0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_GiantQuoteThe Giant has been described as "renowned for its manhood",[15] "markedly phallic",[2] "sexually explicit"[16] and "ithyphallic".[17] The Giant sports an erection, including its testicles, some 36 feet (11 metres) long, and nearly the length of its head.[18] It has been called "Britain's most famous phallus".[19] One commentator noted that postcards of the Giant were the only indecent photographs that could be sent through the English Post Office.[20]
The Giant has been described as "renowned for its manhood",[15] "markedly phallic",[2] "sexually explicit"[16] and "ithyphallic".[17] The Giant sports an erection, including its testicles, some 36 feet (11 metres) long, and nearly the length of its head.[18] It has been called "Britain's most famous phallus".[19] One commentator noted that postcards of the Giant were the only indecent photographs that could be sent through the English Post Office.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_floodnever heard of this before today. mind bottling
I spent way too much time last night readying about Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#metaethics
Quote from: Emo EMAW on August 20, 2014, 08:32:35 AMI spent way too much time last night readying about Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#metaethicsseems pretty straightforward to me...
Also, these laws can remove some element of free choice. If for example emo emaw wanted to cut himself as an expression of my inner pain then allegedly a robot would be required to stop it.
Quote from: Emo EMAW on August 20, 2014, 10:07:44 AMAlso, these laws can remove some element of free choice. If for example emo emaw wanted to cut himself as an expression of my inner pain then allegedly a robot would be required to stop it.They all require the ability to predict the future. Which is why sci-fi.
Quote from: Fldermaus on August 20, 2014, 10:10:26 AMQuote from: Emo EMAW on August 20, 2014, 10:07:44 AMAlso, these laws can remove some element of free choice. If for example emo emaw wanted to cut himself as an expression of my inner pain then allegedly a robot would be required to stop it.They all require the ability to predict the future. Which is why sci-fi.They also might make decisions without all the information and without proper context. Not so straight forward, huh?
Europe’s Insane History of Putting Animals on Trial and Executing Themhttp://www.wired.com/2014/09/fantastically-wrong-europes-insane-history-putting-animals-trial-executing/
Carl Tanzler, or sometimes Count Carl von Cosel (February 8, 1877 – July 3, 1952), was a German-born radiologic technologist at the United States Marine Hospital in Key West, Florida who developed a morbid obsession for a young Cuban-American tuberculosis patient, Elena Milagro "Helen" de Hoyos (July 31, 1909 – October 25, 1931), that carried on well after the disease had caused her death.[1] In 1933, almost two years after her death, Tanzler removed Hoyos's body from its tomb, and lived with the corpse at his home for seven years until its discovery by Hoyos's relatives and authorities in 1940
In all, there were 46 potential witnesses to the shooting, including Trena McElroy, who was in the truck with her husband when he was shot. No one called for an ambulance.[9] Only Trena claimed to identify a gunman; every other witness either was unable to name an assailant or claimed not to have seen who fired the fatal shots.[10] The DA declined to press charges. An extensive Federal investigation did not lead to any charges.
