Lol.. Great, now instead of waiting for the media to do mass polling to determine the course of government, we can have the government do directly to the people and allow them to answer as many times as they like.
Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.
In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy. They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.
By not collecting the winnings, you have just removed a large portion of the motivation to participate in the first place.
As for winnings showing the opposite, we lack enough information to know for sure. If 1 million people are winning the 33 million, then it's $33 a piece. But if they lost $300 in order to win the $33, then that's a little lopsided now isn't it? Now if that loss was because of scams like robot players at the table or people seeing different cards at the same table (suppose we both had an ace and an eight but the game showed each of us as the opponent as having a higher hand making us both think we lost as to pocket the difference). Or worse yet, suppose your at a hold'em table and I am on the phone with 3 other players at the table. We can manipulate the bid in an attempt to maximize out winning by sharing who has what and splitting the winnings later.
Most state also encode maximum speed limits into laws concerning certain types of roads. For instance, in my area, an unmarked country road outside the city limits is 45 mph. A numbered highway is 55 MPH unless it is divided with limited access and then it is 65 MPH. Of course these change when within the city limits of any municipal incorporation or village.
Anyways, the limit may already be imposed as to what is unreasonable by state law, reinforcing what you said.
Seriously, the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control. Almost everyone I know who does online gambling says they do it "to win" and not for "entertainment" or "to pass the time". Of course I know a lot of people who will brag about spending $200 to win $50 and think they are getting somewhere. It's like another guy I know who used to spend his entire paycheck on instant lottery tickets. He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run. If there is no collecting of the winnings, then a lot of the gamblers move on or stop.
Think of it like removing all the food and furniture in the house to get your in laws (or grown kids) to move to somewhere else. As long as they're happy they will stay forever, but as soon as they get uncomfortable, they hightail it to somewhere else.
A law doesn't have to make it to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional. That can happen at the trial court and it would be up to the state to show it wasn't unconstitutional and an error was made in order to make it to the supreme court.
Of course it can go to the supreme court which is costly but it doesn't have to. Chances are, if it's found unconstitutional in a lower court, civil rights groups will help take it to the supreme court to keep it that way if necessary.
If the law brought about changes in your behavior, it effected you in the same ways you effect change. This is deeper then your origins being deeper then legislation.
Is prohibiting personal possession of a few ounces of marijuana "necessary and proper" for regulating interstate commerce? I think it's not. Congress, The President, and The Supreme Court thinks it is. Who's being unreasonable?
Are you arguing vague or reasonable? Everyone knows that the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in the 1930's as a response to Roosevelt's ignoring them with the new deal legislation that was determined to be unconstitutional. Roosevelt knew it was unconstitutional, pushed for it, got it, and told the Supreme court to fuck off and make him end it when they found it unconstitutional. Remember, you were responding to my claim "This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution.". Obviously it shows that they aren't.
Why did the Supreme Court order a rehearing of Brown v. Board of Education and related cases on the grounds of determining what was intended by the 14th Amendment, only to not reach any real conclusion? ("This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced.")
first of all, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and Brown v. Board of Education was tried in 1954, almost 100 years apart and it had problems ranging from effecting the solution to the courts orders for the solution. That is the reason it looks unclear and that there was 3 or 4 entries over it. But the courts did say that all citizens had the same constitutional rights.
Is capital punishment "cruel and unusual"? What about for witchcraft (for which at least one person was hung around the time of the nation's founding)? Counterfeiting (for which someone was hung in 1822)?
No, it is a common punishment allowed before, during, and after the constitution was created. Now as for witchcraft, we all know that is doesn't exist now, people weren't that smart back then, you can't pick apart something because of an entirely different mindset. Any laws against witchcraft (outside sacrifices) shouldn't even be on the books today and if they are, any sensible jury would ignore them.
Do the Bill of Rights apply to the states too? (My question is really "did they apply before the 14th amendment" since that's the basis for most of the incorporation.) What in the 5th amendment indicates that it is only a restriction on the federal government? I think nothing, and would argue that you don't need the 14th amendment to apply those restrictions to states. SCOTUS (in Barron v Baltimore) disagreed. Who's being unreasonable?
