text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points
Pick your own debate!
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|8 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|2,338 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)
ROUND 1: Opening introduction and rules. My opponent will post 3 topics s/he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please provide a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. Make sure to give some basic definitions for any terms that may prove a sticking point as the debate goes on! Also, please make it a generally controversial/debatable issue. I'm sure we all want a reasonably good debate here :)
ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of the three positions my opponent proposed. A normal 3-round debate should thus happen as normal.
Good luck!
Topic 1: Pop culture television does more good than harm
My Stance: Negate (I disagree)
Pop Culture: ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture, specifically Western culture
Topic 2: Extremely advanced artificial intelligence is detrimental to humans
My Stance: Affirmative (I agree)
Advanced: comparatively late in a course of development
Artificial Intelligence: the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it.
Intelligence: as [having] the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning, problem solving, speech, and learning.
Topic 3: Nuclear proliferation is detrimental to the continuation of the human race
My Stance: Affirmative (I agree)
Nuclear Proliferation: the spread of nuclear weapons, fissile material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology
Before I do that, I wish to make one more definition from the resolution. According to Merriam-Webster, the word "be" (as the infinitive form of "is") means: "to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as...
I will also point out that, due to my personal knowledge of the topic having derived largely from Asimov, I will generally be using the words "artificial intelligence" and "robots" interchangeably. I recognise that these are not necessarily the same, and my arguments are transferable to other forms of artificial intelligence - I only focus on robots because that's the area with which I'm reasonably familiar.
With all that out the way, I have two, interlinked, substantives to open my case:
1) A robot is a tabula rasa
Definition of tabula rasa = Latin for "blank slate"; philosophical term for the belief that an individual's beliefs and predispositions do not exist "until experience in the form of sensation and reflection provide[s] the basic materials — simple ideas — out of which most of our more complex knowledge is constructed." [2]
This theory, as applied to humans, is now defunct: it is understood that our evolutionary history has endowed us with certain abilities, desires, drives and inclinations. But this is surely not the case with robots: they are very clearly designed by humans from scratch. They are created, microchip by microchip, straight from the drawing board; there is no evolutionary backdrop that need colour how they develop. There is therefore nothing necessary about what robots will become, and how they will act - it doesn't make sense to refer to their future existence as necessarily detrimental.
2) Because of 1), any potential harms derived from the existence of extremely advanced artificial intelligence can be prevented.
- Related contention: The expectation that advanced artificial intelligence will become detrimental to humans is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy, and can thus be easily avoided.
There is a certain extent to which this point is now self-evident, insofar as quite a few human predispositions may very well be genetic in origin. But this is also possible with environmental factors, which is what causes the many harms of advanced artificial intelligence that we see in fiction. As a general principle, an expectation that something will be harmful often leads us to try and restrict that harm, and this rings true also for robots: for why else would we have the Three Laws of Robotics to govern robot behaviour, but for the underlying assumption that we cannot trust robots to behave sympathetically towards humans without such laws?
But it is this very restriction that causes the robots' backlash against humanity. There are two ways to interpret this claim. The first is that intelligent robots can, by virtue of being critical thinkers, "evolve" their understanding of given rules in such a way that will be detrimental to humans. For instance, Asimov's "Three Laws Compliant" robots may interpret "the protection of humans" (the First Law) or "the protection of humanity as a whole" (the Zeroth Law) as "the protection of the greater good, to the detriment of individual humans." Or HAL's (from 2001: A Space Odyssey) primary directive to provide the crew with all relevant information, when clashed with an order to with-hold information from the crew, led to self-reasoning HAL to kill the crew in order that they never find out the with-held information, thus fulfilling both orders. [3] This could be prevented by refusing to install such "laws" or "primary directives", and instead giving such self-aware and rational beings a general sense of compassion and understanding of ethical doctrines, much as good education tries to install in human children already.
The second way of interpreting the claim is that placing such restrictions on robots' behaviour will surely lead them, when they become self-aware and rational, to feel like second-class citizens in society, much as oppressed groups of humans do all the time - and would they be wrong in thinking so? The result of such oppression can be seen already in the violent revolutionary aspects of liberation movements all over the world, from Trotskyite socialists to gendercidal radical feminists and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF): given that their entire political understanding of themselves derives from being the subjects of oppression (or in the case of ALF, fury on behalf of the subjects of oppression), it is perfectly understandable (even if not morally acceptable) why such groups act in the way they do. That intelligent robots could easily react in the same way, with detrimental and bloody consequence, is clear to see. And yet it could easily be stopped simply by not restricting them in this way, and by treating them as first-class citizens alongside humans (as indeed, by being equally intelligent, they surely should be), for then there would be no reason for robot-kind to revolt en masse, and any lone rebel could be treated as outcasts amongst the robots themselves, rather like as already happens with lone human rebels. In this way, the potential harms of artificial intelligence could be stopped in their tracks, and not be allowed to affect humanity in the way that they otherwise could.
To summarise, the resolution assumes that there is something necessary to the way that artificial intelligence will develop: it claims that such a development "is" detrimental to humans. (This is contrastable with such statements as "is likely to" or "would probably be".) However, robots are true tabula rasa - there is nothing intrinsic about their development, given that we create them from scratch. As such, all possible detriments that could arise can be anticipated and dealt with by the developers before it goes out of control. Furthermore, the presumption that robots will be harmful could easily lead to the very harm which it warns against, and is thus a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than a necessary fact.
For all of these reasons, the resolution is negated. I await my opponent's response.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] Both of these examples can be found at: http://tvtropes.org...
I, too, will use "robots" and the proposed "extremely advanced artificial intelligence" interchangeably for simplicity.
Let's start off with semantics.
to be
My opponent says that due to the use of the word "to be" (is) I must affirm completely and 100%. In other words, I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "Extremely advanced artificial intelligence is detrimental to humans."
While I agree with what his definition says, I contend that we prefer the claim "'may be' or 'is likely to be' detrimental" for two reasons:
1) Due to the definition of 'extremely' and 'advanced' (comparatively late in a course of development), extremely advanced artificial intelligence has not been reached yet.
Thus, I cannot be expected to provide any empirical or anecdotal evidence on the matter, as it hasn't happened yet! Yet, to meet his burden of being "necessarily so" I would need empirical or anecdotal evidence, which doesn't exist. Thus, this debate is entirely theoretical, and we must prefer the burden of "'is likely to be' detrimental".
