Europe's Robots To Become 'Electronic Persons' Under Draft Plan (yahoo.com) 262
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Yahoo News: Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them. Robots are only becoming more prevalent in the workplace. They're already taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, and their population is only expected to rise as their abilities are expanded with the increased development of new technologies. A draft European Parliament motion suggests that their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability. The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider "that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations." It also suggested the creation of a register for smart autonomous robots, which would link each one to funds established to cover its legal liabilities. Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons -- that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years. We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters. The report added that the robotics and artificial intelligence may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems. The draft motion also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.
Okay, seriously Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
Get out while you can. Even if all the dire predictions of the results are true, it's going to get even worse if you stay.
Re: (Score:2)
The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.
I'm sure 'daft' motions get proposed in other legislatures. They certainly do in the UK parliament. What they don't do is automatically become law.
Also from the article;
Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons - that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years."
"We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters at the Automatica robotics trade fair in Munich, while acknowledging that a legal framework for self-driving cars would be needed soon.
So maybe premature, rather than completely daft.
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe premature, rather than completely daft.
Considering the subject of who is to be held liable for when an autonomous car causes a crash is an oft recurring subject here on Slashdot and partly autonomous cars are already in use today, I'd say that it's not premature at all.
Everybody is kneejerking about the 'persons' and 'rights and obligations' part, but from what I can find the term 'person' refers to the concept of a 'legal person' or 'legal entity'. Considering nobody is losing their shit about companies being regarded as 'legal entities' and ha
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, if this is the thread for non-sequiturs, can I just say that Trump is a pig, and Clinton is evil? Thank you for your attention.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Two things -
1. Learn to write English properly. Based on you post, it appears that anything beyond grunts or Eubonics is beyond your understanding.
2. No, the post is not off-topic. If the EU is even considering such lunacy, then the citizens of the UK should vote to leave the EU.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Learn to write English properly. Based on you post, it appears that anything beyond grunts or Eubonics is beyond your understanding.
What is Eubonics? I would guess that your English troll used improper English. Ebonics seems to be the term you are looking for. And equating grunts to Ebonics is racist.
As for your #2, you sound like a Luddite. Why is a law preparing for AI lunacy? One would expect that such a forward-looking law would be a good thing. Even if the state of robotics isn't to where it's needed. Why do you hate progress? Or is this more of your racism. There's the Master Class, and everyone else. The "everyone else
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not certain about the EU, but in the US social security is supplied by current workers to retired workers, who in turn had paid into the system for retirees of their day.
If the working class is going to be replaced by automation, then there will be no money for retirees and the social contract that has kept US retirees from dying off at young ages will evaporate.
This seems like a reasonable approach, however I fully expect the new and fucked up /. to play it by John Birch standards and use it to turn p
Re: (Score:2)
Why is a law preparing for AI lunacy?
It's not "preparing for AI". It's providing a massive incentive to move automated commerce and industry to the developing world.
Re:Okay, seriously Britain (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is, who will they export product to. The game has be going for some time and the economic collapse of that insane greed is growing. Seriously why have a country producing product that the majority of it's own citizens can not afford, to export it to another country whose citizens are rapidly losing employment and soon will also no longer be able to afford that product and then you want to ramp up that collapse with robots and no one can afford anything any more and to survive, what, they will have to hunt and eat the rich (robots are not edible). You do see that the current game is a dead end, an inescapable dead end, unless radical changes occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone will say that using robots will create jobs- and that's true.
But the number of jobs created is 1 per 1000 jobs eliminated. Many jobs that are not eliminated will be reduced by 95% (so you only need 1 person to do the job 20 people do now).
In 1890 in the U.S., there were 52 million horses working and earning a living when the "horseless carriage" came on the scene. By 1920, there were 2-3 million horses left.
Similarly, when the luddites requested training on the new machines, it was refused and th
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, who will they export product to.
Themselves, of course. Actual labor doesn't go away just because there is automation.
Seriously why have a country producing product that the majority of it's own citizens can not afford, to export it to another country whose citizens are rapidly losing employment and soon will also no longer be able to afford that product and then you want to ramp up that collapse with robots and no one can afford anything any more and to survive, what, they will have to hunt and eat the rich (robots are not edible).
That's quite the run on sentence. The obvious rebuttal is that process isn't happening in the real world. What's happening is that the developed world has made its human labor expensive and now seeks via rather suicidal methods to maintain a developed world lifestyle without a developed world economy.
You do see that the current game is a dead end, an inescapable dead end, unless radical changes occur.
Of course. The problem here is that the very people who make the problem, the "inescapable dead end", are the same ones propo
Re: (Score:2)
No, but wages do go down, because there's less demand for labour. A minimum-wage service sector worker isn't going to be buying much of anything - and, ultimately, even the minimum-wage jobs are going to be automated. Then who's your customer?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but wages do go down, because there's less demand for labour.
