huge" is going to change that, and any conclusion based outside of the information at hand is based on faith in an unknown not known reality.
For all of the talk of "science" on Slashdot, there's an amazing amount of blind faith here...what is this, the Church of the Potential Existance of Aliens?
And the fact that we haven't yet seen unicorns in no way proves that they aren't there. Of course, that's the difficulty of proving a negative.
The universe could be "teeming with life", or it could just be a vast lifeless mass (other than on earth, of course). But again, I'll point out, that vast, big, huge, whatever, does not mean that it is populated.
And I say that believing that we are *it* is not speculative, it actually has a firm foundation in experience. Granted, that experience could change, but, for now, we're all that anyone has ever seen that we know of. That is not speculation, that's based on experience. I don't see how making a statement based on experience is arrogant. Nieve, maybe. Subject to change, possibly. Arrogant? No. Based in known reality? Yes.
I didn't say that you were incorrect in mentioning Kissinger...just that that was a bit of time ago.
The fact of that matter is, as you said, every nation is "dirty" in some way or another. And, no, I never even implied that the "USA are the good guys unequivocally". In fact, I don't belive that to be true to the point that I won't serve in the US armed forces again simply because in doing so I might be supporting that which is wrong from time to time.
Also, disagreement isn't, in my view, a "healthy thing where Freedom exists". Righteous disagreement is, but not all disagreement. I impart a moral criteria to it all.
You see, my view is that one is only really entitled to do or hold to positions that are truthful and righteous. That we can hold to other positions is obvious, I don't say that we can't do so, only that I don't believe that we're entitled to do so (and, hence, why I think that only righteous disagreement is proper disagreement).
Still, despite all of that, I don't disagree with my govenment's attempt to do certain things, this GPS issue as an example. It's their constitutionally mandated respnsibility to provide for the defense of the US. If that means that they influence other countries into helping the US maintian an advantage, so be it. Their responsibility is to protect the US, not France, not the UK, not etc, etc, etc. (but I still believe it has to be done in a moral way).
Liberal? Conservative? When did I mention or even hint at either class?
If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd find that I did neither. What I did comment on was his explanation of our election system and how the reality of it is lost on a lot of the Slashdot crowd.
It is you who assumed that I was making a political comment. In fact, I was making a comment about how everyone seems to think that our government is all about the majority of people voting a certain way. It is not. We are, again, a representative republic, not a democracy. Granted, there are democratic principles at the core of our government, but we are not a complete democracry.
And, I'm glad we're not. People like you are the reason why.
DEAD WOOD comes to mind again...get a brain and learn how to respond to what people write, not what you think their beliefs are. That you assume, and assume too much, is obvious.
But, since you brought it up, I don't sit around going "GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THESE FUCKING LIBERALS", I sit around going "GOD, I WISH ALL THESE FUCKING LIBERALS WOULD GO THE FUCK AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING ANNOYING MORONS."
And I'll post it again...if you don't agree with what I wrote, RESPOND TO IT. Modding a post to nothing (from a 1 point, now there's a difficult thing to do) isn't a rebuttal.
-------
One just has to wonder...
You're concerned about your children's use of a computer, and you're asking the *slashdot* crowd?
Why? You don't have the faintest idea of who these people actually are, yet you're asking them for advice on what to do with your children. These poeple *are* children, and though some that respond are adults, you'll never know the truth about who they really are.
I'd personally recommend that you find another way to get some assistance...
You're concerned about your children's use of a computer, and you're asking the *slashdot* crowd?
Why? You don't have the faintest idea of who these people actually are, yet you're asking them for advice on what to do with your children. These poeple *are* children, and though some that respond are adults, you'll never know the truth about who they really are.
I'd personally recommend that you find another way to get some assistance...
Good job stating the truth...now if it would only matter to this crowd.
You point is 100% accurate, but, unfortunately, you're talking to dead wood. Notice how the concept of a majority vote is constantly repeated, with no recognition that we are not a democracy, we're a representative republic.
Anyway, it's nice to see that there are a few individuals on here that have a brain!
Saying to slow down IS coming to a conclusion.........
Ok, first...we're not talking about something that requires an immediate decision. Second, saying slow down isn't coming to the same type of conclusion that we're discussing. Your association is invalid.
We would have to take a decision. We could say "yes", "no" or "we'll think about it and, when we'll feel like it, we'll give you an answer" (which in practice is equivalent to "no").
Your rhetoric is quite annoying. I'm not suggesting a "when we'll feel like it" approach. I'm suggesting a well thought out approach that accounts for reality, not anthropomorphic appearance.
I have to do some anthropomorphism.
Which, of course, is only valid if this thing is truly human-like. Not it "looks or behaves human" but that it is actually holds those qualities in reality. I believe it won't, it never will, and that it remains simply a machine that at most will have the appearance of life, not true life. If it somehow really lives, then I'll hold a different appearance, but to think that that would be the case violates a basic biological premise, namely that life only comes from life. Are you suggesting that this premise is invalid? If so, on what facts would you base your opposition? If you don't suggest that it's invalid, why do you hold that somehow life would be real in these machines?
...what is interesting in this discussion is not what we would do with the AI...
