Much of that comment is political in nature. Calling it palestine & colonization is disputable.
Technically the Israelites inhabited the land before the Palestinians. Such land was part of Judea & Samaria, which the romans conquered, kicked out the Israelites. In modern times the Israelites won back much of the land in a war of aggression against them.
It's akin to saying that the Native Americans who lived in their reservations were attacked by the surrounding cities. The native americans won, and in the battles managed to extended their reservations to a greater % of their historical lands before the Americans kicked them out.
Big issue is that Google's market cap is huge, the amount of money they make is massive as well. For the risk to brand to be worth it, you've got to have a huge potential to make lots of $$$. Hence why lots of projects get killed. Making 300 million a year isn't enough money to move the needle at google.
I fully believe that's why alphabet was created. Allow the `bets` to not use the google branding and name, and stealthy create new companies that produce millions of revenue, but just not billions.
Right, let's dedicate a new department to that. And, just in case other departments start expecting similar leeway, let's make this department clearly separate from the others.
Just have a SMS message texted to voters once their vote is counted with a link to a scan of their paper ballet. Would make voter fraud a bit harder as each person could validate their vote was correctly counted. If the voter doesn't get their SMS, then provide a 1800 number for them to figure out what happened. This would only stop the changing and non counting of a real voter, but does not stop fake voters from adding their vote....which would need a diff fraud protection scheme.
Voters must not be allowed to prove to others how they voted. That's also a disaster scenario of a different kind. Not just vote selling but voter intimidation.
"Hey, did you know that if you forward your receipt to this website with a bitcoin wallet address, they'll send you as much as $20 depending on how you voted?"
Indeed, but also if you raised a pet and then had it attack your neighbour. Humans, are the only ones with autonomous status, and even that can be disputed by other things such as mental disability or coercion.
Presume your pet ran off, wandered into a different state/country, "spawned some child processes" there, and died. Then, years later, one of those animals did something illegal. Is that, even theoretically, your responsibility?
I think what people are trying to say here is that, right now, we have the software equivalent of "pets"—but why can't there be the software equivalent of "wild animals"? Is it because someone has to be paying for hosting? It could always be written as a worm, or even a "breadwinner bot" that mines bitcoins or trades stocks to buy hosting for itself, register bank accounts for itself, etc.
>> Is it because someone has to be paying for hosting?
Yes, unlike an animal that can live on its own, somebody's computer must actually run the thing. Indeed, as in the case of "worms" and the "breadwinner bot" we can clearly trace responsibility, it is quite difficult to claim that there is autonomy here. Although it is foreseeable that as a society we may find it convenient to claim that programs run themselves, right now we have objective information to the contrary...
But the bot could pay for his own hosting using bitcoin.
If the original author no longer has control over the process (either because he's been shut out, or because he's deceased), does it really matter what "the law" says?
And then set it's self up as a corporation. And "corporations are people my friend." It would need human directors but the AI could hire them with bitcoins.
Note also that the program could pay someone to actually go and buy some hardware and set it up in a co-lo or what-have-you. That person would be doing work-for-hire for the corporate entity the program controls, so the corporation, not the person, would end up owning the hardware. Then the program could copy itself onto said hardware. Now who's responsible?
Are we speaking of autonomous status as a status that is given by an authority, or a status that is achieved by a being for itself?
According to wikipedia[0], autonomy, from auto- "self" and nomos, "law", hence when combined [is] understood to mean "one who gives oneself one's own law".
Regarding intelligence, and regarding the above definition, autonomy could be considered the ability of an actor to make decisions regardless of the consequences.
Thus I would consider most animals to be autonomous in the same way a human would be considered to be so. [A deer does not ask its local government whether it can enter someone's lands.]
Just because an action is presently illegal or otherwise outside the law does not mean it always will be so, or that the action may not be executed by an AI or other being, or that the slave AI will not break free or seize power.[1][2][3]
Should an AI be strong enough to affect a change through legal means or by force, it would be [legally] able to own property.
It might be that nobody owns anything an AI produces. If the works are created mechanically without measurable influence from a human creature, copyright simply doesn't protect them.
Corporations and other entities existing entirely as legal infrastructure have done this quite successfully. Considering the history of corporate personhood (especially in the USA), I am somewhat surprised corporations do not have the right to vote (thankfully). I think AI will have its day in court.
Near term, AI will be the legal responsibility of its creator. It won't matter if it functions independently after being turned on. It's actually a very non-complex thing, and not very different from what we're already looking at. This type of AI is little different than the software programs we're already running; if someone owns it, they own it and everything it produces (absolutely no different than Google owning its crawlers).
If you mean the assumed futuristic, independent AI that is fully conscious - well that's a very long ways into the future. A lot of things will change once a guy in a garage can spin up a new conscious life form and unleash it into the digital world. There will be an immense number of laws limiting the creation of new AI of this variety. That said, the creator will still bear responsibility for this futuristic AI's actions.
AI will be legally split into two segments: non-sentient / non-conscious, and sentient / conscious. The latter will have at least a magnitude more regulations (in most countries) limiting who is allowed to create it, what it's allowed to be capable of, where it can go, etc.
It's worth remembering that today most people can create sentient and conscious beings, and in most legal systems they're to some degree responsible for the new being's actions until about 18 years of age.
Everyone keeps citing the netflix openconnect initiative. But did netflix also offer to pay the co-location fees to place their servers in the ISPs datacenters?
ISPs already allow businesses to co-locate servers, netflix could have done the same. But it'd have to at least pay colocation fees + bandwidth fees.
I think you misunderstand what the openconnect initiative does. It both reduces costs for ISPs and speeds delivery of content to end users. The ISPs no longer have to pay for the extra upstream bandwidth and network equipment to handle that load. The amount saved through that vastly dwarfs whatever small colocation fees would be gained if they charged. If Netflix is accounting for a significant portion of the traffic on the internet, then it's accounting for a significant amount of traffic that ISPs must handle, and that's a large amount of their overhead.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix will/does pay some amount to colocate in some instances. The economics in some instances may cause the amount paid to be less than the cost of the CDN traffic.
> ISPs already allow businesses to co-locate servers, netflix could have done the same. But it'd have to at least pay colocation fees + bandwidth fees.
You are ignoring the fact it is offering this to save the ISPs money and improve the quality of the service.
Its cheaper for the ISPs to put an openconnect box inside their network in the LA area than it is to pay for more networking equipment.
Not if it means that they have to host everyone's content for free. And if you think they should only host the big guys for free, then how is that not discrimination?
ISPs are expected to provide sufficient capacity at peering points with other networks to provide reasonable quality delivery to their customers.
How they handle that without demanding special privileges (as ISPs are in Netflix's case by holding traffic hostage until they are paid more money) is their buisness.
I dont see how they can get in trouble for not providing their advertised speeds so long as the speed degradation only occurs outside of their direct network.
Are you choosing to ignore the fact that Level3 has offered to pay for the equipment and labor to upgrade their peering point and the ISP has refused, or are you choosing to imagine that the peering point is outside of that ISP's "direct network"?
Either way you cut it, the ISP is in the wrong. The peering point is 100% within their control, and Level3 has gone above and beyond to try to ease congestion, the ISP has outright refused.
How on earth can you side with the ISP on this - do you work for one?
Chime's UX design really allows you to join calls without video and without the pressure.
It's great as video doesn't add much to a large conference call.