Slashdot is... going down the toilet?
Yeah, let's go with that one.
I have a notepad on my desk that has printed at the top of each page: "Teamwork is a bunch of people doing what I say."
It's supposed to be a joke.
Agree with a lot of the comments here, I skip flying most of the time. Drove 21 hours each way last vacation to avoid it. As consumers we simply need to demand to know seat configuration before we pay for a flight. I'm a big guy - 6'3" and around 350 lbs. I flew for work a couple of years ago, so coach and they had me in a middle seat. Can't image how unhappy those guys on either side of me were, but it's not my plane so not really my problem.
If I want to eat meat, something has to die for me to do so. I accept that. If I want to not kill an animal I can opt for meat-free options, something I do from time to time. Growing some kind of replacement in a lab strikes me as disgusting.
Microsoft needs to focus on what's next, not what was. Ending support for legacy systems is important to prevent another Windows XP fiasco where the OS lives on for a decade and a half. It's not the 90s anymore, there are actual reasons why we need to continue to move forward.
For a while lots of telemarketing scams were located in Texas. Multiple people around the U.S. had tried to sue them for fraud, but the Attorney General of the victim's state would say they had no jurisdiction, and the Texas AG would say that his mandate was to defend citizens of Texas.
So as long as you made the call from Texas into another state, no one would take the case.
Note that yes, there were clearly interstate commerce laws being broken, but no one would prosecute.
This is piercing the corporate veil. If the precedent stands, look for lawsuits targeting corporate officers individually for the actions of the corporation.
Note that I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but probably not what they intend with this.
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?