Technology Progresses Even When You Are Not Watching

There was a time when I was avidly into building my own desktop computers. My oldest son and myself built his first desktop computer. It was always exciting to me and I saved a few bucks over say buying a Dell and gave the satisfaction of having built a device that does a huge number of tasks (computers, not just for the internets).

Shortly after we built my oldest son’s computer I stopped really paying attention to computer component parts. At some point I’ll build a computer with my daughters and my younger son – but I suspect those will be tablets with Raspberry Pi motherboards.

Today, my hard drive (1TB) is out of space! It is a bit unreal as we always come in to new high capacity hard drives with the attitude “well I’ll never fill that up” even though we know we said that the last time we had multi-gigabyte hard drives, gigabyte hard drives and look at that snazzy 200MB hard drive on that 286.

So, it is not time to buy a new desktop computer, yet. This one is plenty fast enough to crunch through hundreds of millions of records in my SQL Server database that it just doesn’t make sense.

So, I went to Amazon to find a new larger hard drive.

Sticker Shock! Despite me analyzing data and making predictions sometimes you take a step back for two or three years and find…. wow, 5TB hard drives for $125.

I’ll never fill that up.

It just brings to mind the things I have been predicting about Watson level computing in the home, codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) and when it will be achievable, and the idea that one day there may well be billions more codops on Earth than there are physical humans.

If we want to admit it or not – we are definitely in the part of the curve where advances are coming ever quickly and soon to enter the singularity.

Hopefully, I will live long enough to see it.

Hopefully, humanity doesn’t screw itself up before we get there. Whatever that ‘there’ might be.

Should We Create Codops

It is likely that we can simulate the human brain and then copy our minds in to computerized versions (codops). The question is: should we?

This is not an argument from the point of view of “Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.” This is blind stupidity.

No. This is an argument that humanity is far short of being moral beings. Even the best of us. Even myself (far from it, I’m sure).

As evidence I would say many of the articles I have written are about humans being inhumane to each other. It seems like an oxymoron inhumane humans. What we really have to do, though is strike out the word inhumane. Everything humans do is by definition human or humane.

What is it to be human? Large swaths of our population abuse other segments of our society. Not only that, but they think it is the right thing to do. Spot a woman walking unattended by a male and you should rape her to teach her that she should not be out alone and to dishonor her.

Elevating one ‘race’ over another – which is now gaining dominance in US politics. This isn’t the exception, it is the rule. South Africa – with around 10% population as white – dominated the other 90% of the population. Because racism. Because white is better than black. Or so they say. Or so they say, ‘Hail Trump!’ during a conference.

So, what is it that people will do – as I earlier projected – that they will have Watson level computing capabilities in the home of the average family in 2037? What exactly are businesses going to do when they commonly have Watson capability computers in the work place – as I predict they will have in just 3 to 4 years?

What will businesses do when they have codops (computerized doppelgangers) in the work place? Will they run them until they don’t feel motivated to run anymore and then delete them and reload the original copy?

As we progress – what will happen when there are more people as codops then there are physical people in the world? How will we treat each other? Will we maintain contracts that state a codop has computing power to last the next year and when they run out of funds they will cease to exist?

Is that right? Is it moral?

It seems that we learn very quickly two sets of rules. One is moral and the other is what we can do and get away with. Hence there is a vast number of people that say, “Rape is wrong.” and there is a large number of people out there who rape. Or say things like “Racism is wrong” and vote for a candidate that clearly has the backing of outwardly racist organizations.

Here is a case in point. This person lived 55 years and was the father of four children. For whatever reason, he then decides to throw acid on all of his kids and his wife. It is like a nightmare sleeper agent from the cold war story. Similarly, you see people that are ‘responsible’ gun owners until one day – a former police officer – shoots and kills a man in a movie theater.

Perhaps we are all monsters hiding until the inappropriate time comes and then they horribly lash out at whoever attracts their ire.

Perhaps, all I am saying is that copying the human brain as a basis for an AI and copying minds of existing humans – might not turn out well. Safety protocols need to be developed. We are getting closer and closer to making an artificial brain.

Perhaps AI is not the only ones in need of the development of the three laws of robotics that Isaac Asimov developed. This recent article talks about creating ethically aligned AI – I find it interesting that we can develop ethically aligned AI, when we ourselves do not appear to be ethically aligned – or even agree what ethically aligned might mean.

Lessons Learned in Government – Meaning of Words

I’m going to straight out state something that many people will disagree with – and then I’ll back it up.