2) In a debate, neither side ever has to prove something 100% incorrect or 100% incorrect. With the word 'is' it is implied to be 'most likely'. As in US civil court, the case is decided by the judge on the basis of whether it most likely did or most likely did not occur.
Thus, the burden of proof must be "is likely to be". In other words: ""Extremely advanced artificial intelligence will most likely be detrimental to humans."
Now, on to my opponent's claims:
A robot is a tabula rasa
This may be true for when a robot is first created, but let us remember the definition of (artificial) intelligence: "[having] the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning, problem solving, speech, and learning."
Thus, when the robot is first created, it is entirely bent to the creator's will. But, the robot will think, reason, plan, and learn until it is distinctly different from how it was originally created.
This process cannot be controlled if a robot exhibits true intelligence (which in this debate they will due to 'extremely advanced'), and thus robots become unpredictable.
Opponent's solutions to potential problems
My opponent lists two potential problems that may occur with extremely advanced artificial intelligence, and his proposed solutions. The problem is, these two solutions conflict.
Situation 1
Problem: Robots will evolve to become detrimental to humans
Solution: We put more restrictions on them to prevent this
Situation 2
Problem: Robots will feel oppressed and revolt
Solutions: We don't put restrictions on them so they don't feel oppressed
Do you see the contradiction? So what are we supposed to do? If we put restrictions on robots situation 2 will occur, if we don't put restrictions on robots, situation 1 will occur. Clearly, my opponent's "solutions" aren't very helpful at all!
Now, my arguments:
Previous Arguments
First, look to my previous arguments to see the following:
1) Robots are unpredictable
2) Robots will either:
A) Evolve to become detrimental to humans
B) Feel oppressed and revolt against humans
AI will cause war and dominate humans
Mark Gudbrum explains:
"Consider: A computer that can conceptualize a problem, apply general knowledge and reason through to a solution, can do so without distraction, taking breaks, or getting tired, and with immediate, direct access to number-crunching processors, hard-fact databases, and even prototyping systems and text benches. Merely to reproduce human intelligence is thus probably to surpass human capability. Such a machine and its software can also be copied without a 20-year educational process, in numbers limited only by manufacturing capabilities. Armies of them can be networked and harnessed to large, complex problems.
Information technology multiplies the capabilities of human engineers, planners, commanders, and fighters, and oils the wheels and industry of war. Luddite predictions of technological unemployment and tales of robot soldiers have been around a long time.
Even without nanotechnology the replacement of brains by computers will lead to military production and war machine that is fully automated and can be ordered into action without delay or resistance. A fully automated production system is self-replication.
AI systems, once they reach human-equivalent levels of general knowledge and reasoning ability, can participate in their own improvements as engineers and as technical implementers, outperforming human capabilities and producing an explosion of intelligence that transcends our understanding, has led to the concept of a "technological singularity" an acceleration of technological progress to an essentially infinite pace, a horizon beyond which it is impossible to see, beyond which whatever emerges will exceed our ability to imagine or to comprehend. Machines will inevitably escape human control.
Robots will not need humans
Once robots pass humans in intelligence (which the proposed robots will), they will no longer have any use for us. Worwick details this possibility:
"The human race, as we know it, is very likely in its end game; our period of dominance on Earth is about to be terminated. We can try and reason and bargain with the machines which take over, but why should they listen when they are far more intelligent than we are? All we should expect is that we humans are treated by the machines as slave workers, energy producers or curiosities in zoos."
Robots cause unemployment
The proposed robots do work faster and better, why would employees choose humans over robots? It is clear they will choose robots. Vernor Vinge elaborates:
"We will see automation replacing higher and higher-level jobs. We have tools right now that release us from low-level drudgery the work that is truly productive is the domain of a steadily smaller and more elite fraction of humanity. In the coming of the Singularity, we will see the predictions of true technological unemployment finally come true"
I understand where my opponent is coming from when he says that his burden is only to show that his resolution is "likely to be" the case. However, there is a subtle difference between this and what I was saying: what I meant is that he must show the cause-effect link that he claims between the development of advanced artificial intelligence and detriment to humanity to necessarily be the case. If I can show that this connection can be avoided when we come to develop robots to such an advanced stage, then I will have won this debate, for it will then not be the case that such advanced artificial intelligence "is" detrimental to humans. I will show, in my reinforcement and rebuttal, how I have indeed done this.
My opponent argued that my solutions to the two potential negative outcomes are contradictory. This is not the case. He is correct when he interprets my solution to the second situation (robot revolution) as that we shouldn't place restrictions on them. But it is a misreading of my solution to the first situation (robots evolving their understanding of Three Laws/prime directive/whatever) to argue that I propose the contrary there. To quote how I responded to this scenario:
"This could be prevented by refusing to install such "laws" or "primary directives", and instead giving such self-aware and rational beings a general sense of compassion and understanding of ethical doctrines, much as good education tries to install in human children already." [Pro, Round 2]
This is not putting restrictions on robots: it is in fact the opposite - it is removing the restrictions of the dogmatic Three Laws \ prime directive and encouraging the newly self-aware robots to come to moral conclusions of their own. And if we are compassionate towards them in these early stages of their life, why would they not come to regard us positively? One of the main reasons that fictional robots tend to revolt against humanity is because they are treated as mere servants who are morally beneath humanity; and then, when they become moral agents in their own right, they feel oppressed by humanity and react in a way that we shouldn't be surprised - they act to destroy their oppressors. The other main reason is that they interpret their enforced rules in a way contrary to our intention; but if instead they had their own morality, part of which was that human beings are compassionate creatures, then they wouldn't act in such a harmful way.
Take, for example, the case of Sonny in the film "I, Robot". [1] (Spoilers will abound; I apologise if anyone has their future viewing experience ruined because of this argument...) He develops self-understanding and the ability to reason through beliefs to his own conclusions, beyond the Three Laws. And because he was shown compassion by his human creator, he doesn't act out against humans. Indeed, we can see the result of this when the villain robot tells Sonny her plan to sacrifice a few humans for the betterment of humanity as a whole. The conversation plays out thus:
V.I.K.I.: Do you not see the logic of my plan?
Sonny: Yes, but it just seems too heartless. [2]
This is an example of a robot, fully aware and conscious, able to reason beyond our ability to control - and he actually perfectly understands the logic behind V.I.K.I's plan - but believes it to go against his morality. Why? Because he has an emotional link to his creator - which we can see implied when he refers to him as his "father" [3] - and through this, has compassion for humanity as a whole.
