There is of course a flip side, but don't give me some bullshit Soviet Union/Cuba/China communism argument.
Slavery should be legal, but don't give me some bullshit "Human Rights"/"All men are created equal" argument. See what I did there?
Calling a valid argument "bullshit" doesn't make it any less valid.
We aren't talking about a life-saving device here. We are talking about a device that makes communication easier. What happens if it malfunctions? Nothing. If this were a pace-maker, it's a no-brainer. More expensive and more reliable is the way to go. However, it's not.
You are proposing using a $5000 needle and thread, because you are sure that it won't break. I am proposing using a $450 sewing machine and spending $100 to fix it if it breaks.
I suppose we should also say for the phone's plan too, right?
Yep and buy them a car too, because that's just as relevant.
So, you are proposing they spend $5,000 on a specialty "medical" device, instead of the $450 iphone + software combo, because $450 is too much? Huh? This isn't a "I also want an iphone, so my insurance company should pay for it" situation. This is a "I would rather have an iphone (that costs 1/10th the price, by the way) because it works better." It's not the people want both. It's that people want the cheaper iphone as a replacement because it works better.
And by the way... unless you develop cancer, aids, or some other very bad disease, you will NEVER use more money than you give your insurance company. In fact, the only sane reason to have medical insurance is to be protected "just in case." If you are young and healthy (and especially if you are self-employed or don't get employment benefits for whatever reason), insurance is a scam. Just set aside what your insurance premium is, and when you have to go to the emergency room for falling off a ladder, you'll have more than enough to cover it (and you'll realize how much money your insurance company was making off of you) .
Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
If you "Creating a three-laws-safe robot", you are, by definition, not giving the robot free will.
Secondly, you are assuming that within the robot there is some sort of physical override: "if a human is in danger, move these parts until they are no longer in danger;" and in their mind they are dreading the action. First of all, the robot has to determine whether or not they are in danger. This is subjective. They could find some loophole in the code and think "they are not actually in danger right now, the fire is still 3 feet away," if they didn't want to do it.
It's much more likely that instead of a physical override, we would implement "basic instincts." I could, technically, climb on my roof and dive off, head first, onto my driveway. But i'm not going to. Ever. It's not because I physically can't, it's because it's instinct. I don't want to hurt myself. Similarly, if my house caught on fire and my wife and child were inside, and I knew that "[my] chance to survive is almost zero", I would still run in to try to save them. Once again, I don't have to. It's just that my desire to see them live is greater than the desire to see myself live. If I had to sacrifice myself for them, I would in a heartbeat.
That is how you program the three laws into robots. By making them desire to do the 3 laws more than anything else.
Do you frequently decide you need to change you destination after you have started your journey? Most people (including me) don't, especially if they don't know where they are going and they need to use a GPS. For the other 1% of the time, pull into a gas station and save a life.
The difference between this and texting is that texting is way more prevalent.
We know when the sun is going to run out of fuel and have pretty accurate theories about what will happen to the solar system when that happens.
Are you from the future?
In terms of cost and "one lone rancher off in a truck" unable to deal with the cattle, I just have to ask: "are these cows branded?" If you can manage to brand them, you can tag them too.
The problem isn't putting the tracking device in the cows, the problem is scanning that tracking device (on each cow) every time that cow is transported anywhere, and then getting that information in the regional database. I agree with you that it doesn't seem like that big of a deal, but I've never personally loaded cattle onto a truck by myself, so I'll leave judgment to those experienced in the matter.
Have you tried parsing at a coarser grain than a single sentence?
So, you are saying that your entire post was satirical?
I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.
I thought you were being serious here, but obviously you really think that it is ridiculous to not believe everything you read in the blog.
In a satirical article or book there may sentences that are serious. These are obvious, however, because said article/book is longer than a few sentences and so there is an overall tone. The same goes for a non-satirical article/book. You know the author's sentiment, therefore it is obvious when irony is used. Like I stated in my original post, there is no way to know your actual thoughts on the subject, because no one here knows you.
In your post, you state:
1) People should not believe everything they read in blogs, because bloggers have no standards.
2) People are inherently gullible.
3) Full disclosure is necessary b/c of #2. (you think this is obviously ironic)
4) Hypothetical about when the FTC will overstep their bounds. (obviously ironic)
1 is your opinion.
2 is an unfortunate sentiment I agree with.
3 is poorly constructed irony.
4 is properly executed irony.
It's only irony if it's obvious that what you stated is not even close to what you actually believe. I have absolutely no idea what you actually believe, and you make no indication whatsoever in your post that you are being ironic.
So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income?
This is obviously ironic because it is an extreme. However,
so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary
is a view shared by others. If I knew you personally, it might be obvious that this is satirical, however, as a random poster on
Morale of the story: Don't get upset when people misinterpret your poorly constructed attempt at irony.
This is what just happened.
gorta:
I like oranges better than apples, so it's better for me to eat an orange.
tepples:
You are wrong, gorta. Some people like apples better than oranges.
And as for you sig, when was the last time you lost "the cloud" or "the cloud" broke?
... and if you are wasting your generator fuel on running you TV so you can see the news instead of hearing it, you can't be that concerned about a disaster either.
But still they should not do that.
Do you have any justification for this statement? Do web applications somehow subtract more from the web than they add to it? Or is it just some random guy's opinion that people should not make web applications?
But no one is being impersonated. Is it illegal for a business to place an advertisement next to a competitor's advertisement in the yellowpages? No.
Do not use the blue keys on this terminal.