Maybe not in the sense of how we would use the AI to benefit existence. But this is a discussion about what we would do with the AI in the sense of what privileges we will allow it. Privileges that have a good possibility, to me, of impacting my own rights.
It's the same kind of question as "if your wife was sick, would you steal to get her medecine?" that we did in high school.
No, they're really not close. One's wife is his equal, another human. The question that you present is a moral question of trying to maintain someones existing life. The question with AI is whether it can ever be alive in the first place. Apples and oranges.
If we said "no" to the AI there is a probability he'll try to kill us....
Based on what information? The entire paragraph you just wrote is complete science-fiction and assumption. Been watching a lot of the SciFi channel? You might consider taking a break...
And the worst would be if we did succeed in destroying all AI. You see, humanity is always seeking enemies. We compete to be the one on top and we certainly don't play fair. We form alliances to be stronger and, once we are, we are not afraid to do whatever it takes to stay on top. There will always be an enemy and a war to win. Now, what would happen if we win a war against AIs? Who will be the next enemies? I guess other humans. So here we are, used to see "things" begging for their lives (probably feeling joy when one of our hunt is sucessful), and suddenly thinking that black people are not as equal as white people.
I believe the worst would be giving non-living things the same rights as living things. By doing so you are actually marginalizing the rights of the living things.
And, I'll point out, again, the invalid moral equivalency. It is yet to be established whether AI could even live, yet you're equating not giving them rights with racism. The first question must be answered first.
OTOH religion is about dogmas and faith. Science says if you have questions try to answer them by yourself, religion says we have answer and you better not question them.
Maybe most, but not my religion. I've been taught to question and to hold to that which is right. "Test everything, and hold on to that which is good."
That a lot of people don't do this only shows that *some* religion holds to dogma for the sake of holding to dogma.
So what do we do with it?...Which one is the best for humanity?
Bing! Bing! Bing! You're asking the same questions I did, though many seem to have already come to a conclusion, despite the fact that this is virgin ground.
Again, I say slow down.
That's what we do all the time.
So therefore it's OK?
What should we trust? Science or religion?
I believe that they are not mutually exclusive. It is clear to me that religion deals with the metaphysical, yet science is confined to the physical. The two are not necessarily incompatable in my view, but I'm not one that belives that the physical is all there is and there are many out there that believe otherwise.
Ok, guess it's time for some high school level philosophy!
For whom? We'll find out who gets "schooled".
I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality.
You just made a nonsense statement.
I would desperately say yes, of course!
Based on what? If our mind is just the manifestation of the electrochemical processes that are in the brain, how would you transfer it? If it's not, if there's something more to it than the physical, then that clearly argues for the metaphysical. Which is it?
Of course, I'll go back to the assertion I've been making: WE DON'T KNOW. But there are those out there that will take blind action despite this fact. I'm totally opposed to that.
I don't know but... does it really matters?
Ummm...yes...that's what this is all about. What are we, what is life, what is a mind, what constitutes that which is deserving of rights. I guess you missed that whole concept, huh?
So what the fuck am I?
I'm thinking I know the answer, but I'll keep it to myself...
If one day a machine is stronger than we are it will give itself rights and there's nothing we could do to stop it.
Of course, whether that happens is yet to be seen. Apparently that won't stop people from giving it a kick-start anyway.
You assume explanations.
Did you learn this or assume it?
There's no such thing as universal rights or wrongs.
First, the vast amount of humanity that has existed differs with you on this.
Second, if you really believe this to be true, then act accordingly. Of course, you won't. Despite what some people say, it is unavoidable that everyone has a sense of justice, fair play, morality. People's morality may differ to some extent, but it is there nonetheless.
If you disagree, then why are you trying to convence others that it is right to give machines "rights"? If there is no absolute morality, why make the argument at all, because, of course, in that case there is no difference. You can say there are no absolute morals, but the actions of all people, yourself included, speaks differently.
You believe you are some kind of superior thing no matter what.
First, of course I do, but it doesn't extend to "no matter what". I don't belive I am suprerior to other humans. I certainly do belive I am superior to a rock.
If you feel like a rock is your equal, then I won't challange you on that. Obviously I believe differently for myself.
...self-given rights
"self-given" huh? "...that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That pretty much sums up where I think my rights come from, and, obvously, I'm not referring to myself with the use of that quote. I don't belive that I'm self created.
I don't think being a follower is something desirable.
Yet another point where you and I differ. I don't belive that following is itself inherently bad, and I certainly won't go against the grain just to say that I'm going aga
The assumptions that you all are working off of are incredible. From what deserves rights, to what I think and what I'm doing...it apparently has no end.
I'll go through the points one by one, as best my time permits:
Why not?
Because there are these little things called consequences to our actions. This requires much greater thought than to just say "well, it looks like it's alive, so we should give it some privileges". Be careful not to anthropomorphize.
The human brain is nothing but an analog computer with a self modifying architecture....The cells in the brain are no more self aware than a logic gate.....There is no "mind" in the brain, that is an abstraction reflecting the difficulty in describing it's function in simple terms....etc,etc,etc.
The arrogance contained in these statements is amazing, though they shouldn't seem so incredible to me, considering that we are on Slashdot, and everyone here seems to know it all.
