We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Okay, good work. But in their model, do they make the assumption that everyone on the continent is trying to make for Glacier National Park? Because, now that they've told everyone that's what they should do, I think their model should account for that.
The legal theory is the delegation of powers. Congress delegated the power to write legislation within a certain scope, breadth, and depth, to the executive branch of government, authorizing it to set up an agency to manage same.
Congress has the right to delegate its power to legislate to other branches of government. It is unfortunate, but we are learning now that it has delegated pretty much all of its power.
Well that's how democracy dies, isn't it? To the sound of thunderous applause?
This isn't legislation. It is executive decree.
"Fully autonomous weapons are not unambiguously bad. They can reduce burdens on soldiers. Already, military robots are saving many service members' lives, for example by neutralizing improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and Iraq."
A robot that neutralizes an IED is not a "fully autonomous weapon."
The governments will simply say "come and take it, if you can."
Pretty much all of them - certainly the US government and all members of the IPCC.
I can't wait for my postcard-check in the mail for $0.21 explaining how the lawfirm got $34,500,000 of the $35,000,000 settlement and the remaining $500,000 gets divided among all GTX970 owners.
And how much money has been accepted from governments by so-called scientists pushing the pro-ACC agenda on behalf of those governments?
Conflict of interest is a two-way street.
One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.