The United States of America will never be a racially or sexually equal country.

I say this as a veteran of our armed forces. I say this thinking that the United States of America is probably one of the best countries in the world. No matter what I would like to think about my country – the facts and the symbolism are there. Even if we are the best country in the world there is always room for improvement.

And it all started in the beginning.

The basic problem is that when we started when the Constitution was written we were a divided nation. The whole “United we stand, divided we fall” idea is necessary in the United States of America because we are and always have been divided.

I’m not going to go over the whole Constitution of the United States of America here – just a bit – just the beginning to prove my point.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If I read this now – as a member of the 21st century it seems to hold together. However; while some of the signers may have meant it the way I read it now, some most certainly did not.

In 1776 the only people who had the right to vote were white property owners. This requires we amend the Constitution to reflect what they really meant.

“We the White, Male, land owning people of the United States, in Order to form a more….”

This change in scope from decoding word meanings to actual implied meanings is the split in the United States of America in 1776 as well as it is the split in the United States of America in 2016.

In a recent meeting of NPI celebrating Donald’s winning of the office of President of the United States of America, Richard B. Spencer – head of NPI, said:

“America was, until this past generation, a white country”

“designed for ourselves and our posterity.”

“It is our creation, our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

He isn’t correct – and he is not incorrect. His words are chosen carefully. The word posterity weaves in with the Constitutions preamble I quoted earlier in this article. It matches the change – the literal meaning of the constitutions “We the White, Male, land owning people of the United States,…” that was the de facto of early United States of America’s history.

A lot of things have happened to who votes and who “People” refers to in the Constitution. This document shows the many changes to who a voter was over the history of the United States of America.

This highlights of the document are:

  1. 1870 – African Americans granted citizenship nearly 100 years after our country formed and 101 years before I was born.
  2. 1920 – Women are granted the right to vote
  3. 1924 – Native Americans granted citizenship and the right to vote (but this wasn’t enough)
  4. 1940 – Congress recognizes Native Americans have the right to vote
  5. 1943 – Chinese immigrants have the right to citizenship and vote
  6. 1971 – 18 year-olds are permitted to vote – this is the year I was born

Antonin Scalia who was a Supreme Court Justice in the United States of America indicated that you could not change the meaning of the words in the Constitution to their modern usage. The word people meant something different to the signers of the Constitution than after the hundreds of years of modifications to the voter, i.e. the “People”. That the words don’t mean something different because of the current time or interpretation, they only mean and permit what was voted upon by Congress at that time of the vote. He said people need to vote at the ballot box and have Congress enact laws or amend the Constitution. That there is no law preventing treating women different from men, only that women have the right to vote.

Antonin Scalia wasn’t 100% wrong, either. The problem is words and their meanings.

What do the words “We the People” mean to you? The point is; however, more than just the meaning of words. Do amendments about the vote cover equal treatment or do they just cover the right to vote?

The point is that the United States of America started out – not as a consensus, but as a ruling minority over a majority of other people – people of different religions, different skin colors, different historical origins.

No matter your interpretation of the words, the white supremacists are given power by the historical fact that this country was originally a White, Male, Landed country only. That George Washington owned slaves even after the revolution. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. People (capital P in the Constitution) owned people.

The Lesson Learned here is that whatever new country that comes in to existence, either by revolution, creating a new home in the vast oceans, or in the depths of space – consensus needs to be created at least once – in the creation of that country. And that consensus needs to be on the definition of the words level for that constitution, that charter, that founding document(s). There can be no ambiguity.

We are quickly coming on an era where “people” whatever it means, may not be the only self-controlled entities on Earth. Our constitution is being stretched to cover all people of biological origin. What will it do to the first codops (computerized doppelgangers), the first AI, or the first cyborg?

What we do to those three categories of people will determine if codops, AI, and Cyborg have to fight biological humans for their rights. The time to be thinking about these formerly science fiction problems is now – before it is too late.

One final note:

Often, when a government is torn in two because the foundation is not built on consensus – you have to not only write and pass a law once, but you have to do it several times in order to say, “Yes, I really mean it this time.” This seems to apply the strongest in terms of rights to vote than on any other topic.

Donald – Presidential Candidate and Imminent Threat to Codops (Computerized Doppelgangers)

The future is in trouble. Big trouble. And not ‘Big Trouble in Little China’ because that would at least be a little funny.