However, I contend that we DON'T, and that we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly.
Despite the categorical statements above, the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer". It is a part of a living being, made up of cells. Cells, I might add, that we don't even fully understand. To state that "this is all "x" is" in any situation is to grossly oversimplify. Nothing in our existence is "simple", everything is much more complex than everyone would like to admit.
How does one know there is no mind in the brain? Has it been discovered what the mind actually is? Of course not. We know some nuances of the workings of the mind, but we do not know what it really is.
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real. At what point does/did this happen? Com'on, admit it. WE DON'T KNOW.
this is what human philosphers have been debating for millenia, what is life, why are we here, and all of the points you raised above.
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
since people have these exact same problems, should we have no rights as well
Of course, if you read on you would have seen that I assert otherwise.
you assumed it right?
No, I assumed nothing. It became painfully obvious to me when, as a child, I tried to exert my will over someone else. Just like all children, I learned that they did exist, and they existed on the same plane as I did. It was learned, not assumed.
so should I torture you mercilessly and end your life
Give it a shot...we'll see if you're even capable. Of course, I have nothing to worry about...you're advocating giving rights to a machine. How much more secure, then, are my rights as your human equal?:)
beliefs like that is why slavery existed, why Jews and many other minority groups have died, those beliefs are sadistic...but I think I will know it when I see it...you seem more comfortable damning an entire new form of sentient entities into potential slavery...You are the people that hold humanity back, and slow us from recognizing our potential.
Again...anthropomorphizing. To the EXTREME. It *looks* like it's alive, so we better treat is as such. This is a very simplistic approach, and dangerous.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing. And, how is it that my advocating not giving rights to a machine is holding humanity back? How, exactly, does this come about? Certainly you don't think a machine is human do you?
Our domain is the sun and the stars and all of creation
The assumptions that you all are working off of are incredible. From what deserves rights, to what I think and what I'm doing...it apparently has no end.
I'll go through the points one by one, as best my time permits:
Why not?
Because there are these little things called consequences to our actions. This requires much greater thought than to just say "well, it looks like it's alive, so we should give it some privileges". Be careful not to anthropomorphize.
The human brain is nothing but an analog computer with a self modifying architecture....The cells in the brain are no more self aware than a logic gate.....There is no "mind" in the brain, that is an abstraction reflecting the difficulty in describing it's function in simple terms....etc,etc,etc.
The arrogance contained in these statements is amazing, though they shouldn't seem so incredible to me, considering that we are on Slashdot, and everyone here seems to know it all.
However, I contend that we DON'T, and that we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly.
Despite the categorical statements above, the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer". It is a part of a living being, made up of cells. Cells, I might add, that we don't even fully understand. To state that "this is all "x" is" in any situation is to grossly oversimplify. Nothing in our existence is "simple", everything is much more complex than everyone would like to admit.
How does one know there is no mind in the brain? Has it been discovered what the mind actually is? Of course not. We know some nuances of the workings of the mind, but we do not know what it really is.
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real. At what point does/did this happen? Com'on, admit it. WE DON'T KNOW.
this is what human philosphers have been debating for millenia, what is life, why are we here, and all of the points you raised above.
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
since people have these exact same problems, should we have no rights as well
Of course, if you read on you would have seen that I assert otherwise.
you assumed it right
No, I assumed nothing. It became painfully obvious to me when, as a child, I tried to exert my will over someone else. Just like all children, I learned that they did exist, and they existed on the same plane as I did. It was learned, not assumed.
so should I torture you mercilessly and end your life
Give it a shot...we'll see if you're even capable. Of course, I have nothing to worry about...you're advocating giving rights to a machine. How much more secure, then, are my rights as your human equal?:)
beliefs like that is why slavery existed, why Jews and many other minority groups have died, those beliefs are sadistic...but I think I will know it when I see it...you seem more comfortable damning an entire new form of sentient entities into potential slavery...You are the people that hold humanity back, and slow us from recognizing our potential.
Again...anthropomorphizing. To the EXTREME. It *looks* like it's alive, so we better treat is as such. This is a very simplistic approach, and dangerous.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing. And, how is it that my advocating not giving rights to a machine is holding humanity back? How, exactly, does this come about? Certainly you don't think a machine is human do
I'd like to belive that there aren't others out there like you, but obviously there are.
So you'd grant them the right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness"?
Well...before you go granting a machine the same status as a human, or even an animal, I'd like to see you tell me what true "life" really is. What about "liberty"? What does that mean to a machine? And then, of course, what is "happiness" to a machine, and how would you know you would really want the results of that, if it could even exist?
I'll admit that people that advocate giving rights to machines scare me. Not because I fear that they are a threat to me physically, but because it is clear to me that the above answers have no clear definition yet. We don't really know what they are, and, therefore, these people are moving blindly into an area where they have no business being.
We do know that rights apply to us; clearly we have "life". I'm not talking about a simplistic definition that everyone seems to work off of...it is clear to me that those definitions are woefully incomplete. But, to go extending this to a machine, and make no mistake, that is what it is and nothing more, is to jump into the relm of foolishness.
