Posts tagged ‘law’

Spank me tin lady!

With all the advancements in computer science, engineering, AI, deep learning and robotics, all we humans are asking is “Can I fuck it?”.

Interesting.

Anyway. Gizmodo [insert disgruntled sigh here] had punished the article linked here.

Do BDSM Sexbots violate Asimov’s first law of robotics?

Simple answer, no. In a normal consenting setting no real/lasting harm comes to the participants.

The already practiced use of a safeword puts further power into the hands of the sub. A properly programmed AI in such a bot would also pose less risk of disregarding the safeword, like a human might.

More complicated answers, answers from people who do not understand the laws of robotics (or BDSM for that matter) can be found in the article.

The laws of robotics were drafted and worded by Asimov in such a way that they explicitly allow for loopholes, for contradictions. He explores this in numerous of his stories. The question here shouldn’t be whether BDSM Sexbots violate Asimov’s first law of robotics, but WHY ARE WE STILL USING ASIMOV’S LAWS OF ROBOTICS???

They’re flawed. They don’t need a rework, they need a full out replacement. Allowing for exceptions to certain rules/laws, closing of the old loopholes.

•Are Sexbots unethical? No.

•Are BDSM Sexbots unethical? No.

•Does the creation/existence of Sexbots objectify women? No.

•Do Sexbots cause harm? Not that I could think of. (Of course there are mentally unstable individuals out there who might take it too far, but they would take it too far with a mannequin made out of milkcartons and Play-Doh.)

•Do BDSM Sexbots cause harm? No. (See above)

So. Now that we have settled that question, can we please think of other ways to use this technology other than to fuck? Care of the sick/elderly/crippled. Construction (cylon style). Security (with certain rules imprinted on them). Space travel/exploration. Disaster relief/cleanup.

Could we use our intelligence to solve a few more pressing issues rather than whether we can build fuckable bots? Climate Change. Environment. Energy production. Pollution. Food. (Neither ditching nuclear, nor avoiding GMOs will help with those last four/five, on the fucking contrary) Water. Health. (Get vaccinated! Homeopathy isn’t real!)

Can we stop religion? EVERY RELIGION?

For the sake of the future!

Take care,

A.

Advertisements

Spank me tin lady!

With all the advancements in computer science, engineering, AI, deep learning and robotics, all we humans are asking is “Can I fuck it?”.

Interesting.

Anyway. Gizmodo [insert disgruntled sigh here] had punished the article linked here.

Do BDSM Sexbots violate Asimov’s first law of robotics?

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Simple answer, no. In a normal consenting setting no real/lasting harm comes to the participants.

The already practiced use of a safeword puts further power into the hands of the sub. A properly programmed AI in such a bot would also pose less risk of disregarding the safeword, like a human might.

More complicated answers, answers from people who do not understand the laws of robotics (or BDSM for that matter) can be found in the article.

The laws of robotics were drafted and worded by Asimov in such a way that they explicitly allow for loopholes, for contradictions. He explores this in numerous of his stories. The question here shouldn’t be whether BDSM Sexbots violate Asimov’s first law of robotics, but WHY ARE WE STILL USING ASIMOV’S LAWS OF ROBOTICS???

They’re flawed. They don’t need a rework, they need a full out replacement. Allowing for exceptions to certain rules/laws, closing of the old loopholes.

•Are Sexbots unethical? No.

•Are BDSM Sexbots unethical? No.

•Does the creation/existence of Sexbots objectify women? No.

•Do Sexbots cause harm? Not that I could think of. (Of course there are mentally unstable individuals out there who might take it too far, but they would take it too far with a mannequin made out of milkcartons and Play-Doh.)

•Do BDSM Sexbots cause harm? No. (See above)

So. Now that we have settled that question, can we please think of other ways to use this technology other than to fuck? Care of the sick/elderly/crippled. Construction (cylon style). Security (with certain rules imprinted on them). Space travel/exploration. Disaster relief/cleanup.

Could we use our intelligence to solve a few more pressing issues rather than whether we can build fuckable bots? Climate Change. Environment. Energy production. Pollution. Food. (Neither ditching nuclear, nor avoiding GMOs will help with those last four/five, on the fucking contrary) Water. Health. (Get vaccinated! Homeopathy isn’t real!)

Can we stop religion? EVERY RELIGION?

For the sake of the future!

Take care,

A.

PS, Data!!!!

Consumer protection done (almost) right…

As reaction to:
https://futurism.com/missouris-meat-law/

Missouri passed a law that prohibits the use of the term “meat” for anything that didn’t come from an animal.

Which is great!

If it isn’t meat, don’t call it meat!

If it is plums, you wouldn’t call it apples, now would you?
(Side rant: Why are these fucking cretins in the vegan crowd bitching and moaning about Trumps ‘Alternative Facts’, whilst living with alternative facts of their own? I don’t get it!)

It is that simple. idgf what you call it, but it is false labeling, more accurately, consumer fraud if you call Not-meat, meat.

It is this entire false labeling crap that must end:
It is soy juice, almond drink, grain water. Be honest.

It is NOT milk, nor is that other shit meat. Not even a convincing approximation.

You’re vegan? Good. Own that shit, and be honest about it to everyone, including yourself. Don’t pretend to be eating meat, if it is just crushed almonds, textured and colored in a way, that is a vague approximation.