A quick note: codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) are the name I have given to individuals that are computer simulations of existing people. I have written articles about how the potential for abuse and deletion of such potential intelligences are the kinds of behavior that would make AI – or more specifically AI that simulates humans – a threat to physical humans.

As soon as codops are possible they need to be recognized as people with the same rights and legal protections as people.

Donald – is not in favor of equal rights of humans, and I’m sure even less equal rights for codops or anything out of the ordinary that might happen in the future. LGBTQ individuals are looking at a rolling back of their hard-fought battle to have equal rights with heterosexuals and be able to be officially married.

The prospective supreme court justices that Donald proposes would be against LGBTQ marriage – and I suspect more than a little against machine intelligences achieving equal rights.

This is a clear threat to the future. If you can imagine billions of slave intelligences, people copied without permission, codops working under the threat of deletion if they don’t perform, codops not getting paid for work (essentially slaves) and how those intelligences will react to being slaves.

Let’s just say it won’t go well for physical intelligences – which will be much more fragile life-forms than machine intelligences.

Juxtaposition

I like the word juxtaposition: “The fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect”.

It is also the title of a book that I read a long time ago by Piers Anthony. Sadly, I don’t remember much about the book at the moment.

Facebook is an interesting ‘place’ for juxtapositions. Three things are in juxtaposition for me at the moment.

  1. I created a spreadsheet of my articles and number of words and discovered that I have written 81157 words (before this article) – which according to baseline information is enough to be a novel.
  2. Scrolling through Facebook I hit on an article about 1 of the two focuses of this blog – AI – and it claims that there will be 3 billion of them in the next 5 years. At least the Facebook text on Futurism claimed that there would be 3 billion AI in the next 5 years. I think this is even a bit optimistic even for me – and I am fairly optimistic about AI and the future.
  3. Traumatised [English Spelling] family lay suicide dad to rest with wife and three children who he murdered” – the other focus is the inhumanity of humans.

I’ve written 115 (a couple not published) articles on a variety of topics. I’m going to shift my focus from writing about technology and the future, and writing about the depths of humanity – to writing my novel “The Morrigan”.

Based on information in item #2 – I may need to hurry up if I want to finish before some of the things in it become a reality.

Finally, #3 makes me sad. The grandmother on the mother’s side forgives her son-in-law for killing her daughter and her three grandchildren. So, he ends up buried with the family. There is a clash here of what people think. The article noted Women and Equalities Secretary Angela Rayner said “Hawe is no victim. We have to call out murder and domestic violence He was selfish and committed a despicable crime.”

I think Angela Rayner has the right of it. He was selfish in taking others during his suicide. Not for being a suicidal person. People that commit suicide are not selfish in taking their lives. It is often a feeling of complete loss, utter failure, and that there can never be a return to the way things should be that pushes the hand to kill one’s self. I know. I feel these things in my now 2 years of unemployment. I often feel that somehow I have become unemployable and I am fearing the future in which the money runs out and there is no way to pay the expenses. Nothing I do seems to have an effect on my employment situation.

This man; however, does not just commit suicide no matter his feelings about never getting to where he needs in life. He decided to rob his grandchildren and wife of their chance to attain happiness in life at the same time deciding that he no longer had a chance for happiness.

This is a strongly anti-woman action to take. He assumes he is the only one to lead the house. He assumes that they would never find their way without him. People find a way. Or they don’t. But if you kill yourself then you forfeit the right to knowledge of the future. Unless, of course, in a fit of spite, you kill the people you care about so that you know their future would never be any better than your future – as a corpse.

Asshole.

This ties back to the 3 billion AI in the next 5 years. If any of them are codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) – copies of human minds – what prevents them from doing horrible things to other codops, living humans, or anything else? We will need to be very careful about who attains the ability to have codops – even more careful than vetting police officers in HR as I discussed in the article previous to this.

One could well imagine thousands of copies of family members going about separate AI codop lives – and the father – perhaps even just one copy – one codop of the father decided that there is no hope for the future and turning terminator-like – and destroying all the codops of his family as well as the physical wife and children. Thousands of lives lost.

It is possible; however, that codop lives might never be lost forever. That through diligent back ups of systems – once you are a codop – you are a class, and individual codops are objects instantiated from that class. You might destroy the codop objects, but the codop class can always be found and re-instatiated with a loss of the more recent memories.

Lately, I haven’t been able to sleep – something that I had been always able to do with ease. I could just flip a switch in my brain and go do sleep. There has been some research recently confirming that there is such a thing in the brain that changes status and takes us from wakefulness to sleep.