I agree with some of what you wrote, but I disagree with other parts of what you wrote.
All of that is moot at this point, because you decided to throw an insult instead of talk. You had me listening until you threw in "I shouldn't expect you to actually read the Constitution."
For your information, I have read the constitution, many times. Just because I admitted that I'm network engineer and not a constitutional scholar doen't mean that I haven't taken the time to try and understand any of it.
And...I also spent, what was it, oh, only around 10 years in the military.
You apparantly are "wasting [your] time" at this point, but that's because of your attitude, not mine.
it appears that you're assuming I was commenting on the "prior restraint" part...which I wasn't. The only thing I was responding to was the "government rights" part as I don't really have an opinion yet on prior restraint.
Though I do see a difference between "rights" and "powers", I also see a lack of practical difference as well. Take the following for example (somewhat relevant for our time):
The People grant the Government the Power to wage war.
Now, what power is useful without the right to exercise it? No power is. It requres not only the ability, but the authority, or right, to take the action. The authority is delegated by the people, and they retain the right to revoke that authority (or right), as they hold (in theory) ultimate control over the government. However, they still grant a portion of their "inalienable" (cannot be taken away from them, but it seems that one can certainly freely relenquish it) "rights" to another entity.
The word "secure" does not mean the same thing as "grant". Governments can grant privileges but they cannot grant rights.
This sentence, in context, makes no sense. The first part doesn't apply to anything either you or I wrote. The second part was never suggested by me, as I suggested that the People granted (or "freely relinquished") certain of their rights to the government, not the reverse.
Now, to prior restraint. I still don't have an opinion on it yet, and I'm not going to address what you wrote, except to make one note:
It seems to me that the government's response in your posting is within the limits of their rights/powers/etc, in that the government basically admits that one must "incorporate", "hire...employees", etc. before they believed it relevant. Interestingly, it appears to me that the only rights/powers/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it that the US government could legally exercise falls under one of two categories:
- Secure the common defense, or
- Effect commerce
Looks to me that #2 is applicable to the government's response, which, paraphrased, might read something like this:
DJB: I wrote some information and would like to publish it. If I did, would you prosecute?
GOV: We might. But you should have a hand in some commerce before that's a relevant question ( because otherwise we don't have the right to do so).
Again, just my $0.02. I am not a constitutional scholar...just a network engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
Take the MSF class, it's good. And, if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to safely operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done... precise control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, constantly thinking about vehicle performance parameters, etc.
Not to mention that the picture shows that the display is up at the top the visor, yet in a fighter, the display is superimposed (mostly) over the center front of the field of view. Meaning, a fighter pilot looks *through* the HUD, not up to the HUD (though it's obviously not the only place he looks).
It's a good concept overall, but in the form that I saw it's really no different than the indicators I already have on my bike. Look up real quick or look down real quick, what's the difference...
It's late, and I need to go to bed, but I'll make one last response.You have convenced me that constitutionally, the founders were not aware of, or did not believe in, any sort of Natural right of ownership of one's own works.
:)
However, I still belive that there is a Natural right, the lack of recognition of it by our government notwithstanding! I don't hold that the rights recognized by are government are a definitive list of human rights, only a partial list. For example, take the subject of abortion. Our government does not recognize that
unborn children have basic rights as human beings. I believe they do, and should be recognized. But, I digress... My point is, I believe there are rights that the constitution does not recognize, but that doesn't mean to me that they are non-existant. To me, Natural rights and our constitutional rights do not necessarily intersect.
Finally, your last analogy does not seem to hold. It appears that you're comparing a patent on a process to a copyright...
Cya....
I think you and I are just simply going to disagree on this one.
The text reads:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
When one inserts the first definition that you included, it would read "by obtaining...to authors and inventors the exclusive right", but that doesn't work, obtain is not grant. Nor is "procure", "gain", or "aquire".
I will agree, though, that the 2nd definiton doesn't quite work as well. Hence the thought that we're just going to disagree.
But something else you wrote, "It would be absurd to say that congress may only make an existing right "safe or free from harm" for a limited time.", doesn't appear to be absurd to me at all. There is nothing that precludes a government from making an existing right safe for a limited time. Granted, a government would have to ignore a (natural) right after such time, but there is nothing other than morals to stop this. Governments throughout history have both ignored and supported people rights, because they were institutions that had the physical power to do so. My point is, though, that there isn't a barrier that presents itself to preclude this concept from being true, and, though we may not be able to believe that the US government would be able to do so, we can still be proven wrong.
Your comment "There is no right to copyright protection anywhere in the constitution" is a red-herring. I never suggested that there was a constitutional right, but rather that the wording did not, as you asserted, say that there was no right. I do still believe that there is a natural right in a certain sense.
Just another note to add to your comment. One very valid use of guns isn't to kill/destroy, it is to protect. In fact, it appears that there's more of that going on, by an order of magnitude, than murders/accidents/etc.
So...all of these posts that say "they're only designed to kill" are somewhat correct, but are missing half of the concept.
Personally? I own several firearms. And, yes, I would use them as they're designed if I HAD to. But only if, so the implication that they're only for evil/bad/etc is incorrect, at least for me and two other people that I know (guaranteed).