My understanding it that it did but people attempted to move away from constitution and the 14th was needed. Again, that was because of people not following it and ignoring the context, a living document if you will.
hat exactly is freedom of speech after all? After all, the Bill of Rights leaves nothing to interpretation seemingly -- "Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" -- yet libel and slander laws are basically not in question, nor are copyright laws, and the 1798 congress even passed the Alien and Sedition acts, so clearly even the founding fathers didn't agree on what the Constitution meant (or at least didn't respect it)
Freedom of speech is primarily speech that is useful. It is about any kind of speech even if it is just expression to a point that it doesn't unfairly detract from someone else. Slander and libel can only be prosecuted if either the intent is a lie or malicious with no value to society. Wearing a sign saying your mom had an abortion but you lived, could be technically true (she may have had one at sometime but not to end you), but the phrasing of that makes it appear denigrating to you as well
First, reasonable people can disagree about what the Constitution says. It isn't exactly lacking in vague wording.
Actually, it isn't vague at all. The problem there is that society has moved and definitions as well as writing styles have changed since the time of it's writing. This means that in order to understand the meanings, you have to get into the time it was written and verify it by the debate surrounding the clauses.
Second, just because the Constitution doesn't have a prohibition on a particular type of law doesn't mean it should still be allowed, at least IMO. That people would interpret the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list is why some founding fathers didn't WANT to have it. For instance, I feel that the result of Roe v Wade was the correct decision even though there's nothing in the Constitution explicitly to prevent anti-abortion laws.
The argument against the bill of rights was similar in both directions too. One common argument against the bill of right basically stated that the bill of right was unnecessary because the constitution specified what the Federal government was allowed to do and without it being allowed to do more, then obviously protecting people against what the government can't do is unnecessary.
I other words, the constitution itself was supposed to be the exclusive list of what the government was allowed or required to do where the bill of rights was the most obvious concerns over potential abuse.
Now, if the government would stick to their constitutional role and limits, a lot of the laws on the books would have been impossible to implement. Also the vagueness wouldn't have been an issue because lawmakers would all be informed of not only the meanings but the intent of the constitution and it's amendments.
I remember watching the news when Samuel Alito was being confirmed to the SCOTUS and they interviewed some California congress women who said they needed to take the hearing seriously because they can't have a court judge ruling everything congress does unconstitutional- congress can't do the work of the people that way. It's obvious to me that some need a refresher course in what the constitution is and what it means.
Just because the court doesn't see it the same as you doesn't mean the system is broke. It more likely you don't understand your free speech rights or rights to privacy.
I find that very few people are caused by laws, in genral. I suppose that one could argue that an over-turn of Roe vs Wade could effect people, but is much more likely for a law to affect someone.
You don't think many people are force to change their ways because of laws? Effect also means bring about. If the law doesn't bring about changes to your freedom, then it doesn't bring about changes to your freedoms.
Who does the blame lie with for these circumstances? The ISPs, or the city government?
The people, city and state governments. But only at their benefit which is why this isn't so important. If the ISP is there because of other agreements to benefit the community, then they can't or shouldn't take actions that counter that. It is the agreement that they benefited from all along after all.
Who is enforcing the monopoly?
Well, the answer actually goes through several agencies and government levels depending on the location and the path they took. However, the phone or cable company wasn't innocent within all this either, they competed in most cases to show that they would benefit the people the most. When they took the monopoly position by agreeing to do business in the area, they were also agreeing to benefit from it as it was supposed to benefit the public.
Should a company be forced to comply with government requests because the government is withholding property for its own purposes and creating the monopoly?
The government(S) don't just show up and say you are the only ones who can compete in this area. It seems like you might think that. What happens is that the government negotiates coverage to the benefit of the people they serve with the exclusive operations as the reward. Governments set up Utility commissions to regulate these entities and they also limit the rates they can charge too. They by their own agreement at some point in time agreed to service at the benefit of the people. In cases where competition hasn't displaced this scenario, that benefit needs to still be in place.
The solution is not to regulate the ISPs further, but to get rid of the regulation preventing competition from existing.
I agree, but where that hasn't happened, I'm against a company making a choice to not service certain customers based on nothing "legal" that hasn't be adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction.