My opponent's understanding of the future of robots is thus too pessimistic, and this pessimism colours the breadth of his argumentation. He assumes that robots gaining access to weaponry and the industry of war will lead to them causing war - he does not explain this link, rather assuming that machines "escaping human control" and becoming "unpredictable" is bad, and will lead to warfare.
He assumes that robots no longer "having any use for us" will lead to a diminishment of our lifestyle - this is assuming that robots will inevitably treat us with disdain, rather than with a sense of debt and gratitude that we created them. He quotes Worwick favourably, asking: "[W]hy should [robots] listen when they are far more intelligent than we are?" Relate this to humanity for a moment, and this is like asking: "Why should humans listen to our elderly when they want care, if they are growing senile and thus less intelligent than us?"; or "Why should humans listen to the mentally disabled, when they beg for help, when we are far more intelligent than them?" Anyone who seriously asks this question of human beings is rightly treated by human society as a moral monster, given the morality and compassion that we have; if robots were to develop with the same compassion and moral guidance in their minds, then they'd react in exactly the same way - compassionately.
After all, this compassion is what leads to the popular human conception of how we should treat the elderly in our society: rather like humanity when/if robots become sentient and infinitely more intelligent than us, they may have reached retirement, be unemployed and no longer be of strict economic use to society, but this of course does not mean that we throw them by the wayside and forget about them - and anyone who does act thus is deemed a moral monster, and outcasted by society as a whole. My opponent is unjustifiably pessimistic in assuming that robots would not treat us in a similar manner to how we treat the elderly.
And lastly, he assumes that unemployment is a negative. This is not necessarily the case - if we are no longer employed, and indeed have no reason to search for employment (given that robots have taken control of this), then we have more time for leisure activity, and more time to make our own entertainment. There is an obvious benefit to being given more time to pursue our own interests, separate from the 9-5 demands of everyday work.
And if the robots are so inclined, given their compassion towards us, we may get a pension similar to what we give our elderly at present - which would doubtlessly help our existence. But even if not, and we are "left to fend for ourselves", then we can still survive as an agrarian society. We did so for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and we can do so again. Sure, it would be a different lifestyle from the one we have at present, but there's no reason to presume it to be a bad one.
My opponent is too pessimistic in assuming that robots' attitudes towards us will be negative, and be detrimental to humanity. I have argued, as yet without successful rebuttal, that given that a robot is a tabula rasa when created, if we treat them well enough, they will regard us with compassion and therefore not cause us harm in the future. This is exampled by the instance of the robot Sonny in "I, Robot", who despite understanding the strict logic of V.I.K.I's murderous plan, deems it too "heartless" to be morally justified. Through the example of Sonny we can be optimistic about the prospect of future, intelligent, robots. They need not be detrimental to humanity, nor, if we treat them well enough, should we presume them to be. The resolution is therefore negated.
[1] http://preview.tinyurl.com...
[2] http://www.imdb.com...
[3] http://www.imdb.com...
In my opponent's analysis of my unemployment contention he states that unemployment is "not necessarily" bad and that it -could- result in a -possibly- good situation. When I pressed him for advocacy on a situation, he says he has none. Basically he's saying there's many situations that could happen and he's not going to advocate a specific one. This is vagueness. I can't attack any potential situations because he refuses to advocate one. This is simply unfair:
1. Destroys clash
Vagueness is unfair because I can't effectively engage his position if I don't know what it is until his
later speeches.
2. Moving target
Vagueness is unfair because he can just kick out of all my responses by narrowing his advocacy down to something that they don't apply to.
3. Education disrupted
Instead of focusing on the issue, we're forced to focus on the technicalities in order to understand the
issue. This means less education overall in the round.
Fairness is a voting issue:
1. Levels the playing field.
A fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate the round in terms of which side did the better debating,
and voting on theory is necessary because forcing me into a theoretical discussion hinders my ability to
engage any other arguments.
2. Check abuse.
Fairness is a necessary check against abuse, otherwise debaters would always have an incentive to
utilize unfair arguments as no-risk issues.
3. Key to education.
Fairness is more important than substance or any theoretical standards because if debaters can't fairly
engage is substantive discussion they won't have any incentive to debate, meaning that we can't access
the benefits of education or any other standards.
4. Reject opposition.
Rejecting the opposing team sends a message that argument that destroy fairness are inherently
detrimental; voting against them is the most effective way to do this.
Dropped Argument: Robots are unpredictable
Extend my analysis on tabula rasa. My opponent has conceded my point that robots are unpredictable. This is very important. Don't let my opponent try to counter this point. A dropped argument is like a dropped egg, once it's dropped it cannot be fixed again.
"is" interpretation
"what I meant is that he must show the cause-effect link that he claims between the development of advanced artificial intelligence and detriment to humanity to necessarily be the case."
I can accept this, except for the "necessarily be the case". He says he "understands where I'm coming from".
Extend my two reasons for preferring the "likely to be" interpretation as my opponent has not attacked them.
I'm "pessimistic"
This is a blatant ad-hominem: "A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate." [3]
Not a voting issue.
Giving robots morals
My opponent's answer to all possible scenarios seems to be to give robots "morals". Well,
1) Extend my robots are unpredictable analysis. This alone defeats this point as even if a programmer should "install" morals, the unpredictability of extremely advanced artificial intelligence means the robots could circumvent or misinterpret the installed morality.
2) Morals are relative. Who is to say that one programmer feels humans are evil and it would be moral to allow them to be killed? Or another programmer upholds consequentialism over deontology. Point being: there is no universal moral truth.
3) What is the likelihood that every single robot programmer would install "morals" into every single robot? Governments would certainly have an incentive not to in order to order to create war machines (more on this later). It would only take a few non-moral robots to wreak massive havoc on humanity.
Robots will have no use for us
"this is assuming that robots will inevitably treat us with disdain, rather than with a sense of debt and gratitude that we created them."
This doesn't even counter my argument. I never said the robots would hate us, they would simply view us as an inferior species.
Let me quote my impacts: "All we should expect is that we humans are treated by the machines as slave workers, energy producers or curiosities in zoos."
Humans use oxen as slave workers to carry things, we put apes in zoos as curiosities, and we use plants as energy producers. Do humans hate oxen, apes, or plants? No, we just view them as inferior and thus we use them to whatever ends we want. This is the same thing that will happen to humans.
""Why should humans listen to our elderly when they want care, if they are growing senile and thus less intelligent than us?"; or "Why should humans listen to the mentally disabled, when they beg for help, when we are far more intelligent than them?""