Copyright law is not based on any sort of personal right. If you look at that constitutional wording it actually says that authors and inventors do not already possess any such right.
Nowhere that I see.
Congress MAY secure such rights for them IF THEY CHOOSE TO, and they may only do so for a specific purpose - the purpose of benefiting the public. Any profit and benefit to the creator is irrelevant side effect. It is only relevant as a means to an end.
Note, however, that the word used is "secure". Not create, not give, but secure. One can only secure something that already exists.
It seems to me, then, that a proper understanding of the constitution would take that into accout (each word has significance). So, it doesn't appear to even imply that the inventor/author doesn't have that right inherently, only that the government doesn't necessarily have to secure that right for that person. But, the constitution grants the power to do so to the government (permission, rather than obligation).
Looks like one is arguing from a moral basis, and another is arguing from the basis of law. The two do not necessarily intersect (that which is lawful is not always moral, and that which is moral is not always lawful). Personally, I don't care a slight bit for what the laws made by men say as men can be very corrupt. Rather, I side with my understanding of the moral. Regardless, I think you're not on solid ground with your writing on the subject, but then I've said before that I'm not a constitutional scholar (though I'd bet that you're not either).
The sword cuts both ways. You say that "Without seeing the rest of it, you have no basis for your belief." Yet, without seeing the rest of the universe, you have no basis for your belief. Both are "beliefs", but only one is supported by experience.
The cold hard fact of the matter is that we are all that we know to exist. No amount of "you haven't seen it all" or "the universe is soooo huge" is going to change that, and any conclusion based outside of the information at hand is based on faith in an unknown not known reality.
For all of the talk of "science" on Slashdot, there's an amazing amount of blind faith here...what is this, the Church of the Potential Existance of Aliens?
And the fact that we haven't yet seen unicorns in no way proves that they aren't there. Of course, that's the difficulty of proving a negative.
The universe could be "teeming with life", or it could just be a vast lifeless mass (other than on earth, of course). But again, I'll point out, that vast, big, huge, whatever, does not mean that it is populated.
And I say that believing that we are *it* is not speculative, it actually has a firm foundation in experience. Granted, that experience could change, but, for now, we're all that anyone has ever seen that we know of. That is not speculation, that's based on experience. I don't see how making a statement based on experience is arrogant. Nieve, maybe. Subject to change, possibly. Arrogant? No. Based in known reality? Yes.
Arrogant? How so? Where is the empirical evidence that we're not the most intelligent and important civilization(s) in the universe? Big != populated.
So far, we're it. Unless something else is actually found. But, oh, that hasn't happened. All that exists on the subjet is speculation and hypotheses.
That's hardly grounds to call someone else arrogant. Bring some facts to the table to support your assertion.
I didn't say that you were incorrect in mentioning Kissinger...just that that was a bit of time ago.
The fact of that matter is, as you said, every nation is "dirty" in some way or another. And, no, I never even implied that the "USA are the good guys unequivocally". In fact, I don't belive that to be true to the point that I won't serve in the US armed forces again simply because in doing so I might be supporting that which is wrong from time to time.
Also, disagreement isn't, in my view, a "healthy thing where Freedom exists". Righteous disagreement is, but not all disagreement. I impart a moral criteria to it all.
You see, my view is that one is only really entitled to do or hold to positions that are truthful and righteous. That we can hold to other positions is obvious, I don't say that we can't do so, only that I don't believe that we're entitled to do so (and, hence, why I think that only righteous disagreement is proper disagreement).
Still, despite all of that, I don't disagree with my govenment's attempt to do certain things, this GPS issue as an example. It's their constitutionally mandated respnsibility to provide for the defense of the US. If that means that they influence other countries into helping the US maintian an advantage, so be it. Their responsibility is to protect the US, not France, not the UK, not etc, etc, etc. (but I still believe it has to be done in a moral way).
Kissinger, huh?
Had to reach WAAAYYYY back for that one...
Except we're right and you're just wrong. Other than that, it evens out.
Liberal? Conservative? When did I mention or even hint at either class?
If you had bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd find that I did neither. What I did comment on was his explanation of our election system and how the reality of it is lost on a lot of the Slashdot crowd.
It is you who assumed that I was making a political comment. In fact, I was making a comment about how everyone seems to think that our government is all about the majority of people voting a certain way. It is not. We are, again, a representative republic, not a democracy. Granted, there are democratic principles at the core of our government, but we are not a complete democracry.
And, I'm glad we're not. People like you are the reason why.
DEAD WOOD comes to mind again...get a brain and learn how to respond to what people write, not what you think their beliefs are. That you assume, and assume too much, is obvious.
But, since you brought it up, I don't sit around going "GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THESE FUCKING LIBERALS", I sit around going "GOD, I WISH ALL THESE FUCKING LIBERALS WOULD GO THE FUCK AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING ANNOYING MORONS."
Regards.
And I'll post it again...if you don't agree with what I wrote, RESPOND TO IT. Modding a post to nothing (from a 1 point, now there's a difficult thing to do) isn't a rebuttal.
-------
One just has to wonder...
You're concerned about your children's use of a computer, and you're asking the *slashdot* crowd?