The problem with that attitude is that by the time you can start the process of removing a bad law, it's already done damage. I'd prefer the approach where the stupidity isn't allowed to happen in the first place - no-one gets hurt and less resources are spent.
This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution. The constitution says they have to swear an oath to uphold and protect it as well as making it clear that all laws have to be in accordance with it. I suspect the founders assumed that the people making laws would have the limits placed on the constitution and that they would only do what they were allowed to do by the constitution instead of ignoring it or claiming it's alive and only means what they want it to mean.
Anyways, the system was already built in but we are no longer following the system close enough.
Also, if a law has no effect, then IMO it should be gotten rid of. It will still cause unnecessary overhead by having to be checked for effect in potentially related cases.
I agree. Currently outdated and useless laws end up on the books because the problem it was designed to address either isn't there anymore or because another law addresses it more effectivly. The end result is often someone claiming to be innocent and ending up going to court with 15 charges over the same act because the prosecutor hopes the jury will get frustrated and pick on. It's unfair to a proper defense and unfair to the truly innocent.
Let's say you wanted a "speech code" law overturned. The only way to do that, other than lobbying for the legislature to repeal the law, is to break the law by speaking in an illegal manner, and getting arrested. At this time, you now have recourse to try to get the law overturned. This is essentially what happened with the famous Scopes Trial. John Scopes intentionally broke the law by teaching evolution, for the purpose of testing the law in court.
It depends on the law and how it is written. A speech law forbiding someone who is normally doing something from doing it, would have cause for challenge without becoming in violation of it. It's when it isn't normally done that you need to break the law in order to get standing. Or in other words, you have to show that the law concerns you personally somehow. Often this is after a violation but isn't required to be.
A case in point, take the warrant-less wiretapping. Some think it was/is unconstitutional. You didn't have to violate the law to challenge it, you only had to show it affected you.
I would agree only to the extent that there are multiple ISP's in your area which aren't operating because of a grant of the public.
In many locations, the only high speed ISPs are those who have public utility status and therefore have access rights that get past some of the technical restrictions barring competitors. Cable internet and Phone company DSL are examples of this.
The difference here would be on the lack of adjudication. Any penalties imposed by a law has to have an adjudication where those effected can argue their innocence and contest the claims. There are even lines of thought that civil and punitive penalties outside the actual loss requires a criminal trial to fit with the constitution.
To be fair, if a law doesn't effect you, then it doesn't effect you.
Someone has to be effected by a law in order to show the application is unjust or contrary to other laws or unconstitutional. Otherwise there is no effect of the law and no reasons to get rid of it.
Not at all. But you are too ignorant to understand this. You are focusing narrowly on your own superstitious misconceptions of science. You are ignoring the other data that is available. All creationists do.
Then what did it say? I think you will find that when you attempt to explain it (if your even close to being up for the task) that you will have to repeat what I just said.
BTW, I have said nothing to indicate I'm a creationist. Either stick to what was said, it go troll somewhere else. Keep your own religion out of this. Two species not being linked by a common ancestor says nothing about creation, it only talks to the correct interpretation of science and the evidence at hand.
You are the one who doesn't understand, as you have clearly demonstrated.
Either start backing your claims up or shit up. My claim was rooted in science and practically copied from the works of Darwin and others thought to have been skilled in this area.
Typical creationist nonsense: Pick a single example and ignore all the other elements.
Yes, shoot the messenger and not the message. That's a real strong plank your standing on. Don't be surprised when it breaks and you bump your head and die. Hopefully it happens before you further contaminate the gene pool. And yes, that example was specific to the context of what was being said. However, I don't think you even remotely understand what was being said and instead resulted to your knee jerk defense of your religion. "oh my, someone is saying something constructive and encouraging debate over evolution. I must stop them, label them as a creationist, and preserve the written word exactly as it is stated today.".-- Why don't you grow up??
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that you are just yet another dishonest and ignorant creationist.
