Not being annexed by Mexico and Canada respectively, that's quite a benefit.
Because every 'small' country (California probably has a GDP around that of Mexico's...) is immediately annexed by its neighbours. I didn't think I needed to specify that benefits had the be remotely realistic to stop people posting nonsense points;)
I'd also ask what benefits exactly do very wealthy US states like California or New York get from being part of the United States rather than an individual nation? They pay vastly more in to central government than they receive, have laws set that differ considerably from their own states preference and many if not most of the benefits from being part of the same nation could 'theoretically' be gained through agreements between the new nation and the rest of the United States.
I can move to any country in Europe with the same rights to work and government services as a native. I can travel across EU borders freely, bringing goods with me without restriction. I can shop anywhere in Europe and have it delivered without having to handle import charges or duty fees. Soon I will be able to use my mobile across Europe without paying extortionate import charges. My government is one of the most influential players in the creation of regulations for products and services for the largest trade block on the planet, ensuring we have a say in regulations that could adversely affect my employer. I can receive healthcare for free anywhere within the EU if I need to while travelling.
I'm sure there are others but those are the ones that come to mind.
BT wholesale has a monopoly and is regulated as such. The price they can charge is government regulated so they couldn't simply start charging content providers etc. I'm not suggesting that the UK wouldn't be better off with net neutrality enshrined in law, but the current set-up with BT wholesale is actually pretty good for consumers.
The ruling applies to all companies. There's absolutely no reason to expect that this would have been treated differently based on the company. Europe actually cares about its citizens privacy, sadly it's just doing something misguided in this case.
They have the resources to handle these removals, but any startup (that isn't backed by a Microsoft-size company, or a government) in the search engine or aggregation business won't.
I'm pretty sure any new startup can simply remove anything they are asked to, which is also what Google etc will do any way;)
There is a specific exception for things like blog posts, newspaper articles and so on. Clearly those things are relevant and the law does not try to re-write history.
It doesn't matter if there are clear and specific guidelines. Search engines aren't going to spend hours looking into whether a page should be removed or not, thus if you put a request through they are probably going to remove it (they risk a lawsuit if they don't). The cost of checking properly would be monumental and it's neither fair, nor realistic, to expect search providers to do so.
Those people who say "just direct them to the courts" are being shortsighted. A court case requires two sides. If Google (or whoever) tells someone "go to court", they will do so: by filing a lawsuit against Google (or whoever). The last thing any company needs is having to show up to millions of trivial little court cases.
The best way to deal with this is for search engines to unquestionally follow all request (because they can't viably afford to validate them) and then for people to request the removal every single search engine result. This is a stupid solution to 'the right to be forgotten' and needs to be killed as soon as possible.
The suicide rate at the plants was LOWER than in the general population. Try to have a little perspective.
I suggest you follow your own advise. The population at large includes many groups that have a high suicide risk. You should be comparing against employees at other firms; IIRC someone did that and they found on that measure that the suicide levels at Foxconn were well above standard but I can't be arsed hunting out a source so feel free to take with a hefty pinch of salt.
Why is the the young the demographic for the army, not the 30-year olds?
Because they've got everything you need for a basic grunt. Take a look at the make up of elite military units and you'll see that the average age is considerably higher; because when you're looking for someone who can act autonimously in complex situations for large periods of time you need more than fresh legs and good eyes.
Personally I wish he was in Singapore. This is the kind of thing where corporal punishment would seem appropriate.
In many ways corporal punishment (outside the death penalty and crazy eye for an eye nonsense) would often be cheaper and better for the victim as well. This kid, even if tried a sa child could get 2 years in prison. His education will be stuffed, it'll cost a fortune for tax payers and his career prospects are dead and buried. I struggle to see how a month in a hard labour camp with a couple of harsh beatings/lashings is less humane.
Happened to look up the definition of "murder" in the UK: It is murder if you intend that a person should be killed or seriously injured, and a person dies as the result. Intent of a person being killed or seriously injured is quite clear. By the definition, the person making the phone call also is guilty of murder if one of the police officers dies by accident in the action.
