If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

So you admit that just because there are REPERCUSSIONS it is NOT the same as slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

No. Slavery is NOT defined as whether or not you will end up in prison.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another person.

Slavery has nothing to do with being fined for refusing to return a library book on time.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship.

No.

The sole proprietorship is the simplest business form under which one can operate a business. The sole proprietorship is not a legal entity. It simply refers to a person who owns the business and is personally responsible for its debts.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

No.

Once you get out of high school (and maybe leave high school libertarianism behind) you will learn the difference. Maybe.

Simply put, if you are selling a service, you pay different taxes than in you are purchasing groceries for your personal consumption.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery.

No.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another.

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired. A real slave does not have the option of being fired. Learn what slavery really is.

Are you done with the emo, now?

It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No. Not "any individual".

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.

I'm sure that, maybe, YOU would be able to think of a business (profitable) that did not have customers that could be referred to as "people" but as for me ... I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.

Then think about taxes.

Black people pay taxes. Those taxes are used to pay for the road in front of your business. And the cops who keep your business safe. And so on.

And you are going to take the services provided by the black taxes and then REFUSE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE PAYING THOSE TAXES BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE THEIR SKIN TONE.

Fuck you and your fucked up ideas about YOUR "rights".

Read a history book.

When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.

How is selling a CAKE "repulsive"?

The point is that the baker sells cakes ALL THE TIME. That is what the baker's business is about. Selling cakes.

But he refuses to sell a cake to person X because he does not like person X's race/creed/religion/etc. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Only in YOUR definition of "freedom".

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong. And a bigot.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right?

WRONG!

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

You may not like being "forced" to serve black people.

You may believe that it is an infringement of your "freedom" to be forced to serve black people.

Fuck you.

Robots don't work this way. Could slashdot please stop accepting writeups about how robots should be made by people who have no idea about how robots work, how programming works and the ethics that robot programmers already consider?

Seconded!

"AI/Robot ethics" is the new "zombie plan" and it is old already.

If it is illegal, then individuals within that organization can be prosecuted.

If it is legal, then individuals within that organization can use the government's resources to track husbands/wives/exes/your daughter/celebrities/etc.

They've confused the line between secrecy and privacy.

What is the purpose of security alerts if not to warn people who don't know any better?

To shift the blame to the end-user when something goes wrong.

Which is why the alerts are so useless. They, essentially, become a "click here to continue" button.

Use a throwaway for traveling and upload to a 'cloud' drive during the trip.

Yes! Do that!

While you are travelling you are at higher risk for your stuff to be STOLEN.

So make sure that the thieves (or customs officials) only get hardware.

Learn how to securely access your files/data remotely.

Trying to be secretive with hidden partitions and such just runs the risk that you might encounter the one customs agent who knows something about computers. Be boring. Be the most boring person they've ever seen. Have NOTHING of interest to ANYONE on your systems. No pictures/music/movies/anything.

Even if the person is the biggest paedophile terrorist drug-dealer in the world, do you honestly believe that there would be evidence on his phone WHILE HE IS TRAVELLING?

I don't believe that Carolyn Tremain understands this "Internet" thing.

The title could be reworded to "Masturbation/How pen testers can do it better."

I think I'll skip that video. Thanks.

For speeding (unless it's a speed trap) it won't be. The people with the money will just challenge it in court and it will be dismissed. No fine and just whatever the lawyer charges.

Someone mod that up. It's better than TFA.

Speaking of, from TFA:

There are different dialects of English, all of which conform to grammatical structures.

He's got the dialect part correct. But he left out things like slang and local idioms and so forth.

But it is not possible for everyone, or the majority of educated users of the language, to be wrong on the same point at the same time.

"educated" ... that's the problem.

If you are "educated" then wouldn't you know the correct usage?

So he's falling back on whatever the majority (as he sees it) uses as being ... not incorrect.

But in the end, he's wrong. You can mix Yoda-speak/LOLcat with the latest slang and your friends will probably understand you.

But it will probably not impress when you use it on your resume.