Pretty much the same on drugs and the UK. Abortion isn't a liberal/conservative issue—it's an issue that politicians state an opinion on that agrees with their base; what they actually think is anybody's guess. Communism? He's taking a pretty firm stance with Putin, who appears to be trying to revive the worst aspects of the Soviet Union, but of course that's complicated by issues that are new in the intervening years. Unions? Pretty much the same.
It's interesting though that you didn't ask about monetary policy, regulation, energy policy, or any major issues—you really tightened down on some pretty minor stuff.
No, we shouldn't. It's like the trolly dilemma. Ethicists who are too in love with their own intellect tend to think that it's answerable, but it's not, because nobody is ever actually in a situation where they know the potential outcomes in the way the trolly dilemma needs them to. A super-complicated ethical algorithm is actually more likely to cause needless injury than prevent it, because it will be failure-prone and will often guess wrong. Better to do the simplest "don't run into things" algorithm you can manage. This is practicable in real life because the computer has a tremendous amount of data about things that are available to hit. Suppose there is a pedestrian close enough to the curb to jump out in front of the car. Chances are that the car knows the pedestrian is there, and what the car should be doing is making sure that there is room for it to stop if the pedestrian does jump out. If you look at the recent Google car demo, that's exactly what it does.
Really, you should write an article about all the fun people will have dancing with cars that have no choice but to slow down to avoid hitting them. It will be the next bit anti-1%er protest fad.
Think of it as evolution in action. But seriously, the car will be able to see your dog and avoid it, whereas a driver won't, because the driver doesn't have eyes down at the wheel level on the side of the car.
He knows that he will have to live with any intelligence failures that occur on his watch, and he's the kind of person who really will live with it, and not just blow it off. So he needn't have learned anything at all after coming into office. His circumstances have changed, so his positions have changed. Do you have any idea how much pressure presidents with any brain at all are under once they take office? Even Bush Jr. eventually buckled under the weight of the office, and he was about as oblivious as any president in recent history. Look at how all of the presidents since Nixon aged after taking office. It's not pretty. I don't like what Obama has changed his mind on, but I think it pays to be realistic about this. We are much more likely to get leadership out of a good congress than a good president, because each individual member has less on the line. Unfortunately, we didn't elect a good congress.
No, he really is. Have you read his books? Reagan is his personal hero. You think he's less conservative than Reagan because the Overton window (look it up!) has moved so far to the right that the Republicans have had to repudiate every sensible policy they ever supported. Nowadays there are people in congress trying to move things to the left again, but Reagan^H^H^H^H^H^HObama is resisting as best he can.
Ironically, the actionable intelligence we had prior to the marathon bombing came from Russia, and we disregarded it because our own data collection was erroneous and suggested that the intelligence Russia gave us was inaccurate (which it was not).
I'm an independent voter, and I voted for Obama, because the alternative was worse. I am not happy with his performance on this and several other important policy areas, but he has done a much better job than McCain/Palin would have, IMHO. What frustrates me is that my friends in both parties never seem to be interested in the primary elections (I will register democrat or republican as needed to sway the primary I think most needs swaying), and also seem to think that it's all on Obama. Note TFA, which puts at least half the blame on Congress, where it belongs. We elect Congress too. And yet so very few people bother to show up for mid-term elections, and we wind up with radical nutballs as a result.
Yes, THIS. Mod parent up. People complain about two bad choices, but voter turnout in the primaries is pathetic, and that's where those two bad choices came from!
The Google Car is likely to _see_ the dog and _avoid_ it rather than hitting it. This is current technology. Same with the child. Robots aren't competent in the way TFA criticizes, but they do do some things really well, much better than humans. Keeping track of a shitload of available data, seeing in the dark, etc, these are things self-driving cars will likely do better than humans. The Google Car also won't speed through a neighborhood with a low speed limit.
I expect to see a substantial reduction in accidents when these cars become ubiquitous. That is the most ethical part of the self-driving car, and the one we should all be looking forward to.
The irony is that he's 180 degrees off from the main problem with his story, which is that he thinks robots are magic too. The reason robots will not be making ethical decisions is that they can't, not only because getting them to reason ethically would require us to agree on a system of ethics for them to follow, but because even if they had such a system, they don't have enough data to act on it with the degree of accuracy that would be required for the premise of the article to make sense. The author essentially assumes that these car-driving robots will be omniscient, or that they will be able to trust the omniscience of the robots in other cars with which they are communicating. The first supposition is nonsensical; the second is unlikely to be true, for the same reason that video game cheats are a problem.
Er, no, universal health care was put into place by Bismarck as a means for controlling disease, not out of a desire to promote socialism. Hitler tried to abolish it, but this was so strongly opposed that he gave up. I think you have been reading to much anti-obamacare propaganda—apparently the idea that Hitler is the father of socialized medicine has been floated in a desperate attempt to make Obamacare look bad. But it's completely ahistorical. As are the other points you mentioned—all of those things were put in place in Bismarck's time, not Hitler's time.