When everyone who doesn't agree with your good book has to be creationist to you, then only in your mind am I one. You have mentally fabricated this ideal that no one can ever discuss probabilities, the weight of the evidence, or the validity of claims over evolution otherwise they are attacking your faith. This isn't science at all, it isn't productive, and is in effect, you showing the same narrow minded traits that religions do in attempts to interpret their bibles in the creation of church doctrine. You are a religious fanatic who is too stupid to realize it.
I can't speak for any fanboy but if you would have looked into China Airlines Flight 140, you would know that a pilot pressed a button to tell the computer they were taking off or waving the landing in which the computer overridden the pilots compensation and caused an unrecoverable stall.
You can tell the computer X is happening and it will follow those rules(laws). But the flight you specifically mentioned went down because the computer (with bad input) countered the pilot's decisions.
I don't think we would ever allow that with human passengers.
Some Boeing systems (777 and 787 I think this way), I'm not sure if Airbus does or not, has the ability to completely take off, fly to predetermined destination, and land without human involvement other then to put nav coordinates into the system and give clearances for the runways.
Back in the 1970's or so, they were talking about building a freight hub and airport in the middles of lake Erie about 8 miles off the coast of Cleavland Ohio. Airports like that would be ideal for robotic cargo missions if we ever get past the fear of the computer crashing. Our love of computers and all the problems with PCs will probably play a big role in that never happening though. I'm not confident that the public in general can separate the Microsoft BSOD from something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. Great, now instead of waiting for the media to do mass polling to determine the course of government, we can have the government do directly to the people and allow them to answer as many times as they like.
Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.
In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy. They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.
It also coincided with my sister growing old enough to drink alcohol legally.
Do you think those are connected too or is it only what you can find an advantage to that connect causation to correlation and coincidence?
By not collecting the winnings, you have just removed a large portion of the motivation to participate in the first place.
As for winnings showing the opposite, we lack enough information to know for sure. If 1 million people are winning the 33 million, then it's $33 a piece. But if they lost $300 in order to win the $33, then that's a little lopsided now isn't it? Now if that loss was because of scams like robot players at the table or people seeing different cards at the same table (suppose we both had an ace and an eight but the game showed each of us as the opponent as having a higher hand making us both think we lost as to pocket the difference). Or worse yet, suppose your at a hold'em table and I am on the phone with 3 other players at the table. We can manipulate the bid in an attempt to maximize out winning by sharing who has what and splitting the winnings later.
Most state also encode maximum speed limits into laws concerning certain types of roads. For instance, in my area, an unmarked country road outside the city limits is 45 mph. A numbered highway is 55 MPH unless it is divided with limited access and then it is 65 MPH. Of course these change when within the city limits of any municipal incorporation or village.
Anyways, the limit may already be imposed as to what is unreasonable by state law, reinforcing what you said.
Dude, this is just change you can believe in.
Seriously, the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control. Almost everyone I know who does online gambling says they do it "to win" and not for "entertainment" or "to pass the time". Of course I know a lot of people who will brag about spending $200 to win $50 and think they are getting somewhere. It's like another guy I know who used to spend his entire paycheck on instant lottery tickets. He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run. If there is no collecting of the winnings, then a lot of the gamblers move on or stop.
Think of it like removing all the food and furniture in the house to get your in laws (or grown kids) to move to somewhere else. As long as they're happy they will stay forever, but as soon as they get uncomfortable, they hightail it to somewhere else.
A law doesn't have to make it to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional. That can happen at the trial court and it would be up to the state to show it wasn't unconstitutional and an error was made in order to make it to the supreme court.
Of course it can go to the supreme court which is costly but it doesn't have to. Chances are, if it's found unconstitutional in a lower court, civil rights groups will help take it to the supreme court to keep it that way if necessary.
Effect: to bring about
If the law brought about changes in your behavior, it effected you in the same ways you effect change. This is deeper then your origins being deeper then legislation.
Well, I said you had to show it affected you. The one case was thwarted by other means by they had standing.
So everything you don't agree with was written by a fanboy?
Interesting. I would suggest that it says more about you then anyone else.
