 |
| Isaac Asimov |
The Three Laws of Robotics
1.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.
2.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where
such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection
does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Robots following Asimov’s
Three Laws of Robotics would do a better job in protecting Americans than the
present Obama administration.
In 1986 I rushed into
the Barnes and Noble bookstore on 5th Avenue, bought a copy of
I,ROBOT, and handed it over to Isaac Asimov to sign it. The next day among computer professionals I said – guys, I saw Isaac Asimov yesterday in
Manhattan! Who is he? they asked.
I am often asked why
stupidity and not design? Because how else can one explain the Obama
administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other
explanation but stupidity. Ignorance falls in this category too because only
the stupid would fail to educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies .
Update: This is what I got from The Economist
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one
explain the Obama administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome
of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity.
Ignorance falls in that category too because only the stupid would fail to
educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies.
The quintessence of the US-Israel split on Iran
[1] http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
and my response:
How would The Economist characterize a policy, the outcome of which would be a nuclear war? Intelligent?
Update: This is what I got from The Economist
The attached comment, posted under the pen name Mladen_Andrijasevic, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:
http://www.economist.com/legal
We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.
Yours sincerely,
Comments Moderator The Economist online
Your comment:
I am often asked why stupidity and not design? Because how else can one
explain the Obama administration rushing into a deal with Iran, the outcome
of which would be a nuclear war? There is no other explanation but stupidity.
Ignorance falls in that category too because only the stupid would fail to
educate themselves on the motives that drive their enemies.
The quintessence of the US-Israel split on Iran
[1] http://www.madisdead.blogspot.
and my response:
Would you be so kind to clarify which of the 14 rules have I violated? Thank you
