I understand your reaction. My first thought was that only a monster would leave their child to be raised by a creepy bear robot. (Imagine when WindowsTDBR crashes - how's a child going to react to that?) But then I thought that only a monster *would* do that. Any parent who would think that doing something like that is ok, is going to have far bigger problems.
There is also a lot of potential in this kind of technology. Think something like the book in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. If we can find a way for toys to enhance a child's experience of the world, I think a lot of good could come of it. The problem is that as much harm could be done by a system that leads a child through a set of experiences. It isn't something we could feasibly do with present-day technology, but this isn't a shipping product, it's something in some lab somewhere. (What if it escapes?!!) It's something I would have to evalutate carefully before I gave one to my kid, but I think I'd want to play with it first anyway, so I don't think that will be a problem.
By the "biggest member", I assume you mean the most populous: India. Or maybe China. Or maybe you mean the largest: Russia. But I suspect that you mean the country that pays 22% of the UN's budget: the US. As far as I know, our dues are completely up-to-date.
What genocide are you referring to? It can't be Rwanada, Kosovo, or the Sudan. After all, according to the UN those weren't genocides. Granted, the Clinton administration's handling of Rwanda was shameful, but no less shameful than the UN (and for that matter, the EU's) handling of all three; and at least they stood up in Kosovo.
Yeah, the US has a veto. Let's look at the current genocide in the Sudan, who's blocking action on that? I'll give you a hint: it's not the one power that has actually come out and said that crimes in the Sudan ARE genocide. Try France, Russia, and China. Of course, I'm sure it has nothing to do with their oil intrests - only the US is interested in oil!
"Get a clue."
People in glass houses...
By the way, your earlier "insighful" post makes the claim that spam was "entirely" invented in the US. Maybe. But if the US has that as a strike against it, do we get credit for other inventions? Like for instance, the Internet? Or the UN?
Look, the UN has it's good points and it's bad points. Frankly, I don't think it would be a good organization to manage the registry. (The ITU makes more sense.) They do a lot of good in the world, but they have SERIOUS problems. Trying to pass the buck to the US, who is one of 188 member nations, and 1 of 5 veto-weilding security council members, doesn't do anyone any good. In fact, the main problem the UN has is that it's not accountable to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also a lot of potential in this kind of technology. Think something like the book in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. If we can find a way for toys to enhance a child's experience of the world, I think a lot of good could come of it. The problem is that as much harm could be done by a system that leads a child through a set of experiences. It isn't something we could feasibly do with present-day technology, but this isn't a shipping product, it's something in some lab somewhere. (What if it escapes?!!) It's something I would have to evalutate carefully before I gave one to my kid, but I think I'd want to play with it first anyway, so I don't think that will be a problem.
By the "biggest member", I assume you mean the most populous: India. Or maybe China. Or maybe you mean the largest: Russia. But I suspect that you mean the country that pays 22% of the UN's budget: the US. As far as I know, our dues are completely up-to-date. What genocide are you referring to? It can't be Rwanada, Kosovo, or the Sudan. After all, according to the UN those weren't genocides. Granted, the Clinton administration's handling of Rwanda was shameful, but no less shameful than the UN (and for that matter, the EU's) handling of all three; and at least they stood up in Kosovo. Yeah, the US has a veto. Let's look at the current genocide in the Sudan, who's blocking action on that? I'll give you a hint: it's not the one power that has actually come out and said that crimes in the Sudan ARE genocide. Try France, Russia, and China. Of course, I'm sure it has nothing to do with their oil intrests - only the US is interested in oil! "Get a clue." People in glass houses... By the way, your earlier "insighful" post makes the claim that spam was "entirely" invented in the US. Maybe. But if the US has that as a strike against it, do we get credit for other inventions? Like for instance, the Internet? Or the UN? Look, the UN has it's good points and it's bad points. Frankly, I don't think it would be a good organization to manage the registry. (The ITU makes more sense.) They do a lot of good in the world, but they have SERIOUS problems. Trying to pass the buck to the US, who is one of 188 member nations, and 1 of 5 veto-weilding security council members, doesn't do anyone any good. In fact, the main problem the UN has is that it's not accountable to anyone.