It's not a standard pidgin English it's our own English without a workable level of education.
So a dialect can't exist if there are more than one? So Ebonics is different in LA than Chicago. Does that linguistically prove that neither can be a dialect? Your comments about it being hard/impossible for a native speaker of a different dialect to understand it, but the native speakers of that dialect don't have a problem understanding others is more a definition of a dialect than proof it isn't one.
This is about as retarded as calling your toaster a "person" and assigning it "rights".
That's unrelated to the issues mentioned in TFA.
a) define, and
b) prove a computer has consciousness
THEN we'll talk about laws.
We have laws protecting people and squid, and have no definition of consciousness. So why is that a requirement for computers, when it wasn't there for any previous laws? Your non sequitur is non sequitur.
There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body.
Yes, there is. If it's a fully sentient robot, it has to have a body, or it's a fully sentient computer. Or are you getting confused about a central AI controlling a dumb body, vs requiring the AI inhabit the body it controls?
I disagree of course. For example, those 62 people employ a vast number of people over many decades as well as creating far more wealth than they own.
I disagree of course. The 62 "create" nothing. Those they employ might, but you are confusing those who "own" the work (as defined by the 62) vs those who did the work.
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce