If you live in the EU you have a "right to be forgotten":
My suggestion would be to change profession to something more suitable for life in the forests:
Computers do not need to be able to navigate the car in all circumstances for self-driving cars to be useful. I would be happy if they could simply take over when driving on the freeway and warn me when it is time to leave the freeway again.
The end goal is of course to let the AI control the car at all times. But a more modest start is just fine.
"What job is hardest for a robot to do?"
All that yelling, the ignorance, the incompetence, the rudeness, the anti-social behavior, the complete disregard for the feelings of the employees is hard to duplicate with software.
I do of course realize that your comment is a joke. But I will write a serious reply in any case:-)
I am pretty sure that large parts of management will be overtaken by computers. Many of the decisions that management are currently responsible for are more or less trivial and could be better performed by applying machine learning once enough data has been collected and the algorithms are in place. There will of course still be a need for human managers. But their role will change and there might be fewer of them since they will only be needed in the areas where humans can outperform machines.
"How much slower do you think it is okay to get work done in order to put it in a completely free software framework? How many people is it okay to have die from the additional time?"
By all means use the tool that provides the best value for you and your company. Personally I find Python much more productive than MatLab for scientific work in my field. But I guess it depends on which features you need and what kind of software you are developing.
The above case is not about inciting violence or terrorism. Let me cite a bit of the official court press release about the conviction* (google translate, with small corrections):
"The district court writes in the judgment that those who exercise their freedom of expression - in the picture, voice or text - also have a duty to the extent possible, to avoid statements that are unjustifiably offensive to others and statements that do not contribute to any form of public debate. The judgment is that Dan Parks and gallery owner aim of the exhibition have not been to bring an informed debate, but rather to provoke. On the way they spread the pictures, they have not taken responsibility. Protection of the individual to avoid insults and slurs are therefore in this case of higher priority than freedom of expression and the right to freedom of art."
But to be honest, freedom of speech is somewhat more limited in Europe than in the USA. But even between European countries there are som marked differences. Sweden is for example jailing (provocative) artists for hate speech while neighbouring Denmark has no such tradition (although Denmark does also have hate speech legislation). See for example Dan Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Park).
Not that I like Dan Parks views (even though he says that the court in Sweden is misunderstanding his art pieces). But I do believe that Sweden is on a dangerous path when they prosecute artists for hate speech (who draws the line).
"Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that."
The legislation is an attempt to create a law mandated news cartel:
"In economics, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics." (Wikipedia).
If they had been succesful the consequence would be that Spanish media consumers would have to pay more for their news. Fortunately it seems like they will not be succesful and hopefully Spanish consumers can use foreign media outlets that are not part of the cartel.
. As a long time C hack (still am) I concur.
Behold. A C program that has gained sentience.
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on it's back. The tortoise lays on it's back, it's belly baking in the hot sun, beating it's legs trying to turn it'self over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
But C++ is a thousand times more than "C with objects".
I believe the above quote speaks for itself...
If you look at:
in combination with the article you will see that the city is in fact more colored now than in 2000. The original poster is cherry picking statistics to prove his/her point. Seattle is less white now than in 2000. You could say that after a prolonged browning of the city it is now whitening slightly. The long term trend is however not clear.
I am also a bit confused by the article. It seems like Amazon is only hiring from Seattle itself and not the suburbs. Otherwise they would not employ 5-7% of the city population. Is that really true or is it another one of the authors mind tricks?
OP: "We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion."
You seem to be missing that the OP argues that we should abstain from offending people due to for example their religious convictions. I totally agree that threats of violence should be (and is in most countries) illegal. And I also agree that women are more likely to encounter threats of violence on the net. But if your fantasy friend in the sky and you believe that it is fine to kill homosexuals, apostates or whatever you should sure as hell expect others to ridicule your religion.
If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.