You can thank the Electoral College which gives rural states more relative power than populated states. Plus, rural areas tend to have older voters, who are more likely to show up at the polls because many are retired and have time.
Since when did they listen to Mr. O? They generally try to do the opposite, often seemingly out of spite. They even turned down certain tax-cuts in a few cases!
I have to admit that I like Jar Jar. The force channels his goof-ups into good deeds. Why would the force only make use of careful people? Chaos may be more difficult for the Dark Side to counter because it's by definition unpredictable, keeping the Dark Side off course and confused.
It's a lot like (vintage) Manu Ginobili of the Spurs (NBA): his herky-jerky style confused the defense, allowing him to either get to the basket or get fouled.
It's all very logical, and good for a chuckle. Go Binks!
Due to "privacy", humans can sometimes make more practical decisions than AI. For example, if you face a choice between saving one infant or two elderly people in their 70's, many people would choose to save the baby since it hasn't had a chance to live a full life.
However, AI couldn't use that logic because it would become public after an investigation, and that kind of reasoning doesn't fly very well in public, or at least is highly controversial.
One couldn't put that reasoning into a bot without a big risk of public backlash. The bot would probably have to save the two elderly folk instead of the baby because the legal system cannot discriminate against age. You cannot really "audit" a human head (at least not in the near future) and thus humans have a degree of decision freedom that bots don't.
It's true the human may still run into controversy, but would probably be given more public opinion leeway because it's a snap decision.
Slashdot Mirror
640 votes ought to be enough for anyone. -B. Gates
Abort, Retry, Fail?_
Who says Slashdotters are mellow? I can tell by some of the quick down-mods I get.
You can thank the Electoral College which gives rural states more relative power than populated states. Plus, rural areas tend to have older voters, who are more likely to show up at the polls because many are retired and have time.
It's being shown in Taiwan, which maybe has no anti-trust rules over such. Being MS's ho for a year or so can bring in some cash.
Stop making fun of Asian names. That's so Sterling.
one-click censorship
But they did hire more people...in Asia
Goatse? No, that's Uranus craters.
Pull my finger for the answer
The Man changed the inch after Woodstock? uncool
Hope they are not looking for mommy...
Once a hoodlum always a hoodlum
rubber GF is getting nervous now
Discovered and researched by rednecks?
"Buy 2 Truman Show DVD's, and get one freeee!"
We have to make elephants into corporations to give them such rights.
Those who can't do, teach.....oh, wait
Since when did they listen to Mr. O? They generally try to do the opposite, often seemingly out of spite. They even turned down certain tax-cuts in a few cases!
Hmmm, maybe he's using reverse psychology now.
The title and summary appear to conflate House of Representatives and White House. Am I reading it wrong?
I have to admit that I like Jar Jar. The force channels his goof-ups into good deeds. Why would the force only make use of careful people? Chaos may be more difficult for the Dark Side to counter because it's by definition unpredictable, keeping the Dark Side off course and confused.
It's a lot like (vintage) Manu Ginobili of the Spurs (NBA): his herky-jerky style confused the defense, allowing him to either get to the basket or get fouled.
It's all very logical, and good for a chuckle. Go Binks!
Due to "privacy", humans can sometimes make more practical decisions than AI. For example, if you face a choice between saving one infant or two elderly people in their 70's, many people would choose to save the baby since it hasn't had a chance to live a full life.
However, AI couldn't use that logic because it would become public after an investigation, and that kind of reasoning doesn't fly very well in public, or at least is highly controversial.
One couldn't put that reasoning into a bot without a big risk of public backlash. The bot would probably have to save the two elderly folk instead of the baby because the legal system cannot discriminate against age. You cannot really "audit" a human head (at least not in the near future) and thus humans have a degree of decision freedom that bots don't.
It's true the human may still run into controversy, but would probably be given more public opinion leeway because it's a snap decision.
Just tell them to bill Uranus.
...we're screwed
Dammit, Earth 1.0 is obsolete already. Now I know I am getting old.