Are you arguing vague or reasonable? Everyone knows that the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in the 1930's as a response to Roosevelt's ignoring them with the new deal legislation that was determined to be unconstitutional. Roosevelt knew it was unconstitutional, pushed for it, got it, and told the Supreme court to fuck off and make him end it when they found it unconstitutional. Remember, you were responding to my claim "This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution.". Obviously it shows that they aren't.
first of all, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and Brown v. Board of Education was tried in 1954, almost 100 years apart and it had problems ranging from effecting the solution to the courts orders for the solution. That is the reason it looks unclear and that there was 3 or 4 entries over it. But the courts did say that all citizens had the same constitutional rights.
No, it is a common punishment allowed before, during, and after the constitution was created. Now as for witchcraft, we all know that is doesn't exist now, people weren't that smart back then, you can't pick apart something because of an entirely different mindset. Any laws against witchcraft (outside sacrifices) shouldn't even be on the books today and if they are, any sensible jury would ignore them.
My understanding it that it did but people attempted to move away from constitution and the 14th was needed. Again, that was because of people not following it and ignoring the context, a living document if you will.
Freedom of speech is primarily speech that is useful. It is about any kind of speech even if it is just expression to a point that it doesn't unfairly detract from someone else. Slander and libel can only be prosecuted if either the intent is a lie or malicious with no value to society. Wearing a sign saying your mom had an abortion but you lived, could be technically true (she may have had one at sometime but not to end you), but the phrasing of that makes it appear denigrating to you as well
Actually, it isn't vague at all. The problem there is that society has moved and definitions as well as writing styles have changed since the time of it's writing. This means that in order to understand the meanings, you have to get into the time it was written and verify it by the debate surrounding the clauses.
The argument against the bill of rights was similar in both directions too. One common argument against the bill of right basically stated that the bill of right was unnecessary because the constitution specified what the Federal government was allowed to do and without it being allowed to do more, then obviously protecting people against what the government can't do is unnecessary.
I other words, the constitution itself was supposed to be the exclusive list of what the government was allowed or required to do where the bill of rights was the most obvious concerns over potential abuse.
Now, if the government would stick to their constitutional role and limits, a lot of the laws on the books would have been impossible to implement. Also the vagueness wouldn't have been an issue because lawmakers would all be informed of not only the meanings but the intent of the constitution and it's amendments.
I remember watching the news when Samuel Alito was being confirmed to the SCOTUS and they interviewed some California congress women who said they needed to take the hearing seriously because they can't have a court judge ruling everything congress does unconstitutional- congress can't do the work of the people that way. It's obvious to me that some need a refresher course in what the constitution is and what it means.
Just because the court doesn't see it the same as you doesn't mean the system is broke. It more likely you don't understand your free speech rights or rights to privacy.
You don't think many people are force to change their ways because of laws? Effect also means bring about. If the law doesn't bring about changes to your freedom, then it doesn't bring about changes to your freedoms.
To answer in line,
The people, city and state governments. But only at their benefit which is why this isn't so important. If the ISP is there because of other agreements to benefit the community, then they can't or shouldn't take actions that counter that. It is the agreement that they benefited from all along after all.
Well, the answer actually goes through several agencies and government levels depending on the location and the path they took. However, the phone or cable company wasn't innocent within all this either, they competed in most cases to show that they would benefit the people the most. When they took the monopoly position by agreeing to do business in the area, they were also agreeing to benefit from it as it was supposed to benefit the public.
The government(S) don't just show up and say you are the only ones who can compete in this area. It seems like you might think that. What happens is that the government negotiates coverage to the benefit of the people they serve with the exclusive operations as the reward. Governments set up Utility commissions to regulate these entities and they also limit the rates they can charge too. They by their own agreement at some point in time agreed to service at the benefit of the people. In cases where competition hasn't displaced this scenario, that benefit needs to still be in place.
I agree, but where that hasn't happened, I'm against a company making a choice to not service certain customers based on nothing "legal" that hasn't be adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction.
This isn't really a problem is the government would stick to their roles and follow the constitution. The constitution says they have to swear an oath to uphold and protect it as well as making it clear that all laws have to be in accordance with it. I suspect the founders assumed that the people making laws would have the limits placed on the constitution and that they would only do what they were allowed to do by the constitution instead of ignoring it or claiming it's alive and only means what they want it to mean.
Anyways, the system was already built in but we are no longer following the system close enough.