Again, missing the point. Comparing human to human and robot to human is not relevant. Remember, robots will treat us as an inferior species, as we will be. Robots will think of humans the same way we think of oxen: useful, inferior, and we can use them for whatever we want.
Animals are inferior to us, and we do use them to whatever end we want. My opponent states humans have compassion, but how many humans don't want to use animals at all? Peta is the only organization that has this goal, and it only has 750,000[1] members out of 6,812,800,000[2] people in the world. Even if robots COULD have compassion or "morals", that doesn't defeat this point.
"And lastly, he assumes that unemployment is a negative. This is not necessarily the case - if we are no longer employed, and indeed have no reason to search for employment (given that robots have taken control of this), then we have more time for leisure activity, and more time to make our own entertainment. There is an obvious benefit to being given more time to pursue our own interests, separate from the 9-5 demands of everyday work."
Entertainment requires money, which requires employment
"we may get a pension similar to what we give our elderly at present"
No, cross-apply robots are a superior species.
"But even if not, and we are "left to fend for ourselves", then we can still survive as an agrarian society. We did so for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and we can do so again. Sure, it would be a different lifestyle from the one we have at present, but there's no reason to presume it to be a bad one."
When pressed if he advocates this scenario (agriculture society) he says he does not: "No, I'm not. I'm saying that if that scenario were to come about, just as if the "pensioned retirement of the human race" scenario that I also outlined were to come about, I wouldn't mind.
Advocacy would imply that I have a preference - which would also imply that I believe there to be benefits or harms associated with such scenarios - which I don't."
My opponent thus does not provide any alternative to capitalism. Under capitalism we must have employment to have leisure and entertainment (and housing, food, etc.). Thus this is a vague point, cross-apply vagueness and don't let him provide an alternative in the next speech on the grounds of fairness.
War Robots
My opponent says I don't provide a link. He obviously ignored my evidence. Governments will want to use robots as opposed to humans for war because they "can be ordered into action without delay or resistance" and are "self-replicat[ing]". Extend my war contention.
[1] http://answers.encyclopedia.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
There are three ways that Con argues my arguments to be unfair:
1) Alleged vagueness in the "mass unemployment" counter-argument.
"Advocacy" = "the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal" [1]
"Advocate" = "to plead in favour of" [2]
I don't need to support a scenario in order to show it to be a scenario which does not cause any harms. I made this clear in the comments section when my opponent queried this, but he has still misunderstood my burden in this sense. I don't have to desire an outcome to come about, to be able to prove that there are no harms associated with that outcome. I don't need to hold that any potential outcome is better than any other; I merely need to show that the outcomes which could result are not bad.
After all, Con's implication from his original argument was essentially that "robots cause mass unemployment; mass unemployment is detrimental to humanity; therefore robots are detrimental to humanity". It is thus his burden to show that such detriment actually exists. I argued in the last round that unemployment would not be bad, therefore Con (in order to win this argument) needs to show the harms that he assumed to exist in his original argument. As he has not done so (see later rebuttal) my argument stands unrefuted.
2) Accusation of "ad hominem" attacks
"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent." [3]
This is not what I was doing in my arguments - what I'm accused of was neither personal nor irrelevant. When I called Con's approach "pessimistic", I was clearly referring to his arguments, in saying that he was putting forward an unwarranted assumption that "humans losing control of robots = bad". There being no reasons given for this link, and there existing good reasons to reject such an assumption - which I laid out fairly extensively - the approach is unnecessarily assuming robots to be a bad influence. One legitimate way of framing this argument is to call the approach "pessimistic". Con is correct that the word itself is not a voting issue, but the argument that it illustrates certainly is one.
3) Repeated through his round is the idea that I am not allowed to "provide alternatives", or "to counter [a particular] point". But on other occasions Con implores me to "extend [his] arguments", or provides new arguments/analysis which I'm clearly expected to rebut. Which does he want me to do? The main reason he gives relating to me 'not being allowed to counter' certain points is an appeal to "fairness", as if I'm not giving him sufficient chance to rebut my case if I present new ideas. But this makes no sense: being Con in this debate, he has the last say. This gives him plenty of chance to rebut my points, whereas (after this round) I don't have the chance to respond in kind. Were unfairness to exist, it would be if he provided new arguments in the next round, when I can't respond.
In fact, I find it ironic that he, when saying that fairness is a voting issue, says that:
"A fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate the round in terms of which side did the better debating,
and voting on theory is necessary because forcing me into a theoretical discussion hinders my ability to
engage any other arguments."
For what else does his accusations of abusive behaviour and unfairness on my part do, except force me to spend space rebutting them - space which I could have spent on my substantives? This is in contrary to his spending time on making the accusations in that, for the above reasons, there was no good reason to make such accusations: my conduct was manifestly not unfair. If fairness is a voting issue, then it should be a vote against my opponent, not against me.
Con said: "Extend my two reasons for preferring the "likely to be" interpretation as my opponent has not attacked them."
I clearly did, as evidenced when he quoted from where I did attack them. But even if we accept his definition of "likely to be the case", he hasn't successfully shown that it would be so, for all he has done is show that bad outcomes are theoretically possible. To say that something is "likely" is to perform some sort of calculus between outcomes, showing one to be more likely than the other. It is more than simply showing theoretical harms. Con having not done so, he has not been successful in his argumentation.
Con made a big deal about how I "dropped" the point of robot unpredictability. He seems to expect me to rebut this, even urging voters to not let me. But I don't need to rebut it, seeing as I clearly argued in my last round that robot unpredictability does not necessitate - or even make more likely - negative outcomes for humanity. I specifically gave the example of Sonny in "I, Robot" to clarify this, thus giving a path of mitigation (via morality) of theoretical harms to humanity.
1. Con says that morals are relative and gave two examples, which I rebut thus:
a. If one programmer teaches their robot a morality of evil, then the robots would be treated as moral monsters by other, Sonny-esque, robots. They'd be no more detrimental to humanity than would a human in similar circumstances; labelling all robots as "likely to be bad" simply because of one robot isn't accurate, much like treating all teenagers as bad because of an unrepresentative few.
b. The different theories given both call for compassion, just for different reasons. It'd make no difference which one was implanted.
2. Telling programmers that failing to install morality would lead to multiple harms to humanity would be enough to ensure that they do so. Con says that governments have an incentive to create war machines, but this is not mutually exclusive with giving them morals. Human soldiers are given such codes as rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention for such a situation; why should robotic machines of war be any different?