This kind of crime should be treated seriously however it clearly doesn't fit under the definition of murder (in the UK). Firstly, and primarily, because murder requires that you intend for someone to be killed or seriously injured. Although theorectically someone could die from this, the odds are very low and you'd need some pretty strong evidence to show that this was the motive rather than simple inconvenience or embarrasment. Now if someone did die then trying to prosecute (under UK law) as voluntary manslaughter might be possible.
The debate here is on what happens when someone else gets to decide FOR you.
Someone writing an algorithm for car crashes isn't making a decision for you. They are making the decision for any vehicle in that situation. It would just as happily make the call for you to be run over by the car as it would for you to be in the car that runs someone over. So ultimately, it's for society to say that software that makes greedy decisions on the owners behalf which leads to increased road deaths shouldn't be allowed on the road in the first place.
You're missing the underlying issue. Obviously a 'blame' based algorithm could be considered ethical and would work nicely in certain pre-defined situations. However it's a nonsense in many, if not most others. A lorry going the other way veers into your lane. Blame says you should drive into him if the only other option is to swerve into the innocent car to your side, but that'll get you killed and the lorry driver is far more likely to survive. Is the lorry driver still to blame if swerved due to a puncture? How about if the puncture was caused by something falling off the car in front which he couldn't avoid?
The car should keep its occupants safe above all others.
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to?
Ignoring fringe issues of responsibility etc, if I was driving an in a position where I could run over a group of pedestrians at a speed likely to kill them or crash into a verge at a speed likely to kill me I'd like to think that I'd make what I believe is the ethical choice and risk my own life. It becomes much less clear when a machine is making decisions for us, but your position is ridiculous.
If avoiding a pedestrian has a 0.001% chance of leading to me being injured but hitting them has a 99% of killing them then putting my safety above all others means killing that pedestrian to avoid a tiny risk to me. If you accept that in this scenario your 'safety' shouldn't be paramount then it is a simply a matter of degrees. Is a 1% chance of your death more important than a 99% chance of 10 deaths? How about a 99% chance of your death vs a 99% chance of 70 deaths?
I've been hospitalised for intervening in an accident I wouldn't otherwise have been a part of (as a pedestrian rather than driver) because I thought I could stop a worse outcome. If I am willing to make that decision myself, then why should I refuse to buy a car that will act in the manner I would act myself? Why should I allow (by not voting to regulate against) people to use the roads I pay for in a selfish manner that harms society?
Now this question I like, it's far more nuanced than the original one. I know I would buy a car with a bias towards keeping me alive (not at any cost) and that bias would likely get even stronger if I had family members in the car! But how plausibly can a car judge whether keeping me and my 2 year old infant alive is more or less important than the unknown occupants of another car?
Now a really difficult situation would be, what should the computer do if another car is going to crash but your car could minimise loss of life by doing something that would harm or kill you? In this situation your car isn't the cause of the accident, nor perhaps even would be involved. Should your car intervene,potentially killing you, for the good of society as a whole?
It makes them more nuanced but ultimately the majority of the change is irrational. In this situation you are present and faced with a choice, one choice kills 300 people and one kills 3 people. Some people see 'not doing anything' as not choosing, or somehow being different, but there's no reason for this to be true.
Clearly in the situation posited the best decision for a computer is to minimise harm. Most medical spending decisions are now made on the basis of the number of years of life saved, and I think that's an acceptable method here. My expectation is that clear cut cases like this will be incredibly rare. The car likely doesn't know about occupants of other vehicles which likely has more affect on the situation than make and model, additionally a crash into one car could easily spiral especially if the car crashes into traffic going in a different direction; the car is unlikely to know enough to reliably predict the danger beyond the initial impact and an extremely short window after that.
Require all cars reach reasonably rigorous safety standards (both when being hit and when hitting other cars) and it's a largely theoretical problem.
Read Bastiat's "The Law". Regulation (law) should be limited to it's proper purpose: preventing injustice.
To risk getting into an iterative conversation. Almost everyone believes in that; there's just disagreement on the definition of injustice. Just look at Snowden where views on justice range from wanting him hung to wanting him to return home a hero with the highest honours in the land.