Why? You don't have the faintest idea of who these people actually are, yet you're asking them for advice on what to do with your children. These poeple *are* children, and though some that respond are adults, you'll never know the truth about who they really are.
I'd personally recommend that you find another way to get some assistance...
One just has to wonder...
You're concerned about your children's use of a computer, and you're asking the *slashdot* crowd?
Why? You don't have the faintest idea of who these people actually are, yet you're asking them for advice on what to do with your children. These poeple *are* children, and though some that respond are adults, you'll never know the truth about who they really are.
I'd personally recommend that you find another way to get some assistance...
Good job stating the truth...now if it would only matter to this crowd.
You point is 100% accurate, but, unfortunately, you're talking to dead wood. Notice how the concept of a majority vote is constantly repeated, with no recognition that we are not a democracy, we're a representative republic.
Anyway, it's nice to see that there are a few individuals on here that have a brain!
Cya...
...have gas heating for my house...
:)
Ahh, but...you're forgetting that the fan is powered by electricity.
It's ok, you can panic now. We won't watch...
Whatever, I'm ending here. I have better things to do than argue with someone who apparently doesn't even believe that he's conscious.
Saying to slow down IS coming to a conclusion.........
...what is interesting in this discussion is not what we would do with the AI...
Ok, first...we're not talking about something that requires an immediate decision. Second, saying slow down isn't coming to the same type of conclusion that we're discussing. Your association is invalid.
We would have to take a decision. We could say "yes", "no" or "we'll think about it and, when we'll feel like it, we'll give you an answer" (which in practice is equivalent to "no").
Your rhetoric is quite annoying. I'm not suggesting a "when we'll feel like it" approach. I'm suggesting a well thought out approach that accounts for reality, not anthropomorphic appearance.
I have to do some anthropomorphism.
Which, of course, is only valid if this thing is truly human-like. Not it "looks or behaves human" but that it is actually holds those qualities in reality. I believe it won't, it never will, and that it remains simply a machine that at most will have the appearance of life, not true life. If it somehow really lives, then I'll hold a different appearance, but to think that that would be the case violates a basic biological premise, namely that life only comes from life. Are you suggesting that this premise is invalid? If so, on what facts would you base your opposition? If you don't suggest that it's invalid, why do you hold that somehow life would be real in these machines?
Maybe not in the sense of how we would use the AI to benefit existence. But this is a discussion about what we would do with the AI in the sense of what privileges we will allow it. Privileges that have a good possibility, to me, of impacting my own rights.
It's the same kind of question as "if your wife was sick, would you steal to get her medecine?" that we did in high school.
No, they're really not close. One's wife is his equal, another human. The question that you present is a moral question of trying to maintain someones existing life. The question with AI is whether it can ever be alive in the first place. Apples and oranges.
If we said "no" to the AI there is a probability he'll try to kill us....
Based on what information? The entire paragraph you just wrote is complete science-fiction and assumption. Been watching a lot of the SciFi channel? You might consider taking a break...
And the worst would be if we did succeed in destroying all AI. You see, humanity is always seeking enemies. We compete to be the one on top and we certainly don't play fair. We form alliances to be stronger and, once we are, we are not afraid to do whatever it takes to stay on top. There will always be an enemy and a war to win. Now, what would happen if we win a war against AIs? Who will be the next enemies? I guess other humans. So here we are, used to see "things" begging for their lives (probably feeling joy when one of our hunt is sucessful), and suddenly thinking that black people are not as equal as white people.
I believe the worst would be giving non-living things the same rights as living things. By doing so you are actually marginalizing the rights of the living things.
And, I'll point out, again, the invalid moral equivalency. It is yet to be established whether AI could even live, yet you're equating not giving them rights with racism. The first question must be answered first.
OTOH religion is about dogmas and faith. Science says if you have questions try to answer them by yourself, religion says we have answer and you better not question them.
Maybe most, but not my religion. I've been taught to question and to hold to that which is right. "Test everything, and hold on to that which is good."
That a lot of people don't do this only shows that *some* religion holds to dogma for the sake of holding to dogma.
It means that what w
So what do we do with it?...Which one is the best for humanity?
...self-given rights
Bing! Bing! Bing! You're asking the same questions I did, though many seem to have already come to a conclusion, despite the fact that this is virgin ground.
Again, I say slow down.
That's what we do all the time.
So therefore it's OK?
What should we trust? Science or religion?
I believe that they are not mutually exclusive. It is clear to me that religion deals with the metaphysical, yet science is confined to the physical. The two are not necessarily incompatable in my view, but I'm not one that belives that the physical is all there is and there are many out there that believe otherwise.
Ok, guess it's time for some high school level philosophy!
For whom? We'll find out who gets "schooled".
I guess not so self awareness is real but it's certainly not reality.
You just made a nonsense statement.
I would desperately say yes, of course!
Based on what? If our mind is just the manifestation of the electrochemical processes that are in the brain, how would you transfer it? If it's not, if there's something more to it than the physical, then that clearly argues for the metaphysical. Which is it?
Of course, I'll go back to the assertion I've been making: WE DON'T KNOW. But there are those out there that will take blind action despite this fact. I'm totally opposed to that.
