It is not that the black cabs are better than Uber cabs. It is that the London (+ suburbs) which can only have black cabs is expected to be better than the London (+ suburbs) which can have non-black cabs. Expected by the people of London, and I can see why they expect this.

May not be true, but the decision should be theirs.

0 and 1

That is all the numbers you will ever need.

No it isn't. It isn't even a machine.

And most human memories cannot write to infinite memory addresses and recall them correctly - which is a necessity for being a Turing machine. Not even a trillion memory addresses, most would make significant errors within hundred memory addresses.

So no, humans are a very poor approximation of a Turing machine.

Probably you need to understand that Turing machine is a theoretical concept and there need not be actual Turing machines in the world for that to make sense or be useful.

The question is not about whether one's own consciousness is an illusion. But that how can you tell that the computer someone has built is actually conscious, or just behaves that way.

So all your "knowledge" about your own consciousness does zilch to tell you that what it is to call someone else "conscious". Even if you are very close to a person, you cannot tell for sure whether they are conscious or just behaving that way. As a scientific definition, the "feeling" that one is conscious is useless. As is the epistemological truism that one's consciousness is the only certain thing in the world.

Yes, and helping yourself comes first. By swerving in any direction, you might give evidence for your prosecution that you had time to swerve. By not swerving, you could argue you never had time. A jury might even forgive you for being dumbstruck. Unless your blood has one in a gazillion trace of alcohol or "drugs".

Rule of bear interaction works great here too. Bring along the fat kid when jaywalking on the highway too. Problem solved.

Running towards the stampeding car goes against the millions of years of evolutionary training. Befriending fat kids doesn't.

I thought the same way. Then I realized how much worse the discourse is on other parts of the internet, and I came running back to /.

And I'm talking about the necessity of generating revenue using prison labour.

It's an MS office knockoff, what do you expect?

You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.

Yes, covering costs needs revenue generation. Which the GP poster doesn't like.

Maybe? How else can you cover costs?

Agreed, except for finding productive work for prisoners without generating revenue. It should also help the prisoners who know nothing except crime - I see it as a crude "job experience".

Prisoners do get their "savings" from working in prison in my country, and that's a good idea too. Not sure if it happens in the US.

Yes. My point is that revenue generation is necessary.

Even when government run, it is desirable that prisons do "business". I.e. make the prisoners do some work, and earn their food , shelter and even incarceration. Reasons :

1. Keeps motivation for capital punishment down. So that public doesn't scream why should this murderer be kept alive on my money?

2. In doing nothing at all, prisoners will be unable to cope up with post-release life. Prison - management is not enough work - cooking, cleaning, prison stuff repair doesn't add up to enough work to keep all prisoners busy.

3. It's simply good money-management. There are people who can't be freed, need to be made to work, and need to be fed. Rather than giving them money to dig pits and fill them back, make them work which can be sold for money.

So there is not just the reduce cost dynamic going on here, but also increase income. Also the fact that government itself doing business is a taboo in the US.

Btw "there is no way" doesn't mean "there will never be a way".