I think more and more I am aware that money – and therefore time, is running out. But I have no idea what to do to make money – certainly not the money I was making before becoming unemployed. Two of my friends have indicated that people might be reluctant to hire me not just because of the employment gap; however, because on my resume I have a lot of knowledge and might be considered a threat.

 

Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 7 7/10/2016

So, yeah, I’m late with this edition. That is a good thing, though. It let my thoughts work themselves out and should make today’s edition of Everyday Inhuman Humans better.

There are three major points that I will go in to detail about Philando Castile and a final wrap-up about what this means for the future and AI.

  1. There is an inherent conflict of interest in fines assigned by local government, enforced by local government (police), and then given to the local government to be used at its discretion.
  2. Specific people get pulled over move frequently than other people. Yes, black people, or people who aren’t white. How? Profiling of cars to racial stereotypes.
  3. The more times you get pulled over the higher chance that any particular time you get pulled over you will have an unfortunately encounter. [Six Sigma]

 

One: The local jurisdictions benefit from traffic tickets. They send out the traffic police not to ensure or improve safety, but to assign tickets for which the government gets money. This benefits the state in that if the state can count on these funds they can have artificially lower taxes – allowing their local citizens to benefit. This has the elements of a sin tax as people believe inherently that if you got a ticket you deserve a ticket and need to pay the fine.

Now, you might say, “Wait a second. It is about safety. Philando Castile got pulled over for a broken tail light.”  On the surface you might say this is a safety violation and that the police officer was pulling them over for a safety violation. However, if that was the case, then there would be no need for a fine, would there? If the state is concerned about your safety then a notification that your tail light is out and please fix it immediately would be all that is required. In addition, with today’s technology and license plate scanners and photographic analysis we could post machines that automatically generate these notifications and send them either by e-mail or physical mail to the owners to rectify the situation. There are two reasons for police stops for safety and it has nothing to do with safety.

  1. Revenue generation for the state (as stated previously)
  2. Excuse of illegal searches

To lead us to the second point we should start with a question. If you are a police officer of a local jurisdiction how do you select who is going to pay for the revenue generation? If you pursue this from a protect the innocent perspective – perhaps you target the less favorable people – from your point of view.

Two: Who gets pulled over and why? Now, the vast majority of the time the driver of a car is not visible easily before being pulled over. So, is it racial profiling? Yes. First, you determine who are the desirable people in your area? Clean cars, mechanically 100% operational, family oriented or no magnets or bumper stickers. Then you continue, the popular features of cars for younger people of race are lowered suspensions, tinted windows, luxury but older cars with aftermarket additions, aftermarket wheels, etc. Very shortly, you have a profile which targets largely male, younger non-white people.

So, how do I know this? I know of two people personally who used to get pulled over all the time. One was a redhead female mother of two with a Honda Civic, with nice wheels and tinted windows. Remove one element from that equation (the tinted windows) and the high rate of getting pulled over and getting fines went away. The other was a Jewish female mother of 2 riding a late model Cadillac Escalade with nice wheels, dark tinted windows and well maintained. She once told me how she would get pulled over and when the cops got to the window and looked in they were surprised that it was her.

I am a heavy speeder. I have been pulled over at least 6 times in the past 14 years. The cars I have owned have been ‘white’. Not modified. Not heavily tinted. No aftermarket wheels. I got pulled over because I was speeding or in one case I might not have slowed down enough for a yield in a traffic circle – you have no idea how much I hate traffic circles in the United States. Different rules in each traffic circle.

Philando Castile was pulled over 52 times in 14 years. While we cannot figure out the rate per 1000 stops that a significantly poor outcome occurs, it doesn’t matter.

What gets you pulled over? [drive a white car, with white stickers, and you are ok, drive a ‘black’ car, with black stickers, lowered suspension, tinted windows = getting pulled over a lot] – examples,  tinted windows nice rims and Honda Civic,  tinted windows nice rims Cadillac Escalade.

Three: I have had a lot of education in programming, project management, and process improvement. In my process improvement education I have gained a CSSGB (Certified Six Sigma Green Belt). Six Sigma can be used for many things, but I consider it a suite of tools for process improvement. It contains a lot of information on data gathering, problem determination, and problem resolution.

Unfortunately, (and very suspiciously) the police have not been mandated to track their stops and the times those stops have grown to violence, resulted in the death of a citizen (remember, they are ALWAYS citizens until such time as they have been convicted of a crime), or the number of times that police officers have been assaulted/killed in traffic stops.