A fire department would not fit many people's view of injustice. Why is it an injustice for the poor to be unable to afford to pay for firefighting but perfectly just for them to be unable to pay for medical treatment for example? Yet it is common for 'libertarians' to support public fire departments.
So your view on libertarians is based on slashdot posts?
And now we hit the "no true scotsman fallacy". What makes the libertarian you quote a real one, but not any others who don't conform to what you think libertarianism is? You've made up some definition you like, knock yourself out, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to use it when there is a widely accepted definition already in existence: That it is a huge swathe of different views broadly united by a theme of anti-authoritarianism.
Someone can be a libertarian and believe government can exist. Someone can be a libertarian and believe that approximately the current level of government is right.
It's a shame that it's true because it'd be nice to have someone providing a rational libertarian perspective with some visibility.
Instead we have some who has clearly no idea what Bitcoin is, proposing a mechanism that couldn't possibly work with Bitcoin:| Where exactly does he think the money to buy some stock would come from when I 'mine' a bitcoin?
Either police looking at stuff even when no crime has been reported is wrong, or it isn't.
You make a valid point that the technical method used isn't the important aspect, but then go off on some unrelated tangets. I don't think anyone has said, or implied, that the legality of the thing the police see defines whether seeing it was right or wrong, it's a strawman position that you set up to knock down.
You imply a camera on a plane is no worse than a camera on a corner. It's as rediculous as saying that firing a gun in a padded bunker is the same as letting loose with an assault rifle in a packed stadium. A CCTV camera located in a public place, monitoring a public area where society would conclude there is no expectation of privacy is vastly different from a plane flying over peoples private property, including locations society would deam they would have an expectation of privacy at low level and recording detailed imagery are vastly different things.
So why leave when there is no price rise or change for them which will just look like noise to Netflix instead of leaving with other subscribers when the price goes up for everyone and making it clear to them that they lost business because of that change?
I mean we're throwing a fit about the NSA's capturing of "metadata". China just snorts up every bit of cell and internet data that goes in or out of any ISP or carrier, and they barely attempt to hide it. Im sure Russia is pretty close.
What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.
I'm yet to hear a good criticism of how Snowden behaved. Arguments like "he should have stayed within the system" are laughable when one considers what he already tried and the fates of others who tried, the but, but, but someone else is worse argument is relative and just shoddy misdirection. I'm incredibly grateful that he had the balls to share what he knew with the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Because every 'small' country (California probably has a GDP around that of Mexico's...) is immediately annexed by its neighbours. I didn't think I needed to specify that benefits had the be remotely realistic to stop people posting nonsense points ;)
I'd also ask what benefits exactly do very wealthy US states like California or New York get from being part of the United States rather than an individual nation? They pay vastly more in to central government than they receive, have laws set that differ considerably from their own states preference and many if not most of the benefits from being part of the same nation could 'theoretically' be gained through agreements between the new nation and the rest of the United States.
I can move to any country in Europe with the same rights to work and government services as a native. I can travel across EU borders freely, bringing goods with me without restriction. I can shop anywhere in Europe and have it delivered without having to handle import charges or duty fees. Soon I will be able to use my mobile across Europe without paying extortionate import charges. My government is one of the most influential players in the creation of regulations for products and services for the largest trade block on the planet, ensuring we have a say in regulations that could adversely affect my employer. I can receive healthcare for free anywhere within the EU if I need to while travelling.
I'm sure there are others but those are the ones that come to mind.
BT wholesale has a monopoly and is regulated as such. The price they can charge is government regulated so they couldn't simply start charging content providers etc. I'm not suggesting that the UK wouldn't be better off with net neutrality enshrined in law, but the current set-up with BT wholesale is actually pretty good for consumers.
The ruling applies to all companies. There's absolutely no reason to expect that this would have been treated differently based on the company. Europe actually cares about its citizens privacy, sadly it's just doing something misguided in this case.