Shouldn't there be evidence of this, if it were true? Instead, we see that two thirds of the world has increasing wages [voxeu.org] which indicates that there is increasing demand for labor.
Automation is the primary tool by which demand for labour is reduced. That, by law of supply and demand, makes labour less valuable.
That hasn't happened in practice over the past few centuries. The primary tool by which we make labor less valuable is regulation and taxation.
Hire people to do what, exactly speaking? Manufacture products and services you can't actually sell because everyone's busy trying to minimize their consumption (which is what "reducing their living standards" means in practice)?
Typical demand-side drivel. Who's going to optimize for consuming less when they don't need to? That's silly. And when are you going to be concerned by employers' growing inability to employ?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, what's happening is that free markets have made developed world labor expensive. It's simple supply and demand. Globalization greatly increased the supply of labor. That will pressure wages to go down regardless of what the people or policy makers in the developed world do or not do. Almost every method would be suicidal.
First, I don't think you get what I mean by suicidal. I don't mean a choice that doesn't have a universally positive option. I mean a policy or behavior that makes a situation much worse to the point that it threatens the existence of the society.
Here, we have as you say a huge increase in supply of labor. Would it then make sense to make developed world labor even more expensive and even harder to employ? And then, when your policies have made the situation much worse, would it make sense to double down
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would say that of any regulation.
And I would be right too. What does, for example, regulation of jay walking have to do with preparing for AI?
Even if we were to restrict our attention to laws dealing with automation and such, this law stands out as being a problem. What is a robot? Does a robot the size of a mountain count as much as a robot the size of a small ant? The attempt to put all robots under the ineffectual label of "electronic people", which has nothing to do either with actual people or with attempts to make a larger theory
Re: (Score:2)
A suggestion to save money by teaching only a quick and nasty pidgin English was the racist bit. Referring to that proposal is not racist, it's history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is typical of the extremely poor understanding of how the EU works that people have. This is something like a white paper in the UK, some ideas for discussion. It's not going to become law. In fact the EU can't even make laws.
If people tried to leave the UK every time a stupid idea was proposed there would be no-one left by now. As it happens, I bothered to RTFA and it's not actually as silly as they make out. It's talking about a time in the future when we might consider extending some r
Re: (Score:2)
News report: Someone in government is a kook. Details at 11.
Not sure if Onion (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it April the first already?
What if the robots don't want socialism? (Score:2, Interesting)
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this? What if they are naturally libertarian, and prefer a dog-eat-dot meritocratic system of governance where the weak perish and only the strong survive?
Robot Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)
But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?
Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What if they are naturally libertarian, and prefer a dog-eat-dot meritocratic system of governance where the weak perish and only the strong survive?
Oh don't worry, robots are much more rational than humans, so there's no chance of that.
Don't ask me what I want it for (Score:2)
Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears that european leaders now have discovered that robots don't pay income taxes and want to fix it. Well, that's right, but right now robots are a very good way you can avoid having to resort to do your production in china or something, because robots are as cheap in europe as they are in china. Well, good that the EU is changing it, as then the robot fabs will be built in china as well! Good job EU!
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, maybe it's sort of silly to try and define a robot as a 'person', and it makes more sense to treat them as a durable investment good, with taxes on things like profits or capital gains, but the end result is generally the same.
And once the taxes from robotic production are high enough, they can just switch to providing a minimum basic income for the humans, so there's still enough demand/money to buy the goods the robots produce, and the labor markets don't just implode from scarcity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do [nolo.com] - at least here in the US. Not sure about the EU. Unlike your personal property, nearly all business property (essentially anything used to conduct business) is taxed based on its appraised value. Why do you think businesses care so much about depreciation schedules, etc?
Note: I'm not defending this plan - just pointing out that bulldozers and drills *are* actually taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
Your parent post didn't say that we don't tax personal property. He said that we don't tax personal property "in this way", meaning a social security tax. Being taxed because you own the property is different than being taxed because the property does the work once performed by a human.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of the scenes in the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In the movie Charlie's dad's job as the was eliminated at the toothpaste factory where he twisted on the c
Re: (Score:3)
The benefit to society is in removing jobs, which is to say increasing productivity.
Taxing it removes that productivity. This is nothing more than politicians 150 years ago whining about the impossibility of finding jobs for the 98% of people living and working on farms who no longer would be over the coming decades.
It is all unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the future though.
It's probably just as old as humanity to double down on something that isn't working on the theory that you aren't trying hard enough.
Do you seriously expect to shift your productivity source from humans to machines and not be taxed? Because that's what the entire concept is - taking a share of the productive output of the nation, and using it for things that are deemed to be in the public good. We can argue what the rate should be, or what it should be spent on, but that's pretty much how it works. And this is exactly what governments are going to have to do.