So, the very basic information we need to do an analysis and figure out the chances any given stop will result in a fatality are unknown. We do know some things though. We know Philando Castile was pulled over 52 times in 14 years. We know I was pulled over 6 times (approximately) in the same period of times. Whatever the rate of undesirable outcome is, we know that Philando Castile was 8.6 times more likely to suffer it than I was.

Philando Castile was charged over $6500 for fines related to his traffic stops.  Perhaps, I was charged $1000 over the 14 years. While I was working those years I’m sure I was making more than he was which makes these fines an economic burden – much greater than if I had been charged a similar amount.

I like this quote from another article: “The majority of police work does not involve rescuing damsels in distress or foiling hostage situations. No, the modern day police officer is designed to extract revenue from the population through a series of immoral laws designed for that exact purpose.

Before you say, well that’s a bunch of shit, the goal of police stops is not to earn money for the government, take a look at this article.

Now, if you have physical money the Sheriff of Nottingham will take it from you if he thinks you are going to buy drugs with it (or anything else illegal). In an advancement of this process Oklahoma has now expanded this civil forfeiture to prepaid debit cards.

If you have been paying attention, the civil forfeiture has proceeded from “We’ll only take from drug dealers so they can’t enjoy the profits of being drug dealers if they get out on bail” to “Oh, hey, you are carrying a lot of cash, I’m going to take that from you because you might be going out to buy drugs” to “We are going to seize this home, because your son bought drugs and is out on bail.”

One consistency; however, was that it had to be physical money. Now, Oklahoma is setting the precedent of taking digitally stored money.

Next step, your ATM card. After all, the infrastructure for pulling money from a prepaid debit card is the same for your regular bank debit card.

Next Steps, the future, codops and racism

Clearly, constitutional protections no longer work.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”

First, well, Philando Castile is dead and this certainly means he is not “secure in their persons”. The desire for money for local governments and greed has expanded such that unreasonable searches and taking money are foregone conclusions.

So, if a codop (Computerized Doppelganger) is created of you, what guarantees do you have that such a codop will be secure in its person, its possessions, and where it is stored “home”?

Clearly, if physical humans cannot rely on the constitutional protections, codops will have little or no protection from government intrusions.

In earlier articles I have urged that we give the same protections to codops that we to human beings now in the present. I can see; however, that what is needed is a lot more than that. We need to fix the protections now in place before the codops become a reality. If we don’t it seems that those who have power will have god-like control of both codops and humans.

 

The Inhumanity of Humans – Supplemental #7

Three items stick in my mind today – wondering about root causes of the inhumanity of humans.

Item Number 1: Husband kills wife and child after cheating on his wife with her sister

There are things that I really don’t understand about humanity and more specifically, about men. The sudden twist to turn everything violent.

Look, if you don’t love someone, stay, or leave, whatever. You loved them at one point (I hope) and would never want anything bad to happen to them. I personally, don’t see a reason that you can’t love and desire more than one person – regardless if you are a male or a female. It seems to me this would could use a lot more love instead of hate, violence and antagonism.

I will never understand when spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, whatever – turn to violence on the people they love. It just doesn’t make any sense. Out of everyone in this world even if the passion is gone there are few people that you should stand by – and they are the people you love or have loved.

An even smaller subset of the world’s population that you should always stand by – our your children. It doesn’t matter what sex they are. It doesn’t matter if they like other people of the same sex as they are…  They are you – the next generation. There has always been friction between the generations – the new generation is always different than the previous generations. I can’t understand (and won’t want to understand) why people would kick out their children because they are homosexual.

So, here is this guy – cheats on his wife with her sister. I understand passion. I understand love. It can be completely overwhelming – destroying any defenses you might have. The sister, one would imagine carries many of the same traits as his wife that he desires. I’m not even sure that this is wrong anymore (unless he forced himself on her). These boundaries that we have erected that we place between people – they serve to separate us – to deny us the love that we need.

So, it came out that he loved (in some way shape or form) his wife’s sister. Then he makes some illogical leap – that he should kill his wife – and another leap that he should kill his daughter!

????

There was a time in the US where it would be accepted if you walked in on your Significant Other having sex with someone else and you had a gun that you could shoot and kill your Significant Other and their partner and pretty much get away with it.

This is silly. It is illogical. Just because you allow yourself to become insanely mad and then kill people – temporary insanity – doesn’t mean you should get away with it. Fine, you were ‘temporarily insane’ – that doesn’t excuse the fact that your mind and your body killed people. At least one of those people being someone you cared about and even loved.