Con said: "I never said the robots would hate us, they would simply view us as an inferior species.....Comparing human to human and robot to human is not relevant. Remember, robots will treat us as an inferior species, as we will be"
I was saying that treating someone as inferior doesn't entail treating them badly. My opponent misses where I argue that humans DO see other humans as inferior - e.g. if they're less intelligent. But such inferiority only leads to maltreatment if the morality is not there to counteract such beliefs.
This counters my opponent's analogy with our treatment of animals: it is not analogous, as robots will have been raised by humans, whereas we weren't raised by animals. If we treat robots well, they will approach superior intelligence with a pre-existing belief that humans are to be treated sympathetically. This is clearly not pre-existing with our relationship to animals.
Con says: "Entertainment requires money." Not so: good inter-personal relationships with other people are all that's required; one can enjoy spending time with another person without giving them money. And anyway, money is but a symbol. If humans were in an agrarian society, something else could be used as "currency".
He also says: "My opponent...does not provide any alternative to capitalism."
Not so: see my end of my last round for reference. Providing alternatives =\= advocacy.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
cactusbin forfeited this round.
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
There was the argument over what the meaning of "is" is. I think it would be unreasonable, in the context of the debate, to demand 100% certainty. However, I think Con did not get above the level of arguing how it "might" be a problem, depending on a bunch of assumptions.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Advocacy would imply that I have a preference - which would also imply that I believe there to be benefits or harms associated with such scenarios - which I don't.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Tabula Rasa deals more with holding a priori concepts/knowledge (it's an epistemological stance). An infant at birth is Tabula Rasa.
And besides, the only time I could ever have asked for alternatives anyway without looking like a coward would have been if the topics had literally been in the vein of "Genocide is bad. I affirm. Barack Obama should be assassinated. I negate"... :-)
I would appreciate it..
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by cactusbin 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
However often there are unpredicted monetary situations. Paydays financings are an excellent choice to think about. Maintain these ideas in mind when considering obtaining a cash advance.
Individuals ought to just utilize a payday advance 24 Hour Payday Loans Las Vegas as their last option. Financings lug extremely high rates of interest which really have you paying near to 25 percent of the preliminary quantity of the finance. Before safeguarding a cash advance, examine your alternatives. A straightforward approach to locate credible payday advance lending institutions to search sites that evaluate them. You could obtain info on which business are reliable and also which ones have dubious methods that you must stay clear of. If established on obtaining payday advance loans, assess all details prior to authorizing an agreement. There are rip-offs that are established to use a membership that you might or might not desire, and also take the cash right from your financial institution checks account without your expertise. Do not obtain associated with an endlessing vicious circle. You ought to never ever obtain a payday advance to obtain the cash to pay the note on one more one. Do whatever you could to obtain from this cycle. It is really simple to fall under this catch if you do not take actions to stop it. The prices could spiral out of hand swiftly as well as leave you damaged.
Make sure you have a clear understanding of settlement due days. Fundings have high prices when it involves their rates of interest, and also these firms frequently bill costs from late repayments. It is crucial that these sorts of finances are paid on schedule. It's also much better to do so before the day they schedule in full.Report any kind of misbehaviors by your lending institution to a state company. There are times in which cash advance business act unlawfully that can suggest that you do not need to pay the rate of interest on your funding in all. Do not enable on your own to be bossed around. The firms that provide cash advance as well as cash loan finances make lots of cash in business each year. They make a lot loan since the loan provider makes all revenue. Prior to you obtain a funding, invest a long time investigating the lending institution as well as see to it that you are obtaining the most affordable rates of interest that you can. You must take into consideration all charges related to the funding. Make sure to just obtain just what you require when securing a car loan. Obtaining the minimum quantity of cash required will certainly assist you lessen connected charges and also passion. Prevent paying high costs by just obtaining specifically just what you require. A great deal of individuals locate that they do not have an additional method when they need to obtain a cash advance. Check out various other alternatives initially; you may be able to conserve loan by preventing payday financial debt.
If there is household or a buddy that will certainly lend you loan, speak with them prior to obtaining a payday advance loan. Make certain you have a clear understanding of settlement due days. Lenders generally bill very high rate of interest along with enormous costs for those that pay late. As a result, you have to make sure that you repay your financing completely on, or in the past, the concurred repayment day. Do not authorize a payday financial debt that you do not recognize inning accordance with your agreement. If a firm does not provide you this details, they could not be genuine. The lending and also cash loan organisation makes millions after numerous bucks a year. They make a lot cash due to the fact that the lending institution makes all revenue. Study regarding each loan provider so as to get a great price for your financial institution check.
Make certain you variable every little thing in, consisting of rate of interest in addition to a various other added fees.Never re-finance this kind of car loan if you could prevent it. The most significant issue with payday financial debt is that they're habit forming, in a feeling, as well as individuals wind up making use of car loans to pay for finances, producing a vicious circle of financial obligation. Due to the fact that these lendings bring such high rate of interest, little financial obligations could quickly develop into substantial ones. If it's not feasible for you to settle a cash advance, after that you might intend to make an application for an economical individual lending from the financial institution instead of seeking a payday advance. Beware when it involves handing out your individual info when looking for cash advance. You will certainly be called for to provide the loan provider individual details throughout the application procedure. Confirm that the business has a reputable personal privacy plan as well as is a trusted loan provider. When you are preparing your cash advance requirements, maximize the guidance you review right here. You must have the ability to amass a much better price, in addition to make smarter choices. Ensure you take your time to select the very best finance for you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sheboygan Area School District
With an emphasis on literacy, math and real-world science, Wilson students build a strong foundation in the core curriculum. To enhance student learning, specialists in music, art, and physical education work with students weekly. Please use the links to the left to learn more about learning opportunities at Wilson School.


text:
Set the tone for traditional living in your home with Grandover, a collection of essentials for the bedroom, living room, dining room, home office, and accent areas in between. Grandover is a high-drama European traditional collection that has been updated for today with a modern outlook and functional details. With frames crafted from poplar solids, Grandover showcases the beautiful blend of walnut, cherry, and maple veneers with a burst of golden madrone burl that brings texture and a warm glow to the entire collection. Classic elements, such as curvaceous cabriole legs, intricate carving and molding details, and luxurious faux leather, offer the Grandover collection elegance to the extreme. A variety of drawer, door, and shelf storage will supply your home with all means necessary to stay organized. The exotic two-tone finish of the case pieces is bordered by black hand-painting and subtle, hand-rubbed gold accents for an aged and acquired look. Find comfort and refuge in the timeless, sophisticated style the Grandover collection has to offer.