I'm pretty sure any new startup can simply remove anything they are asked to, which is also what Google etc will do any way ;)
It doesn't matter if there are clear and specific guidelines. Search engines aren't going to spend hours looking into whether a page should be removed or not, thus if you put a request through they are probably going to remove it (they risk a lawsuit if they don't). The cost of checking properly would be monumental and it's neither fair, nor realistic, to expect search providers to do so.
The best way to deal with this is for search engines to unquestionally follow all request (because they can't viably afford to validate them) and then for people to request the removal every single search engine result. This is a stupid solution to 'the right to be forgotten' and needs to be killed as soon as possible.
I suggest you follow your own advise. The population at large includes many groups that have a high suicide risk. You should be comparing against employees at other firms; IIRC someone did that and they found on that measure that the suicide levels at Foxconn were well above standard but I can't be arsed hunting out a source so feel free to take with a hefty pinch of salt.
No. Silver Bullet dumbass, Magic Bullet means effectively the same thing but is normally only used in the context of medicine.
Because they've got everything you need for a basic grunt. Take a look at the make up of elite military units and you'll see that the average age is considerably higher; because when you're looking for someone who can act autonimously in complex situations for large periods of time you need more than fresh legs and good eyes.
In many ways corporal punishment (outside the death penalty and crazy eye for an eye nonsense) would often be cheaper and better for the victim as well. This kid, even if tried a sa child could get 2 years in prison. His education will be stuffed, it'll cost a fortune for tax payers and his career prospects are dead and buried. I struggle to see how a month in a hard labour camp with a couple of harsh beatings/lashings is less humane.
This kind of crime should be treated seriously however it clearly doesn't fit under the definition of murder (in the UK). Firstly, and primarily, because murder requires that you intend for someone to be killed or seriously injured. Although theorectically someone could die from this, the odds are very low and you'd need some pretty strong evidence to show that this was the motive rather than simple inconvenience or embarrasment. Now if someone did die then trying to prosecute (under UK law) as voluntary manslaughter might be possible.
Someone writing an algorithm for car crashes isn't making a decision for you. They are making the decision for any vehicle in that situation. It would just as happily make the call for you to be run over by the car as it would for you to be in the car that runs someone over. So ultimately, it's for society to say that software that makes greedy decisions on the owners behalf which leads to increased road deaths shouldn't be allowed on the road in the first place.
You're missing the underlying issue. Obviously a 'blame' based algorithm could be considered ethical and would work nicely in certain pre-defined situations. However it's a nonsense in many, if not most others. A lorry going the other way veers into your lane. Blame says you should drive into him if the only other option is to swerve into the innocent car to your side, but that'll get you killed and the lorry driver is far more likely to survive. Is the lorry driver still to blame if swerved due to a puncture? How about if the puncture was caused by something falling off the car in front which he couldn't avoid?
Why? And regardless, why should society allow cars to use our roads if they are going to choose to do more damage to society than they need to?
Ignoring fringe issues of responsibility etc, if I was driving an in a position where I could run over a group of pedestrians at a speed likely to kill them or crash into a verge at a speed likely to kill me I'd like to think that I'd make what I believe is the ethical choice and risk my own life. It becomes much less clear when a machine is making decisions for us, but your position is ridiculous.
If avoiding a pedestrian has a 0.001% chance of leading to me being injured but hitting them has a 99% of killing them then putting my safety above all others means killing that pedestrian to avoid a tiny risk to me. If you accept that in this scenario your 'safety' shouldn't be paramount then it is a simply a matter of degrees. Is a 1% chance of your death more important than a 99% chance of 10 deaths? How about a 99% chance of your death vs a 99% chance of 70 deaths?
I've been hospitalised for intervening in an accident I wouldn't otherwise have been a part of (as a pedestrian rather than driver) because I thought I could stop a worse outcome. If I am willing to make that decision myself, then why should I refuse to buy a car that will act in the manner I would act myself? Why should I allow (by not voting to regulate against) people to use the roads I pay for in a selfish manner that harms society?