Seriously? Hitler was a socialist? No, the term "socialism" was co-opted by the Nazis to create a right-wing alternative to actual socialism, which was ascendant at the time. There is nothing remotely socialist about Nazism. E.g., Nazism was very much pro-private-property, and anti-equality.
Pinochet was left-wing? The Shah of Iran was left-wing? Saudi Arabia is left-wing? Putin is left-wing? Anyway, "left-wing" is a really stupid concept to mix with "totalitarian," because most of the supposedly left-wing states you refer to were left-wing in name only. Like, I bet you think Stalin's USSR was left-wing, and that China is left-wing, and North Korea is left-wing. But of course they are not.
Right. That's why you have to vote in the primary and ideally be active in the primary. Because if we keep not voting in primaries, and not paying attention to who's running, we're going to keep getting two bad choices. The two bad choices don't just come out of nowhere, you know.
What you said doesn't even make sense. Votes are what elects representatives. You have a vote. If you are like most people, you don't vote in the primary election, which is the _only_ time that your vote has any hope of making a difference most of the time. And if you are like most people, you probably routinely vote against your self-interest, because people with a lot of money have used propaganda techniques on you, and you don't know enough to realize you've been snookered. I mean, I hope you're one of the smart ones who doesn't fall into these traps, but on average, you are, and that is why we get representatives who work for the people who bankroll them instead of the people who vote for them.
That argument would make more sense if it were the case right now that you have the same access as a lobbyist. The point the OP is making is that if I ask you do to X, and pay you Y, that could be seen as bribery. If I just ask you to do X, and don't pay you, that's not bribery.
That's probably more of a saving grace than a problem. It's prevented a lot of evil deeds in the past; would be nice to think it could prevent some more in the future.
I wish I were. I don't know that that's actually what's motivating this, and I certainly hope it's not. But the idea of zombies as an unsubtle metaphor for the proletariat is well trodden and more plausible than I would prefer. Of course, they also make for really good fiction. I recommend Mira Grant's Newsflesh series, and Carrie Ryan's The Forest Of Hands And Teeth, both of which have some genuinely hair-raisingly scary bits that made my hands sweat.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much the same on drugs and the UK. Abortion isn't a liberal/conservative issue—it's an issue that politicians state an opinion on that agrees with their base; what they actually think is anybody's guess. Communism? He's taking a pretty firm stance with Putin, who appears to be trying to revive the worst aspects of the Soviet Union, but of course that's complicated by issues that are new in the intervening years. Unions? Pretty much the same.
It's interesting though that you didn't ask about monetary policy, regulation, energy policy, or any major issues—you really tightened down on some pretty minor stuff.
No, we shouldn't. It's like the trolly dilemma. Ethicists who are too in love with their own intellect tend to think that it's answerable, but it's not, because nobody is ever actually in a situation where they know the potential outcomes in the way the trolly dilemma needs them to. A super-complicated ethical algorithm is actually more likely to cause needless injury than prevent it, because it will be failure-prone and will often guess wrong. Better to do the simplest "don't run into things" algorithm you can manage. This is practicable in real life because the computer has a tremendous amount of data about things that are available to hit. Suppose there is a pedestrian close enough to the curb to jump out in front of the car. Chances are that the car knows the pedestrian is there, and what the car should be doing is making sure that there is room for it to stop if the pedestrian does jump out. If you look at the recent Google car demo, that's exactly what it does.
Really, you should write an article about all the fun people will have dancing with cars that have no choice but to slow down to avoid hitting them. It will be the next bit anti-1%er protest fad.
Think of it as evolution in action. But seriously, the car will be able to see your dog and avoid it, whereas a driver won't, because the driver doesn't have eyes down at the wheel level on the side of the car.
He knows that he will have to live with any intelligence failures that occur on his watch, and he's the kind of person who really will live with it, and not just blow it off. So he needn't have learned anything at all after coming into office. His circumstances have changed, so his positions have changed. Do you have any idea how much pressure presidents with any brain at all are under once they take office? Even Bush Jr. eventually buckled under the weight of the office, and he was about as oblivious as any president in recent history. Look at how all of the presidents since Nixon aged after taking office. It's not pretty. I don't like what Obama has changed his mind on, but I think it pays to be realistic about this. We are much more likely to get leadership out of a good congress than a good president, because each individual member has less on the line. Unfortunately, we didn't elect a good congress.
No, he really is. Have you read his books? Reagan is his personal hero. You think he's less conservative than Reagan because the Overton window (look it up!) has moved so far to the right that the Republicans have had to repudiate every sensible policy they ever supported. Nowadays there are people in congress trying to move things to the left again, but Reagan^H^H^H^H^H^HObama is resisting as best he can.
Ironically, the actionable intelligence we had prior to the marathon bombing came from Russia, and we disregarded it because our own data collection was erroneous and suggested that the intelligence Russia gave us was inaccurate (which it was not).
