As much as I admire Will Smith they did a pretty awful job on I,Robot. The questions raised by that film and book remain the same. While we’re obviously not at the level of those special effects robots, what or who is responsible when robots run a muck, Robot future poses hard questions
Increasingly, autonomous machines are being used in military applications, too.
Samsung, for example, has developed a robotic sentry to guard the border between North and South Korea.
It is equipped with two cameras and a machine gun.
The development and eventual deployment of autonomous robots raised difficult questions, said Professor Alan Winfield of the University of West England.
“If an autonomous robot kills someone, whose fault is it?” said Professor Winfield.
“Right now, that’s not an issue because the responsibility lies with the designer or operator of that robot; but as robots become more autonomous that line or responsibility becomes blurred.”
When we do get the point when robots have something like AI and one kills someone will we hold the inventor or manufacturer responsible? If the crime would ordinarily be described as a capital crime will society put to death the manufacturer for something the robot did. If not why not? Or what if the owner customizes a robot in some way does that then make the owner responsible if the robot commits a crime.
Click your heels together and repeat – conservatives are for small government, conservatives are for small government, The Plot Against the First Amendment
McNulty quickly concluded that the AIPAC case would provide the perfect opportunity for the Gonzales project—converting the Espionage Act into the equivalent of the British Official Secrets Act. The core of the extraordinary theory advanced by McNulty can be found in these words from one of its recent briefs:
The government respectfully submits that an ‘ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense’ […] would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation with the United States government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense.
By this theory, any receipt by an unauthorized person of classified information and correspondence concerning it is converted into an act of espionage, and thus made prosecutable.
The object of this exercise has been broadly misunderstood by many who have followed it—and particularly by Iraq War critics who delight in a perceived slap-down of AIPAC. But this is tragically short-sighted. If the prosecution succeeds, the Bush Administration will have converted the Espionage Act of 1917 into something it was never intended to be: an American copy of the British Official Secrets Act. It is likely to lead quickly to efforts to criminalize journalists dealing with sensitive information in the national security sector, as well as their sources.
Much of the media already leans Right or doesn’t say much of anything for fear of being labeled unamerican, Devastating’ Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming
At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.
The Right loves to beat up on Dan Rather I can’t understand why. By his lack of aggressive reporting he played almost as big a role as the unquestioning war cheerleaders,
Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a “softer” way, explaining to Moyers: “I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light – if that doesn’t seem ridiculous.”
Many Americans across the political spectrum especially four years ago respected Colin Powell even if we disagreed with him,
The disgraceful press reaction to Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student’s thesis, downloaded from the Web — with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with “plagiarism.”
Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have “two conservatives for every liberal.” Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue’s firing that claimed he “presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
As Moyer’s notes many of these same pundits and reporters are still with us. They have paid little for their laziness or in many cases outright blind zealotry.
There is a reason that the Right is on a rampage of hate against Senator Reid, he takes reality and shoves it in their chicken hawk faces and if there is one thing the hate mongers can’t stand it is reality, Reid: Bush in Denial Over War in Iraq
With a veto fight looming, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that President Bush is in a state of denial over Iraq, “and the new Congress will show him the way” to a change in war policy.
Reid, D-Nev., said the Democratic-controlled House and Senate will soon pass a war funding bill that includes “a fair and reasonable timetable” for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. In a speech prepared for delivery, he challenged Bush to present an alternative if, as expected, he vetoes the measure.
[ ]…Reid noted disapprovingly that in a speech last week, Bush repeatedly said there were signs of progress in Iraq in the wake of a troop increase he ordered last winter.
“The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,” said Reid.
Bush is on record as saying his first loyalty is not to his country, its to the little voices he hears in his head.
George Soros rules the world! Bill O’Reilly loses it…
Everyone seems determined to blame the Va. Tech shootings on anyone or anything, but the killer. That being the case hate mongers like the Stalinesque O’Reilly work damn hard to whip up hate and societal divisions. The least he could do is accept a small portion of responsibility for the idea that hate and wacky conspiracy theories pass for thoughtful political analysis.