I understand your critique but if you read the story I think the police did what you want them to -- try to pull him over then retreat when he starts a high-speed chase. The article specifies that he continued at high speed even though he was not under pursuit. That is the same policy adopted by my hometown police department and I think it is pretty common.
Agreed. This news item had a lot of impact.
It left me with one burning question: what was the last thing to go through that guy's mind? I mean, other than a lamp pole.
I stopped paying attention to botnet stories a few years ago. Are botnets still always on Windows or do Unix users (Mac, Linux) have to worry too? If it's still all Windows then I'm going to stop paying attention again.
One of the very, very few times I've ever seen on
"that bloke's sodding knackered"
That you're complaining about a single comic strip doing this seems at least as odd. (Female characters in xkcd don't have breasts either but you don't see me complaining.)
*what the truth is and purposely
*Mistakenly conveying the wrong
Programming a computer to lie and be evasive about its nature is easy, and many chatbots can already do that.
This sounds very dubious.
A) A computer can only lie if it has a sense of truth, can't it? Lying implies that you know what the truth is an purposely state the opposite. Mistakenly convening the wrong information is not lying.
B) Regurgitating responses that were pre-programmed to be incorrect does not fit my definition of "lying." Programming a computer to give an incorrect response is ordering it to do so, so you're telling it to lie, which it obediently does. What would be far more philosophically interesting was if you told it to lie and it *didn't.* Now THAT would be a good indication of intelligence (although it's a bit hairsplitting).
That has never been true. Never in human history has a class of people controlled the economy due to them being the source of economic output. I guess it's not impossible, but did garment workers control the economy? Were automobile assembly-line workers the richest people in the country? Did Roman iron smelters own the means of their own production?
The history of human economy has always been that rich assholes who do no labor lord over the workers who actually produce things. I don't see any reason to think that robots will be different.
"Why the hell would they?"
Well, the historical answer is "because if they don't, we'll cut their heads off". Personally I think that's a lesson that needs to be re-learned every hundred years or so, and we're about a hundred years overdue.
Who said anything about losing jobs? Foxconn is replacing shitty low-end assembly line jobs with awesome high-end jobs making robots. Why would we keep people doing shitty jobs instead of creating awesome jobs for them to do? Even better the robot builders will be much more efficient so all of society will be richer. It's the miracle of economy.
Respecting territorial sovereignty is for when other countries can do something about it. A small island nation of a few hundred thousand people need not apply.
Still, it seems a bit excessive to do an extradition raid for someone who is apparently accused of hacking into zoo and deli websites. His relation to the Russian MP is probably what has earned him the special attention, part of Obama's plan to punish Russia. The message is clear, "Invade its allies and America will spoil your vacation."
What do you suppose the probability is that after some further negotiations the MP's son and Snowden trade places?
Let's say everybody does lose their jobs and is unable to buy goods or services. Is it more likely they will (a) resign to slowly starve or (b) start growing and trading for food amongst each other, providing each other the services they can't get from the robot elite, band together for social protection, etc.?
Shutting someone out from one economy just puts in them in another economy.
Ultimately, even if it costs the unsophisticated people more in time and investment to produce the same goods, the robot elitists don't care about *that* cost, they only care how many of the newly minted Robot Supreme Data Coins the poor humans want in exchange for the same service. That's an arbirtary quantity and the poor humans can always offer a lower bid than the robot automation centers.
But, remember, this whole problem came about because we found such an incredibly cheap and efficient way to produce all our resources. So, even though the humans are going to be forced to trade for what the robot elitists consider virtually nothing, for them it will have vast purchasing power since goods are now so cheap.
In general, I don't think keeping people employed is ever going to be a problem. What the onset of robot workers actually means is that relative income for human workers is increasing to where it is too costly for manufacturing companies to compete for their services compared to the other opportunities they have.
The real problem with super-efficient resource generation is its effect on political dynamics. One person controlling half the economy may be perfectly harmless up to the point where they realize they can use that vast wealth to dictate what laws will be passed. But, who knows, maybe at that point we'll all be so well off that it will actually be harder to buy votes and loyalty than it is today.
Interesting. What do you think would be clear evidence of planning which could not be explained as fuel for fantasies?
Hard work isn't a value in itself.
Of course it is. You just don't have that value.
Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children.
Wrong again. Family has value even if you don't do that.
There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.
Maybe (and maybe not) but it's irrelevant to the value of family.
When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.
Everything in the world has, by definition, exactly the value paid for it. It's a circular argument but it goes right to the definition of "value".