I don't know but... does it really matters?
Ummm...yes...that's what this is all about. What are we, what is life, what is a mind, what constitutes that which is deserving of rights. I guess you missed that whole concept, huh?
So what the fuck am I?
I'm thinking I know the answer, but I'll keep it to myself...
If one day a machine is stronger than we are it will give itself rights and there's nothing we could do to stop it.
Of course, whether that happens is yet to be seen. Apparently that won't stop people from giving it a kick-start anyway.
You assume explanations.
Did you learn this or assume it?
There's no such thing as universal rights or wrongs.
First, the vast amount of humanity that has existed differs with you on this.
Second, if you really believe this to be true, then act accordingly. Of course, you won't. Despite what some people say, it is unavoidable that everyone has a sense of justice, fair play, morality. People's morality may differ to some extent, but it is there nonetheless.
If you disagree, then why are you trying to convence others that it is right to give machines "rights"? If there is no absolute morality, why make the argument at all, because, of course, in that case there is no difference. You can say there are no absolute morals, but the actions of all people, yourself included, speaks differently.
You believe you are some kind of superior thing no matter what.
First, of course I do, but it doesn't extend to "no matter what". I don't belive I am suprerior to other humans. I certainly do belive I am superior to a rock.
If you feel like a rock is your equal, then I won't challange you on that. Obviously I believe differently for myself.
"self-given" huh? "...that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That pretty much sums up where I think my rights come from, and, obvously, I'm not referring to myself with the use of that quote. I don't belive that I'm self created.
I don't think being a follower is something desirable.
Yet another point where you and I differ. I don't belive that following is itself inherently bad, and I certainly won't go against the grain just to say that I'm going aga
At this point, all I can say is "damn"...
:)
The assumptions that you all are working off of are incredible. From what deserves rights, to what I think and what I'm doing...it apparently has no end.
I'll go through the points one by one, as best my time permits:
Why not?
Because there are these little things called consequences to our actions. This requires much greater thought than to just say "well, it looks like it's alive, so we should give it some privileges". Be careful not to anthropomorphize.
The human brain is nothing but an analog computer with a self modifying architecture....The cells in the brain are no more self aware than a logic gate.....There is no "mind" in the brain, that is an abstraction reflecting the difficulty in describing it's function in simple terms....etc,etc,etc.
The arrogance contained in these statements is amazing, though they shouldn't seem so incredible to me, considering that we are on Slashdot, and everyone here seems to know it all.
However, I contend that we DON'T, and that we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly.
Despite the categorical statements above, the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer". It is a part of a living being, made up of cells. Cells, I might add, that we don't even fully understand. To state that "this is all "x" is" in any situation is to grossly oversimplify. Nothing in our existence is "simple", everything is much more complex than everyone would like to admit.
How does one know there is no mind in the brain? Has it been discovered what the mind actually is? Of course not. We know some nuances of the workings of the mind, but we do not know what it really is.
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real. At what point does/did this happen? Com'on, admit it. WE DON'T KNOW.
this is what human philosphers have been debating for millenia, what is life, why are we here, and all of the points you raised above.
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
since people have these exact same problems, should we have no rights as well
Of course, if you read on you would have seen that I assert otherwise.
you assumed it right?
No, I assumed nothing. It became painfully obvious to me when, as a child, I tried to exert my will over someone else. Just like all children, I learned that they did exist, and they existed on the same plane as I did. It was learned, not assumed.
so should I torture you mercilessly and end your life
Give it a shot...we'll see if you're even capable. Of course, I have nothing to worry about...you're advocating giving rights to a machine. How much more secure, then, are my rights as your human equal?
beliefs like that is why slavery existed, why Jews and many other minority groups have died, those beliefs are sadistic...but I think I will know it when I see it...you seem more comfortable damning an entire new form of sentient entities into potential slavery...You are the people that hold humanity back, and slow us from recognizing our potential.
Again...anthropomorphizing. To the EXTREME. It *looks* like it's alive, so we better treat is as such. This is a very simplistic approach, and dangerous.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing. And, how is it that my advocating not giving rights to a machine is holding humanity back? How, exactly, does this come about? Certainly you don't think a machine is human do you?
Our domain is the sun and the stars and all of creation
At this point, all I can say is "damn"...
:)
The assumptions that you all are working off of are incredible. From what deserves rights, to what I think and what I'm doing...it apparently has no end.
I'll go through the points one by one, as best my time permits:
Why not?
Because there are these little things called consequences to our actions. This requires much greater thought than to just say "well, it looks like it's alive, so we should give it some privileges". Be careful not to anthropomorphize.
The human brain is nothing but an analog computer with a self modifying architecture....The cells in the brain are no more self aware than a logic gate.....There is no "mind" in the brain, that is an abstraction reflecting the difficulty in describing it's function in simple terms....etc,etc,etc.
The arrogance contained in these statements is amazing, though they shouldn't seem so incredible to me, considering that we are on Slashdot, and everyone here seems to know it all.
However, I contend that we DON'T, and that we shouldn't go jumping into things that we really don't understand so quickly.
