User talk:Minority Report

/Archive_2004_11_22

American mother on murder charge
Minority Report, I'm not sure I entirely disagree with the charge of murder against the mother. I'd have to know more about what the doctors advised her and what her situation was. But if they told her unequivocally that, if she did not have a Caesarean, her twins would die, and she still refused, and they died, then that would seem to amount to a prima facie intention to kill; or, at least, behavior that wilfully disregarded the likely outcome. If she were deliberately to withhold food from her twins two weeks after the birth, and they died as a direct result, she would risk facing a murder charge. So withholding something crucial from them two weeks before their birth shouldn't be the thing that makes the difference. (I'm not getting into when an embryo becomes a human being here. I'm saying that, two weeks before birth, there can be no argument that they're not human). Of course, there may be something in the mother's situation that would make me change my mind as I'm only judging this on the basis of that one newspaper article. But the principle is that the American justice system, as I understand it, regards foetuses of that age as "persons" in law, which means everyone has the same obligation toward them as they do toward any other person. Slim 01:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

She was charged with murder for not following medical advice. That is so far over the mark that I had difficulty believing it when I first read about it. I regard the actions of the prosecutors in this case as quite inhuman. It could not happen in UK law, which treats even cases of direct infanticide altogether more sensibly in my opinion.

The woman charged with murder, Melissa Ann Rowland, plea bargained, accepting two counts of child endangerment and the murder charge was dropped.

In the UK courts, in the case St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S in 1998, the Court of Appeal reiterated that fetuses are not legal persons and found that a court-ordered C-section on a detained mental patient was unlawful.

Glad I live in my Safe European Home. --Minority Report 01:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Singularitarianism and Moore's law
On the talk page for Singularitarianism, you stated: "A movement that relies for its chief reasoning tool a misapplication of Moore's Law, well it doesn't merit as much time and space as serious AI research."

I'm writing here because, while this misapplication of Moore's law is very common in speculations regarding the Singularity, and thus I cannot ommit it from the article technological singularity, I do not want to give you the impression that I myself am guilty of this error in reasoning. The idea is mostly pushed forward by Ray Kurzweil, and he gets to dictate the majority opinion because he's one of the few people that write books about the Singularity. Also, it's a convenient argument. Normal folks, and especially people that like to reason from science fiction, are easily tempted to say "Wow, technology does seem to be improving exponentially. The future sure is going to be great!" because, well, people want to believe it. Kurzweil ignores all the real disaster scenarios in his speculations, and seems to think the biggest problem of the future is going to be opposition from Luddites. Kurzweil's optimism encourages insane levels of passivity in people that have enough exposure to futurology to start asking important questions regarding the safety of nanotechnology and AI, but don't because thinking about how great the future will be is much more fun.

I, personally, don't believe in Kurzweil's so-called Law of Accelerating Returns, but I report on it because a lot of other people do. In fact, I want to stress that I think his "law" and the unbridled optimism accompanying it are entirely antithetical to the spirit of Singularitarianism (as defined here &mdash; not just mere speculation). I should hate to see you develop opposition to Singularitarianism from the mistaken belief that all its adherents subscribe to this highly questionable reasoning.

I suggest you read Vernor Vinge's original essay (which you will be glad to know makes no mention of Moore's law at all), as his assumptions about the future are a tad more solid than most of those influenced by him. -- Schaefer 00:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I didn't get far with the Vinge essay before I threw up my hands in impatience at his wilder predictions. I have lived too long to take this kind of speculation seriously. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 15:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to have wasted your time. You've been editing some of the related articles and mentioned you read some of von Neumann's earlier speculations along these lines so I just thought you might enjoy it. Speaking of von Neumann, by the way, I found his original mention of a singularity and will insert it in the relevant article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Schaefer 20:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take my very negative views as a criticism. I'm aware that I've got a very low trigger level on this kind of thing. You haven't wasted my time because I am a little worried about this and wondering if I may sometimes write off worthwhile stuff unreasonably. I think this would definitely have been the case if you had not intervened on Singularitarian. I can review my history on this subject and learn from it.

I'm glad you found the von Neumann reference to a singularity; this should definitely be included in any article, as I'm sure Vinge would be the first to agree. Excellent work! --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 20:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Minority Report! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Mark Greenway -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Kings Cross Platform Nine And Three Quarters.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kings Cross Platform Nine And Three Quarters.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  07:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)