Now this question I like, it's far more nuanced than the original one. I know I would buy a car with a bias towards keeping me alive (not at any cost) and that bias would likely get even stronger if I had family members in the car! But how plausibly can a car judge whether keeping me and my 2 year old infant alive is more or less important than the unknown occupants of another car?
Now a really difficult situation would be, what should the computer do if another car is going to crash but your car could minimise loss of life by doing something that would harm or kill you? In this situation your car isn't the cause of the accident, nor perhaps even would be involved. Should your car intervene,potentially killing you, for the good of society as a whole?
It makes them more nuanced but ultimately the majority of the change is irrational. In this situation you are present and faced with a choice, one choice kills 300 people and one kills 3 people. Some people see 'not doing anything' as not choosing, or somehow being different, but there's no reason for this to be true.
Clearly in the situation posited the best decision for a computer is to minimise harm. Most medical spending decisions are now made on the basis of the number of years of life saved, and I think that's an acceptable method here. My expectation is that clear cut cases like this will be incredibly rare. The car likely doesn't know about occupants of other vehicles which likely has more affect on the situation than make and model, additionally a crash into one car could easily spiral especially if the car crashes into traffic going in a different direction; the car is unlikely to know enough to reliably predict the danger beyond the initial impact and an extremely short window after that.
Require all cars reach reasonably rigorous safety standards (both when being hit and when hitting other cars) and it's a largely theoretical problem.
To risk getting into an iterative conversation. Almost everyone believes in that; there's just disagreement on the definition of injustice. Just look at Snowden where views on justice range from wanting him hung to wanting him to return home a hero with the highest honours in the land.
A fire department would not fit many people's view of injustice. Why is it an injustice for the poor to be unable to afford to pay for firefighting but perfectly just for them to be unable to pay for medical treatment for example? Yet it is common for 'libertarians' to support public fire departments.
And now we hit the "no true scotsman fallacy". What makes the libertarian you quote a real one, but not any others who don't conform to what you think libertarianism is? You've made up some definition you like, knock yourself out, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to use it when there is a widely accepted definition already in existence: That it is a huge swathe of different views broadly united by a theme of anti-authoritarianism.
Someone can be a libertarian and believe government can exist. Someone can be a libertarian and believe that approximately the current level of government is right.
It's a shame that it's true because it'd be nice to have someone providing a rational libertarian perspective with some visibility.
:| Where exactly does he think the money to buy some stock would come from when I 'mine' a bitcoin?
Instead we have some who has clearly no idea what Bitcoin is, proposing a mechanism that couldn't possibly work with Bitcoin
Including the most shocking of crimes, political dissent.
;)
There's an upside to fingerprinting and DNA sampling everyone, making them wear GPS anklets and removing "meddling" oversight of the police as well
You make a valid point that the technical method used isn't the important aspect, but then go off on some unrelated tangets. I don't think anyone has said, or implied, that the legality of the thing the police see defines whether seeing it was right or wrong, it's a strawman position that you set up to knock down.
You imply a camera on a plane is no worse than a camera on a corner. It's as rediculous as saying that firing a gun in a padded bunker is the same as letting loose with an assault rifle in a packed stadium. A CCTV camera located in a public place, monitoring a public area where society would conclude there is no expectation of privacy is vastly different from a plane flying over peoples private property, including locations society would deam they would have an expectation of privacy at low level and recording detailed imagery are vastly different things.
So why leave when there is no price rise or change for them which will just look like noise to Netflix instead of leaving with other subscribers when the price goes up for everyone and making it clear to them that they lost business because of that change?
What China does in surveillance of their own citizens isn't acceptable in my opinion but how is "they're even worse" a valid defence for the US which has constantly acted like it stands apart on these matters. Secondly, and something I think Americans really don't appreciate, as someone from outside both China and the US I know China would probably try and intercept my calls etc, but at least they don't pretend to be my friend while they are at it which America has been.
I'm yet to hear a good criticism of how Snowden behaved. Arguments like "he should have stayed within the system" are laughable when one considers what he already tried and the fates of others who tried, the but, but, but someone else is worse argument is relative and just shoddy misdirection. I'm incredibly grateful that he had the balls to share what he knew with the world.