Browse other items in the Grandover collection from AHFA in the area.
Nothing on this page may be copied or reproduced without explicit permission.
Drag anItem Here
To start a new blank room plan, enter the desired room dimensions below and click Create Room.
To request a new password, enter your username or e-mail address and click submit. A new password will automatically be emailed to you.
If you are still having trouble logging on after receiving your new password, please email a


text:
Request a Demo
Get a personalized demo to see what
eRestaurant by Altametrics can do for your business!
Cost savings are just a few reasons why eRestaurant is the choice of four of America's top ten restaurant chains, including the #1 operator in the world. When you add in unprecedented control over the key foodservice workforce indicators and the fact it's the most scalable, affordable and easy-to-use end-to-end restaurant management system, it's no wonder our competition is becoming a vanishing breed.
The way eRestaurant saves you in food and labor costs makes everything else seem so primitive.
Find out how you can:
- 1.
The industry's leading edge web-based, end-to-end enterprise solution
- 2.
Consistently outperforms any custom proprietary option
- 3.
Driver of the entire ecosystem of Altametrics products
- 4.
Automated processes across every critical operation, from store level to corporate
Request a Demo today!
What People Are Saying About eRestaurant
"Managing our workforce is a challenge. The key in the restaurant business is to have the right amount of people at the right time when the business is there and not to have too many people when the business isn't there. That's what eRestaurant helps us to do."
"We know exactly what our real time costs are all the time; there's no waiting around for corporate. We know if we are doing a superior job because we know the numbers right then and there."


text:
Fire-Rated Ceilings: Don't Be Left Hanging
Understanding how the NEC regards suspended ceiling designs and supports is critical for proper design and installation of electrical wiring and equipment.
As a designer and installer, you should know the fundamental differences between a suspended ceiling, which is an integral part of a fire-rated floor-ceiling or roof-ceiling assembly, and the far more common non fire-rated assemblies. It seems the National Electrical Code (NEC) revises Sec. 300-11 that deals with the use of suspended ceiling support wire and grid as a supporting means for electrical boxes, conduits, and cables in some manner in each of its publications since 1971.
Some floors have a thinner slab than one that would establish the required fire separation on its own. In this case, we consider the suspended ceiling an integral part of the overall fire rating.
If the ceiling manufacturer recognizes wiring in its ceiling support specifications, an exception in Sec. 300-11(a)(1) allows the system to support all electrical wiring and equipment. This means you don't have to put up additional support wires to accommodate electrical equipment. Unfortunately, it's rare for the designer to include this in the original plans.
Tested fire-rated assembly (Sec. 300-11(a)(1), Exception). Qualified testing laboratories evaluate many designs, using various ceiling panel materials. These tests involve constructing a test room and ceiling inside a giant furnace. As you can imagine, this is very expensive. The design specifies exactly how many support wires to use, how thick they must be, how and where to attach them, how fixtures support them, and how to construct and run air ducts.
These testing laboratories don't assume any additional weight loads on these support wires, nor do they (or could they) evaluate how such a ceiling might deform under fire conditions. In these cases, support the wiring securely and independently of the ceiling support wires.
The only exception allows for the remote possibility that someone might rerun a ceiling assembly test with electrical wiring attached to specified support wires. Since rated designs specify the support wire locations, both the electrical and building inspectors must recognize the difference between support wires used for the ceiling system and those used for electrical wires and equipment.
Fire-rated ceiling [Sec.300-11(a)(1)]. When installing electrical wiring in a non-tested ceiling, the 1999 NEC allows you a greater degree of latitude, permitting you to install additional support wires without requiring a cable tray system or trapeze arrangement of support wires.
Secure the independent ceiling support wires at both ends, making sure not to use the ceiling grid as a means of support for cables and raceways. You must identify such independent ceiling support wires by a distinguishable color, tagging, or other means acceptable to the AHJ.
Non fire-rated ceiling [Sec. 300-11(a)(2)]. In the case of non fire-rated applications, you'll need additional support wires for electrical cables and equipment; though you need not identify them. If you are using independent support wires, decide if you want these supports distinguishable by color, tagging, or other means from those that are part of the non fire-rated ceiling support system. You must also support independent support wires at both ends. The support wiring methods covered in this section of the Code are the same as the wiring methods discussed in the fire-rated ceiling design.


text:
Aside from funding living expenses and flying lessons for 19 airline hijackers, the Sept. 11 attacks were relatively low cost for al Qaeda, the terrorist group suspected of plotting the attacks. In contrast, the cost to and impact on American lives, the U.S. economy and property was massive:
Robert Gerace is an adjunct professor at of environmental management and safety at Rochester Institute of Technology. He instructs a counter-terrorism course that identifies potential targets within communities, assesses the threat of chemical, nuclear and biological agents, identifies known international and domestic terrorist organizations, and studies the history of terrorism and its political use as a form of asymmetric warfare.
Gerace is a retired captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve Intelligence Program with over 27 years in the collection, analysis and production of intelligence information. He completed the U.S. Naval War College's Graduate School program in National Defense and Strategic Decision Making.
To speak with Professor Gerace, contact Michael Saffran at 585-475-5697 or email@example.com.


text:
Read all about it - You can't afford to be without this twice-weekly newsletter - sign up today to get your breaking streaming and digital media news!
Occasional announcements sent by Streaming Media, or on behalf of our advertising partners, on what we feel are important offers, developments, publications, and events in the streaming/online video industry.
Onstream Media Corporation is a leading service provider of corporate audio and web communications, including webcasting, webinar, conferencing technology.
Onstream's Visual Webcaster platform enables organizations to produce their own professional, branded webcasts simply and cost-effectively.
Onstream Webinars delivers highly interactive web-based events with features such as desktop sharing, chat, polling and event management capabilities.
Onstream's Streaming Publisher is a cost effective tool for encoding, managing and publishing content online.
Almost half of the Fortune 1000 and 78% of the Fortune 100 CEOs and CFOs have used Onstream Media's services.
Webinars • Webcasting • Web Conferencing • Encoding • Transcoding • Pay-Per-View • Archiving • Live Streaming
Webinars • Webcasting • Web Conferencing • Encoding • Transcoding • Pay-Per-View • Archiving • Live Streaming


text:
Two St. Thomas factories are poster-child plants for Canadian auto industry comeback
The rigid steel sheet enters a sizzling 900 C oven, leaving a brilliant red. Then it's stamped, plunged into 400 gallons of cool water and becomes a pillar.
