saden1
06-05-2012, 06:43 PM
It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.
That's fascinating....
We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?
RedskinRat
06-05-2012, 06:56 PM
We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?
Yes, I promise it will.
<fingers_crossed>
12thMan
06-05-2012, 06:58 PM
Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?
saden1
06-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?
Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.
12thMan
06-05-2012, 07:55 PM
Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.
Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.
I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?
CRedskinsRule
06-05-2012, 08:47 PM
Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.
I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?
Just plug right in and the matrix will take care of you, after all really all we are is electrical impulses flowing through water.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using Tapatalk 2
JoeRedskin
06-05-2012, 08:48 PM
Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.
I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?
Fear not 12th, for unto us an algorithm will be created. And yea, it shall be mighty and smite down prejudice, hatred and bad calls on 4th & short. The prophet RR has foretold its coming and those that doubt his words shall be mercilessly mocked for their lack of faith in the ultimate omniscience and infallibility of science.
NC_Skins
06-05-2012, 10:10 PM
Coming soon to a courthouse near you.
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/d/dreddss.jpg
Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.
HailGreen28
06-05-2012, 10:42 PM
Coming soon to a courthouse near you.
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/d/dreddss.jpg
Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.I didn't know the neighborhood watch had such snazzy uniforms now.
:silly:
Lotus
06-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.
My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?
One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.