I'm an independent voter, and I voted for Obama, because the alternative was worse. I am not happy with his performance on this and several other important policy areas, but he has done a much better job than McCain/Palin would have, IMHO. What frustrates me is that my friends in both parties never seem to be interested in the primary elections (I will register democrat or republican as needed to sway the primary I think most needs swaying), and also seem to think that it's all on Obama. Note TFA, which puts at least half the blame on Congress, where it belongs. We elect Congress too. And yet so very few people bother to show up for mid-term elections, and we wind up with radical nutballs as a result.
Yes, THIS. Mod parent up. People complain about two bad choices, but voter turnout in the primaries is pathetic, and that's where those two bad choices came from!
We're definitely just making shit up. What's your point? :)
The Google Car is likely to _see_ the dog and _avoid_ it rather than hitting it. This is current technology. Same with the child. Robots aren't competent in the way TFA criticizes, but they do do some things really well, much better than humans. Keeping track of a shitload of available data, seeing in the dark, etc, these are things self-driving cars will likely do better than humans. The Google Car also won't speed through a neighborhood with a low speed limit.
I expect to see a substantial reduction in accidents when these cars become ubiquitous. That is the most ethical part of the self-driving car, and the one we should all be looking forward to.
The irony is that he's 180 degrees off from the main problem with his story, which is that he thinks robots are magic too. The reason robots will not be making ethical decisions is that they can't, not only because getting them to reason ethically would require us to agree on a system of ethics for them to follow, but because even if they had such a system, they don't have enough data to act on it with the degree of accuracy that would be required for the premise of the article to make sense. The author essentially assumes that these car-driving robots will be omniscient, or that they will be able to trust the omniscience of the robots in other cars with which they are communicating. The first supposition is nonsensical; the second is unlikely to be true, for the same reason that video game cheats are a problem.
Er, no, universal health care was put into place by Bismarck as a means for controlling disease, not out of a desire to promote socialism. Hitler tried to abolish it, but this was so strongly opposed that he gave up. I think you have been reading to much anti-obamacare propaganda—apparently the idea that Hitler is the father of socialized medicine has been floated in a desperate attempt to make Obamacare look bad. But it's completely ahistorical. As are the other points you mentioned—all of those things were put in place in Bismarck's time, not Hitler's time.
Seriously? Hitler was a socialist? No, the term "socialism" was co-opted by the Nazis to create a right-wing alternative to actual socialism, which was ascendant at the time. There is nothing remotely socialist about Nazism. E.g., Nazism was very much pro-private-property, and anti-equality.
Pinochet was left-wing? The Shah of Iran was left-wing? Saudi Arabia is left-wing? Putin is left-wing? Anyway, "left-wing" is a really stupid concept to mix with "totalitarian," because most of the supposedly left-wing states you refer to were left-wing in name only. Like, I bet you think Stalin's USSR was left-wing, and that China is left-wing, and North Korea is left-wing. But of course they are not.
Right. That's why you have to vote in the primary and ideally be active in the primary. Because if we keep not voting in primaries, and not paying attention to who's running, we're going to keep getting two bad choices. The two bad choices don't just come out of nowhere, you know.
That's certainly a problem with military dynasties. How it would play out in practice, I'd prefer not to find out.
What you said doesn't even make sense. Votes are what elects representatives. You have a vote. If you are like most people, you don't vote in the primary election, which is the _only_ time that your vote has any hope of making a difference most of the time. And if you are like most people, you probably routinely vote against your self-interest, because people with a lot of money have used propaganda techniques on you, and you don't know enough to realize you've been snookered. I mean, I hope you're one of the smart ones who doesn't fall into these traps, but on average, you are, and that is why we get representatives who work for the people who bankroll them instead of the people who vote for them.
I hope you are voting in the Republican primary and not being proud and voting in the Democratic primary.
That argument would make more sense if it were the case right now that you have the same access as a lobbyist. The point the OP is making is that if I ask you do to X, and pay you Y, that could be seen as bribery. If I just ask you to do X, and don't pay you, that's not bribery.
It's a metaphor, son. A metaphor.
Money can only buy our votes, not our government. Which is why we citizen zombies should wake up and smell the brains. Or something like that.
That's probably more of a saving grace than a problem. It's prevented a lot of evil deeds in the past; would be nice to think it could prevent some more in the future.
I wish I were. I don't know that that's actually what's motivating this, and I certainly hope it's not. But the idea of zombies as an unsubtle metaphor for the proletariat is well trodden and more plausible than I would prefer. Of course, they also make for really good fiction. I recommend Mira Grant's Newsflesh series, and Carrie Ryan's The Forest Of Hands And Teeth, both of which have some genuinely hair-raisingly scary bits that made my hands sweat.
Whiner. :)
Er, actually the above is half an answer, and turns out to be wrong in its explanation, although not in its conclusion. Math is hard.