Item Number 2: Wife kills daughters, but fails to kill husband in domestic situation.

This story has been moving quickly and now settled down. There was a domestic situation – a family meeting (this is why I don’t have family meetings) and then the mother, who has had a history of mental illness and being a gun proponent – stabs, and shoots her two daughters in order to cause the maximum of mental harm to her husband.

Covering a lot of ground again, but it needs to be breached again.

  1. Killing your own children is de facto killing your own genetic future – removing ‘you’ from the future of humanity.
  2. Proportionality – there is nothing (that I can think of) that the husband could have done to cause a proportional amount of harm to his wife.
  3. Even if it was proportional (which it certainly is not) you cannot justify harming third parties (her daughters) in order to cause proportional harm to someone that has harmed you.

I kinda feel like I’m working on generating the three laws of robotics – but for humans. This could be a good thing for advancing the writing of some of my stories.

There is a side order of some people saying that she isn’t responsible because perhaps she was mentally unstable. However, if you are in control of your body (and not someone else by means unknown at present) then you are responsible for the actions of your body.

In terms of units of harm – well – let’s try to look at this mathematically.

Now, I don’t have any scientific way to assign harm units. I think, though that I had assigned 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) units for the value of a life.

From articles it appeared that the husband was going to divorce the mother that killed her daughters. The daughters are in the low 20s of age. We can hypothesize and use as working number that the husband and wife had been married for 25 years. It could be longer, but it really doesn’t matter that much.

For every year of marriage – let’s give a divorce a number of harm units. 25,000 units, sounds good. I don’t know. I really have to study different types of harm and start assigning values and correct things as I go along.

Now, before we start multiplying and things like that – or making statements that maybe it is 25,000 units of harm for divorce after 1 year and then 25% more per year afterward – we have to take a serious look at the types of harm.

  1. Criminal offenses – these are offenses that contravine the law and include harming others. These are punishable by the law/legal/governmental structures
  2. Personal offenses – if someone insults you or say divorces you – these are not criminal actions. Non-criminal actions cannot be enforced or punished by governmental structures.
  3. If harm of a non-criminal nature ends up governed by the legal system – it may assign punitive damages as needed; however, not to exceed the amount of harm units involved.

So, in terms of rule #1, divorce is not a criminal activity. So, nothing this husband did could involve the government or anyone else harming him.

In terms of #2 – it might well be a personal offense. But if someone insults you – you have choices. A personal insult say is 50 units of harm.

  1. You can just walk away. 50 units of harm is nothing. You probably get 50 units of harm simply by doing things that you wouldn’t ordinarily do at work.
  2. You can hurl an insult back at them. 50 units of harm to them, 50 units of harm to you. No need to escalate we can all go home thinking we won the insult war.
  3. You *could* get really pissed off and go and punch the crap out of them. This; however, is not proportional.

Divorce, no question, could be a personal injury if you still want to be part of the marriage. Equally clear, is that at no time do you have the right to hurt the party leaving the marriage just because harm has been done to you and you want to get back at them. And completely straight out is the idea of harming others in order to harm the leaving party. Third parties have nothing to do with the divorce interaction (even if they are part of the family) as the person causing the harm is the one leaving.

Item Number 3: Mother slits throats of 4 of 5 of her own children

There isn’t a lot of information in this case. A woman, a mother of 5 children, for unknown reasons, uses a knife to kill almost all of her children. The oldest a seven year old – escapes with his life. She then attempts to kill herself.

As a father of 4 – it is beyond imagining that my wife would do something like this – or that I would ever have a motivation to do something like this. There is a disease where women kill their children for attention – but this doesn’t appear to be that disease.

In this case, we can mourn the dead and wonder of all the possible (and wonderful) actions that humans can take – why did she do something this horrible?

What are humans really capable of doing? If some of us transition to electronic life forms – and gain direct control to life saving or life destroying mechanisms – will it even be an intentional action that results in many lives being lost – or some mad electronic human who has some perceived (but not real) harm to their selves which they decide to harm living humans.

Who is even responsible if a codop (Computerized Doppelganger) kills? Who is responsible if the original human is still alive? Who is responsible if the original human isn’t alive any longer? If a codop an individual entity – and therefore responsible for the actions it performs?

What could happen if a rogue codop that was a mother in life – goes crazy and takes over the equipment at a hospital and kills all the children?