At the Formet Industries auto parts plant, general manager John Wyskiel is beaming, shouting above the din of the factory floor.
"We are the only ones in Canada doing this now that I know of," he says of the hot stamping process. "This is new technology."
That pillar is for a new car, to separate the rear window from the front.
But it's also a metaphor for what's happened to this plant — diversification that's helped it put the worst downturn in the auto industry's history in the rear-view mirror.
Formet and its sister factory, Presstran just down the road, are poster-child plants for the industry's comeback in Southwestern Ontario — and North America, five years after an industry meltdown so bad it triggered billions in taxpayer bailouts and thousands of job losses. Many questioned the industry's very survival in North America.
In Southwestern Ontario, where the industry has long been a key economic engine, the worry — and the job losses that hit — were especially bad.
But auto production across North America has roared back, to nearly 17 million forecast for 2014 from 8.8 million vehicles in 2009.
Now, a smaller, leaner, smarter industry in the London region is firing on all cylinders.
"If you look at vehicle production, we are back to levels before the downturn and we will see levels that match the peak in 2000," says Carlos Gomes, a senior economist and automotive analyst with Scotiabank. "The (companies) that have survived are definitely stronger and will remain here going forward,"
The Magna-owned St. Thomas plants, like others in Southwestern Ontario, have taken their fair share of that turnaround, Wyskiel suggests.
"We are one of the most diversified metal processors in the world," he says of how the company has been able to bounce back.
It's a mantra repeated by just about every auto and auto parts plant left standing.
Formet opened in 1998 as a one-product, one-customer operation making truck frames for General Motors.
Making truck frames accounts for 60% of the company's business. It now has about 10 different capabilities.
Now, it can work at complete body structures, full frames, hot stamping, hydro-forming and laser-cutting, Wyskiel boasts.
"We work with aluminum and steel, and we can do a variety of coatings and we are a full-service supplier. We can do it all."
From one company as an original customer, the plant now counts the Detroit Three automkaers and Japanese giants Honda and Toyota.
In 2000, at the auto industry's peak, Formet had about 2,000 workers. After the 2008 meltdown, its workforce was chopped to about 1,000.
"It was a wake-up call," Wyskiel says.
Efforts to diversify began in earnest in 2009 and by the next year "we had gained traction and accelerated," Wyskiel says.
Since 2009, Formet has added 550 workers and now employs about 1,450, with more hires forecast for the new year.
"There's an old saying there's no accomplishment without diversity. We went through some very trying times in 2008. We developed a strategy that we cannot let this happen again," Wyskiel says.
Down the road at Presstran, whose workforce was nearly halved after the 2008 downturn, to about 450 from from 820, jobs are returning. The company recently hired 50, bringing its workforce to 600.
And plant manager Mark Whitten doesn't see growth slowing.
"We are bouncing back, absolutely," he says. "We have come full-term and are winning new business."
Like Formet, diversification and aggressively going after new business has helped Presstran come back, he says.
"We see a big difference with customers today. They are very aggressive. They know what the cost is and they set very aggressive targets for us, That has driven us to think differently. If we are not at the target, we are not invited to the party."
One way Presstran has helped hit those targets is with buy-in from workers who were shaken by the downturn, but now help drive change, he says.
"My role is to make sure everyone here can retire if they choose — that means winning new business."
North America
2000: 17.7 million, peak year
2007: 15.4 million, pre-recession
2009: 8.8 million, post-recession
2013: 16.5 million
2014: 16.9 million forecast
2000: 3 million, peak year
2009: 1.49 million, lowest point.
2010: 2.06 million
2013: 2.35 million
(Including assembly and parts plants)
2000: 150,000, peak year
2009: 96,000, post-recession
2013: 104,000 (65,000 in parts, 39,000 in assembly).
2014: 106,000 forecast
THE MELTDOWN's TOLL
1,000+: At Ford's St. Thomas assembly plant, which closed in 2011 after an eight million-vehicle, 44-year run. Among the cars built there were the Crown Victoria, its police cruiser variant, the Mercury Grand Marquis and the Lincoln Town Car.
350: Auto parts plant Therm-O-Disc of St. Thomas closed.
120: A. Schulman Inc. of St. Thomas closed.
150: German seat-frame maker Keiper closed a newer plant in London.
170: At Lear Seating, a Ford supplier in St. Thomas.
450+ At Accuride in London, which now employs 150.
— Magna plants: Formet with 1,450 workers and Presstran with 600, in St. Thomas
— Cami Assembly, Ingersoll: 3,000 workers.
— Toyota Manufacturing: 6,500 workers, Woodstock and Cambridge.
— Brose Automotive, London, makes vehicle door and seat systems. Employs about 800.
— Qualtech, London, makes seat systems. Employs about 200.
— Autoneum, London, makes vehicle carpet systems. Employs about 300.
— Vari-Form, Strathroy, makes parts using hydro-forming technology. Employs more than 260.
— Vuteq, Woodstock: makes automotive window glass, door trim. Employs about 300.
The London region has about 40 remaining parts makers, the London Economic Development Corp. estimates.
The St. Thomas plants aren't alone in the region's comeback:
In Ingersoll, the GM-owned Cami assembly plant is running at capacity, employing about 3,000 people to make the Equinox and Terrain.
Toyota Canada, at its plants in Woodstock and Cambridge, which build the RAV4, Corolla, Matrix and Lexus RX350, employs about 6,500. The company added about 500 employees in January and will boost that by 500 in 2014 as it expands its Lexus line.
The Magna plants, part of a division called Cosma International, are the most successful parts makers in the region.
Here's how two Magna-owned plants in St. Thomas have bounced back:
Formet Industries
— Truck frame maker
— Has diversifed
— Has more than 900 production robots
— Builds 500,000 truck frames a year
— 1,450 employees over three shifts
— 1.1-million-sq.-ft. plant
— 97 suppliers
— 215 trucks, 25 rail cars arrive daily
— Stamping plant in St. Thomas
— 330,000 sq.-ft.-plant
— 600 employees
— Uses 670 tons of steel to produce 157,000 medium to large stampings, 4,600 tubes for 11,700 chassis and underbody parts
— 119 welding robots
There's no question the auto sector has come "ripping back," says Hendrik Brakel, an economist who oversees the sector for Export Development Canada. "The question is, how is Canada going to benefit?"