Despite the categorical statements above, the human brain isn't "nothing more than an analog computer". It is a part of a living being, made up of cells. Cells, I might add, that we don't even fully understand. To state that "this is all "x" is" in any situation is to grossly oversimplify. Nothing in our existence is "simple", everything is much more complex than everyone would like to admit.
How does one know there is no mind in the brain? Has it been discovered what the mind actually is? Of course not. We know some nuances of the workings of the mind, but we do not know what it really is.
I'll agree that the individual cells in the brain are not self aware, but, clearly, at some point self awareness is real. At what point does/did this happen? Com'on, admit it. WE DON'T KNOW.
this is what human philosphers have been debating for millenia, what is life, why are we here, and all of the points you raised above.
And we STILL don't know. Yet you're going to haphazardly assume you do, and then act to give a machine rights. Amazing.
since people have these exact same problems, should we have no rights as well
Of course, if you read on you would have seen that I assert otherwise.
you assumed it right
No, I assumed nothing. It became painfully obvious to me when, as a child, I tried to exert my will over someone else. Just like all children, I learned that they did exist, and they existed on the same plane as I did. It was learned, not assumed.
so should I torture you mercilessly and end your life
Give it a shot...we'll see if you're even capable. Of course, I have nothing to worry about...you're advocating giving rights to a machine. How much more secure, then, are my rights as your human equal?
beliefs like that is why slavery existed, why Jews and many other minority groups have died, those beliefs are sadistic...but I think I will know it when I see it...you seem more comfortable damning an entire new form of sentient entities into potential slavery...You are the people that hold humanity back, and slow us from recognizing our potential.
Again...anthropomorphizing. To the EXTREME. It *looks* like it's alive, so we better treat is as such. This is a very simplistic approach, and dangerous.
The assumptions are astounding. That the machine would be truly sentient, that not giving it rights is morally bad, the equivocation with true moral atrocities... Amazing. And, how is it that my advocating not giving rights to a machine is holding humanity back? How, exactly, does this come about? Certainly you don't think a machine is human do
I'd like to belive that there aren't others out there like you, but obviously there are.
So you'd grant them the right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness"?
Well...before you go granting a machine the same status as a human, or even an animal, I'd like to see you tell me what true "life" really is. What about "liberty"? What does that mean to a machine? And then, of course, what is "happiness" to a machine, and how would you know you would really want the results of that, if it could even exist?
I'll admit that people that advocate giving rights to machines scare me. Not because I fear that they are a threat to me physically, but because it is clear to me that the above answers have no clear definition yet. We don't really know what they are, and, therefore, these people are moving blindly into an area where they have no business being.
We do know that rights apply to us; clearly we have "life". I'm not talking about a simplistic definition that everyone seems to work off of...it is clear to me that those definitions are woefully incomplete. But, to go extending this to a machine, and make no mistake, that is what it is and nothing more, is to jump into the relm of foolishness.
I agree with some of what you wrote, but I disagree with other parts of what you wrote.
All of that is moot at this point, because you decided to throw an insult instead of talk. You had me listening until you threw in "I shouldn't expect you to actually read the Constitution."
For your information, I have read the constitution, many times. Just because I admitted that I'm network engineer and not a constitutional scholar doen't mean that I haven't taken the time to try and understand any of it.
And...I also spent, what was it, oh, only around 10 years in the military.
You apparantly are "wasting [your] time" at this point, but that's because of your attitude, not mine.
Asshole.
it appears that you're assuming I was commenting on the "prior restraint" part...which I wasn't. The only thing I was responding to was the "government rights" part as I don't really have an opinion yet on prior restraint.
Though I do see a difference between "rights" and "powers", I also see a lack of practical difference as well. Take the following for example (somewhat relevant for our time):
The People grant the Government the Power to wage war.
Now, what power is useful without the right to exercise it? No power is. It requres not only the ability, but the authority, or right, to take the action. The authority is delegated by the people, and they retain the right to revoke that authority (or right), as they hold (in theory) ultimate control over the government. However, they still grant a portion of their "inalienable" (cannot be taken away from them, but it seems that one can certainly freely relenquish it) "rights" to another entity.
The word "secure" does not mean the same thing as "grant". Governments can grant privileges but they cannot grant rights.
This sentence, in context, makes no sense. The first part doesn't apply to anything either you or I wrote. The second part was never suggested by me, as I suggested that the People granted (or "freely relinquished") certain of their rights to the government, not the reverse.
Now, to prior restraint. I still don't have an opinion on it yet, and I'm not going to address what you wrote, except to make one note:
It seems to me that the government's response in your posting is within the limits of their rights/powers/etc, in that the government basically admits that one must "incorporate", "hire...employees", etc. before they believed it relevant. Interestingly, it appears to me that the only rights/powers/what-ever-you-want-to-call-it that the US government could legally exercise falls under one of two categories:
- Secure the common defense, or
- Effect commerce
Looks to me that #2 is applicable to the government's response, which, paraphrased, might read something like this:
DJB: I wrote some information and would like to publish it. If I did, would you prosecute?
GOV: We might. But you should have a hand in some commerce before that's a relevant question ( because otherwise we don't have the right to do so).
Again, just my $0.02. I am not a constitutional scholar...just a network engineer.