Link to Original Source
Didn't happen before, won't happen now. So basically, this is a dumb often repeated joke that proves the opposite of the point it's meant to make.
Gallaudet University is a school for the deaf. They (Glenn Lockhart and Stacy Nowak) wanted to use the content for their coursework, but couldn't use it as is, so instead of providing closed captioning themselves or work something out for the specific material they were interested in they decided to sue Berkeley.
Sadly this is not made clear in the submissions to slashdot, so speculations run amok about ambulance chasing attorneys and some deaf students suing.
I hope Glenn and Stacy are happy with their result.
A budget that does something about that, not a budget that takes from things which make the US more valuable and gives to things the US doesn't need more of and doesn't impact the deficit at all?
Just make sure that hub isn't plugged into a computer, since the stick could have a malicious data payload. Note, though, that the same company that makes the USB Kill Stick also makes a plug in surge suppressor that protects USB ports against the Kill Stick. I'm sure they're planning on selling them to people like law enforcement who have to worry about malicious hardware.
Just remember, the only people who win in an arms race are arms manufacturers.
I challenge anyone here to name a remake that was better than the original.
Ben Hur (1959) springs immediately to mind. A number of movies in various comic book franchises would probably also qualify. Does anyone really think the Adam West Batman movie was better than the Tim Burton version? (I can get that some people might prefer the Tim Burton version to the Christopher Nolan version, though that would be more of a judgment call.)
It's also good to remember that the whole reason people tend to do remakes is because the original was good enough to be worth copying. With the possible exception of movies based on an original work in another medium (book, play, graphic novel, etc.), nobody is going to bother making a remake of a stinker. They're going to pick the stuff that was great and successful to copy, which inherently disadvantages the remake because it's being compared to something good.
You know this because you were a shitty kid? Or a shitty parent?
I don't understand. Were you born an adult?
"Those are the only two possibilities."
"All speech should be legal."
This is a dumb statement that is neither true, nor should be true.
Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.
Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.
Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible
Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.
In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.
Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.
We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?