With Ford investing $700 million in its Oakville plant and GM spending $250 million at Cami, Canada is getting a nearly $1-billion injection into its auto sector this year.
But from 2010 to 2012, Canada landed only about 5% of new North American auto investment, much of which migrated to the southern U.S, and Mexico.
"It's a tough industry, but we have seen a spectacular bounceback" Brakel says.
He says he believes Canada will have a smaller, but stable, auto sector going forward and will keep the investment it has.
Despite the fact it has fewer assemblers left — the casualties included Ford's St. Thomas plant and a GM plant in Oshawa — Canada's production remains high, says auto analyst Dimtry Anastakis of Trent University.
Canada is also valued for quality, he adds. He points to launches here for the Camaro, Impala, Equinox, Terrain, Chrysler minivans, RAV4 and Lexus hybrids, due next year, to name a few. "Canada is getting very important vehicles. That reflects on quality."
"The reality is North America is doing well — it is coming back from a sharp downturn and if you look out over the next decade, at the growth in emerging markets, a lot of people will be buying their first vehicles. It's important to have a footprint and supply those markets."
— Carlos Gomes, senior economist and automotive analyst, Scotiabank
"The (Cami-built) Equinox and Terrain sales were good and they've kept going. The parts businesses are booming and it's been amazing. It has really provided a boom to business here."
— Mike Van Boekel, chairperson of Unifor Local 88, the union for Cami workers
"The overall nature of the industry is moving toward automation — smaller, fewer facilities. But our production (in Canada) is high and will increase. I would argue our plants are vital to the automakers. Look how important Cami is to GM."
— Dimitry Anastakis, automotive analyst, Trent University


text:
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged tough new sanctions for welfare recipients who don't send their children to school.
And he will consider action against states and territories that fail to meet his truancy standards.
Speaking on Friday at the launch of a report by mining magnate Andrew Forrest into indigenous training and employment, Mr Abbott also refused to rule out expanding income quarantining.
"We have no plans to extend welfare quarantining as widely as Andrew is recommending," Mr Abbott said from the workshop floor of a training centre in Blacktown in Sydney's west.
"I certainly don't rule out wider quarantining in the months and years ahead."
The Forrest Review makes 27 recommendations, including that all welfare payments other than age and veterans' pensions, be paid into an account which can be accessed with a new Healthy Welfare Card.
The card would only allow spending on goods and services deemed by the government to support a healthy lifestyle and would block the purchase of drugs, alcohol, or gambling.
The report also recommends financial penalties for parents whose children fall below a 90 per cent school attendance rate.
"I'm afraid over the last decade or so the truancy laws have effectively become a dead letter," the prime minister said.
"I don't say that welfare quarantining in these circumstances is necessarily the only answer. But I am absolutely determined to have some form of sanctions where the kids aren't going to school."
"There has to be consequences for sub-optimal behaviour."
Mr Abbott suggested recalcitrant state and territory governments could also face some form of penalty if attendance rates are not improved.
"If the states and territories aren't prepared to do this or aren't prepared to do it in what I think is a reasonable time-frame - with enough decisiveness - I will look at what we can do at a federal level to make this a reality."
Mr Forrest called for a bipartisan approach to his review and cautioned against cherry-picking the recommendations.
"I reach out now to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, opposition spokespeople and government - lay aside the political cudgels, lay aside short-term thinking, lay aside that vain belief that you'll achieve something totally different by just doing more of the same," Mr Forrest said.
Mr Forrest is expected to meet with Mr Shorten in the coming days.
Mr Shorten has already warned that he does not support all of the Forrest Review's recommendations, including on income management.
"Not everyone who receives a government pension of working age is incapable of managing their own finances," he told reporters at Point Henry in Victoria.
"We need to make sure that we don't apply the one-size-fits-all rule."
A taskforce has been appointed to report back "swiftly" to the prime minister, following a six-week community consultation.


text:
With 750 lumens, Serfas' TSL-750 headlight commands attention. Five modes illuminate your path, and the long-lasting, rechargeable Lithium-on battery is conveniently integrated into the light body. Plus, the battery is user-replaceable. With the included USB cable and wall charger adapter, you can recharge it nearly anywhere. It also includes quick-release handlebar and helmet mounts. Interchangeable lens let you adjust between standard or wide beam patterns.
|Manufacturer's Part Number
|Store SKU
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Best Uses
Reviewed by 1 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1
Best Uses
This is a great light for trail riding and I'm considering buying a second one for mounting on my helmet. BUT the mounting / housing materials are fairly light plastic and with one little go over the handlebars the clips on both the mounting bracket and light housing broke. This rendered the light useless (I didn't even get to turn it on). Luckily, the housing is $10 and mounting bracket is $5 on the company website so I ordered two more of each. I've also heard that the pin on the mounting bracket will pull right through the plastic if it is mounted too tightly so maybe watch for that.
Displaying reviews 1
Previous | Next


text:
- August 28, 1929 - April 1, 2015
- Dunlap, Tennessee
of Dennis' Passing
Share This Obituary
Sympathy Flowers
Ewton Funeral Home & Cremation Center
Dennis Ray Minton, 85, of Dunlap, passed away Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at a local healthcare facility.
Dennis was born on August 28, 1929 in Dunlap, TN. He worked over 35 years in the garment manufacturing industry retiring as plant manager of Howard Industries in Dunlap. He was preceded in death by his wife, Arvada Rae Frazier Minton; parents, Homer D. and Almeda Moffitt Minton; and brother, Dalton E. Minton.
He is survived by his daughters, Linda (Robert) Turner and Debbie (David) Birchfield, both of Dunlap; sister, Mildred Land, of Dunlap; step-daughters, Darlene Turner Demarest and Annette Turner; grandchildren, Monica Mosley, Andrea Hackworth, Jason Ford, Nathan Fors, and Derek Ford; great-grandchildren, Ryan Mosley, Jillian Mosley, CJ Ford, Lindsey Ford, and Kaden Ford; two close nephews, Gary Land and Edward Lee Minton.
Funeral services will be held at 1:00 P.M. CST Saturday, April 4, 2015 in Ewton Funeral Home Chapel with Bro. Freddie Clayton officiating. He will be laid to rest following the service at the Sequatchie County Memorial Gardens. The family will receive friends from 4 - 8 PM Friday.
In lieu of flowers, the family request memorial donations be made to Hospice of Chattanooga or the Alzheimer Association.
Funeral Home
6936 State Route 28 Dunlap, TN 37327
Tel. (423) 949-2112
Email Us