I agree. Currently outdated and useless laws end up on the books because the problem it was designed to address either isn't there anymore or because another law addresses it more effectivly. The end result is often someone claiming to be innocent and ending up going to court with 15 charges over the same act because the prosecutor hopes the jury will get frustrated and pick on. It's unfair to a proper defense and unfair to the truly innocent.
It depends on the law and how it is written. A speech law forbiding someone who is normally doing something from doing it, would have cause for challenge without becoming in violation of it. It's when it isn't normally done that you need to break the law in order to get standing. Or in other words, you have to show that the law concerns you personally somehow. Often this is after a violation but isn't required to be.
A case in point, take the warrant-less wiretapping. Some think it was/is unconstitutional. You didn't have to violate the law to challenge it, you only had to show it affected you.
I would agree only to the extent that there are multiple ISP's in your area which aren't operating because of a grant of the public.
In many locations, the only high speed ISPs are those who have public utility status and therefore have access rights that get past some of the technical restrictions barring competitors. Cable internet and Phone company DSL are examples of this.
The difference here would be on the lack of adjudication. Any penalties imposed by a law has to have an adjudication where those effected can argue their innocence and contest the claims. There are even lines of thought that civil and punitive penalties outside the actual loss requires a criminal trial to fit with the constitution.
To be fair, if a law doesn't effect you, then it doesn't effect you.
Someone has to be effected by a law in order to show the application is unjust or contrary to other laws or unconstitutional. Otherwise there is no effect of the law and no reasons to get rid of it.
I'm not sure that would stop someone from going to a user's comment page and simply following the link from there.
As for metamods, you need to know the context of the post. I don't think that would improve anything much.
Then what did it say? I think you will find that when you attempt to explain it (if your even close to being up for the task) that you will have to repeat what I just said.
BTW, I have said nothing to indicate I'm a creationist. Either stick to what was said, it go troll somewhere else. Keep your own religion out of this. Two species not being linked by a common ancestor says nothing about creation, it only talks to the correct interpretation of science and the evidence at hand.
Either start backing your claims up or shit up. My claim was rooted in science and practically copied from the works of Darwin and others thought to have been skilled in this area.
Yes, shoot the messenger and not the message. That's a real strong plank your standing on. Don't be surprised when it breaks and you bump your head and die. Hopefully it happens before you further contaminate the gene pool. And yes, that example was specific to the context of what was being said. However, I don't think you even remotely understand what was being said and instead resulted to your knee jerk defense of your religion. "oh my, someone is saying something constructive and encouraging debate over evolution. I must stop them, label them as a creationist, and preserve the written word exactly as it is stated today.".-- Why don't you grow up??
When everyone who doesn't agree with your good book has to be creationist to you, then only in your mind am I one. You have mentally fabricated this ideal that no one can ever discuss probabilities, the weight of the evidence, or the validity of claims over evolution otherwise they are attacking your faith. This isn't science at all, it isn't productive, and is in effect, you showing the same narrow minded traits that religions do in attempts to interpret their bibles in the creation of church doctrine. You are a religious fanatic who is too stupid to realize it.
didn't they change the numbering versions to where they don't do the specific numbered unstable anymore?
I can't speak for any fanboy but if you would have looked into China Airlines Flight 140, you would know that a pilot pressed a button to tell the computer they were taking off or waving the landing in which the computer overridden the pilots compensation and caused an unrecoverable stall.
You can tell the computer X is happening and it will follow those rules(laws). But the flight you specifically mentioned went down because the computer (with bad input) countered the pilot's decisions.
I don't think we would ever allow that with human passengers.
Some Boeing systems (777 and 787 I think this way), I'm not sure if Airbus does or not, has the ability to completely take off, fly to predetermined destination, and land without human involvement other then to put nav coordinates into the system and give clearances for the runways.
Back in the 1970's or so, they were talking about building a freight hub and airport in the middles of lake Erie about 8 miles off the coast of Cleavland Ohio. Airports like that would be ideal for robotic cargo missions if we ever get past the fear of the computer crashing. Our love of computers and all the problems with PCs will probably play a big role in that never happening though. I'm not confident that the public in general can separate the Microsoft BSOD from something like that.