Wash your almond-slab down with some Soy-juice.

But, as always, there is a catch, this decision also stinks of antiscienceism:
Labmeat IS meat.

May not have been alive recently (at least in the traditional terms) but it IS meat. Fear of GMOs and science in general is stinking through this otherwise intelligent decision.

Still.

A win for common sense.

A victory against consumer fraud.

Take care,

A.

PS: in my country there had been a huge scandal a few years back about “analogue cheese”, everyone and their aunt were up in arms over this. Today, they sell the same shit as Vegan cheese. It is NOT cheese, be honest.

Roadrage 09. Sept.

They made this.
This exists. Outside. On the road, not a training course for kids.

On a bicycle lane, exclusively for cyclists.

Let me rephrase that: They made real markings for cyclists!
The one group of traffic participants who frequently ignore traffic lights, traffic signs, and, most importantly, any and all markings! Who think traffic laws are loose guidelines or recommendations and safety gear is for loosers who actually value life and health.

They have shat out taxpayer money, to paint teeny-tiny cyclist markings on a bicycle lane, to make the one group of traffic participants that could only be more dangerous if they rode bikes made out of solid plutonium, feel safer.

Why?
Why on earth would you do useless crap like that?
What will be next? Signs for blind people not written in Braille? “If you’re blind, please look out for traffic!”

I would not put it beyond these stupid people. 

After all, those must be the same Schmucks who came up with the flashing red lights and high pitched beeps when the subway doors close, to deter people from jumping in at the last second, after thirty or fourty years of not having this. Did it actually stop anyone from jumping in at the last second?
NO!

Will the bicycle lane markings achieve anything except wasting taxpayer money?
NO!

I wish I could grab power in this stupid country, and mop the floor with all those mouthbreathers from the political extremes left and right. There would be no refugee crisis, just a welcome. There would be no road markings for cyclists, just hefty fines for driving on the road without a licensed vehicle, without safety gear, and no license…

Take care, and dodge the two wheeled menaces,
A.

Seeds

Seeds!

“I’ll give you half of my seeds, you give me half of yours…oh wait, we can’t – it’s illegal!”

Before you say I’m posting something out of a dystopian story I either read or wrote – no, this is real.
At least halfway. Not yet ratified this is a law in the making from the European Union.

It calls for standardized fruits and vegetables – and hence only certified seeds – so consumers won’t get confused. If we the consumers are that demented, we deserve to be cheated!

All this is about, is to increase the profits of large seed providing companies! It wouldn’t surprise me if behind the majority of bribe money lobbying is Monsanto the-company-that-shall-not-be-named.

This law, should it ever become reality, is the definite end of small breeds.
Let’s say some small Styrian apples.

The farmer can’t even give away (for free!) seeds to other farmers, or friends, or people who would like to plant one solitary apple tree in their garden.
Why?
Because the consumer might get confused. O.o

If the allow only certified sorts viri, fungi and pests have it relatively easy to wipe out the majority of our food supply. But if all pesticides fail there is still the holy grail of the seed companies: GMOs!

Naturally killing/driving off the pests, viri, fungi and bacteria – so we can injest poison!
Large quantities of delicious looking, watery tasting, fast grown poison.
Bon apetit!

But hey, pharma industry gotta live off of something too.

Yes this sounds like a conspiracy theory, I know, and I apologize for the lunacy that might be through this post, but that is the law-in-the-making from the EU shining through.

Making it illegal for farmers to sell their styrian apples to spanish customers in spain – I get that. They want apples from their region, or “standard” apples.

Making it illegal to sell said apples outside a certain radius from where they’re grown – still understandable, but not quite as well.

Making it illegal for them to be sold locally, and for farmers to trade or sell seeds – lunacy.

Absolute, utter lunacy.

They want the small breeds wiped out so everyone has to use the shit the companies have to sell.

It is common practice by the-company-that-shall-not-be-named to contractually forbid farmers to let their crops grow to maturity in order to collect seeds.

It also forbidden for salad farmers in my country to do so.

If, however, a bee, a bird, or the frakking wind carries a seed of GMO plants to MY field from Farmer Johnstons GMO field, the-company-that-shall-not-be-named is suing ME for license fees! Which brings me to the question: My Mother in law has an apple tree in her garden, a few branches extend out on the sidewalk – should someone take an apple from the sidewalk and plant the seeds – can she sue them? Or is she the culprit for not containing her vile, evil, natural, non-standard appleseeds? At least my son will know REAL apples.

Now, I don’t want to sound paranoid, but this is the first step to widespread application of GMOs. Monopoles being erected, or at least prepared. Monocultures in the making, demanding high prized fertilizer, etc.

If we ever have to face a Zombie Apocalypse, it stems from the GMOs that mutate us into Zombies.

I just hope I get as lucky as Zed…

A.

Addendum: After watching a documentary I have to urge to read labels more closely. If it is so safe to eat GMOs I have an idea: Grab all the CEOs of the-company-that-shall-not-be-named and others like it, and force feed them GMOs ONLY for a year. If they survive (and I want to stress the IF here) and they’re healthy, I will shut up. But I’d take up any bet that these people are eating organic / GMO free stuff ONLY.