What do you think will happen when you punish and tax productivity and employment? This will just increase the attractiveness of moving production to places that won't heavily parasitize the output for some dubious theory of public good.
And once the taxes from robotic production are high enough, they can just switch to providing a minimum basic income for the humans, so there's still enough demand/money to buy the goods the robots produce, and the labor markets don't just implode from scarcity.
This seems to me the endgame of all this mess. A bunch of people starving on some grossly inadequate basic income while the rest of the world
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think will happen when you punish and tax productivity and employment? This will just increase the attractiveness of moving production to places that won't heavily parasitize the output for some dubious theory of public good.
As I said, we can debate the rates and such, but to argue that it ought to be zero is like arguing that businesses should charge nothing for their services. Even within the US, people (even rich ones) still sometimes choose to live in higher tax localities. Why is that? Possibly because the location itself is desirable for a variety of reasons. Sure, there's a point at which taxes get so high that people say "F- it, I'm moving", but that doesn't imply that any level of taxation is terrible, or that there is
Re: (Score:2)
Just taking the "A.I. soon" people seriously (Score:3)
See also the draft plans the Pentagon has for invading the UK.
If you try to have plans for everything, such in this case A.I. advancing at a massive rate, then some of those plans are going to look more than a little crazy.
Maybe look at this another way - all of those "singularity" types and those ones that think human scale artificial intelligence is just around the corner should be flattered that somebody is taken them
How do you define robot or how many displacements? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a bulldozer a robot? What about an autonomous bulldozer? How many people did it replace? A bulldozer can do the work of 100 men with shovels but a much much smaller number of men if they also have a bulldozer. The only thing this would do would have companies skirting the law by redefining or crippling their products: That computer that fill drinks isn't a robot. That computer that folds clothes isn't a robot because it's been crippled to only fold clothes. etc. etc.
Humanoid robots are likely always going to be a novelty. For most tasks, a non-humanoid version works better. Even for a general purpose robot, the humanoid form is probably not optimal.
Re: (Score:3)
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are delibe
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.
Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?
It's not as simple as "sentient autonomous humanoid robot" versus "single-task industrial" robot. There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body. It definitely doesn't have to be mobile. Likely those industrial robots will continue to get smarter and smarter until they cross over at some point. They won't have legs to move around or even audio to communicate but they can still perform tasks with humanlike intelligence.
It doesn't matter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think that but there is a lot of stuff built for the human form factor so instead of a redesign from scratch it may make sense to have something human sized or shaped to work with it. Even "Robbie the Robot" is humanoid compared with a welding robot.
If you want something to get through manholes or similar hatches you've got size limits based on the size of human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanoid robots will be in demand for companionship. Imagine a partner who is always in the mood to do what you want, who never gets angry even when you treat them badly and who looks like a photoshopped model. If you get bored of their face you can buy a new one from eBay and swap it out. They will do all the chores and pretty much anything you ask, and are a good enough facsimile of a human being to maintain the illusion in your mind.
Society will have to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are trying to tax robotic labour by counting robots then you run into some fairly difficult problems. What is a robotic unit? A human unit is easy to identify and measure, but a robot as you point out can be anything.
If you tax per physical unit then instead of building a factory with a hundred independent robots in it, the company will build a fully integrated factory and call it one single robot.
So what else can you do? Tax per kg of robot perhaps, although this would seem to heavily skew the tax b
Too much Star Trek on the ol' Netflix I think... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish there was Star Trek on the Old Netflix - then I would have one more reason to drop my satellite T.V subs. Regional licensing often sucks.
(New Zealand Netflix)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any way to prove, or even demonstrate, that the AI has a "similar level of consciousness?
And do we collect Social Security taxes for pets and other "lower" animals?
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why... (Score:3, Insightful)
... voting Brexit is a thing.
[sigh]
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't we be considering the legal liabilities for robots that cause damage, or the effect of robots on the labor force? These things get thrown around on Slashdot an awful lot these days - it's hardly an irrelevant discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Personal responsibility is something I want others to have, but don't make me be personally responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, bullshit stories about straight bananas and tightrope walkers wearing hard hats. People are so incredibly ignorant they take stuff like this seriously, and then get conned into voting to leave.
The Leave campaign is a con. Think about it. If you were running that campaign, you would go to other countries and get trade deals in principal, or at least letters of understanding. You would set out exactly which regulations you want to get rid of, and provide a detailed plan of what your points based immig
Re: (Score:2)
"They don't want you to see the awful trade deals that favour them but force you to compete on wages and conditions with people in the developing world."
To be fair to the leave camp, Michael Gove did say Britain could emulate Albania.
Robots are only 1/3 a person (Score:4, Funny)
They have only a quarter of a soul.
I have it on good advice based upon Greek philosophers and former slave states in America.
Way too soon (Score:3)
This will only matter once robots/AI are very nearly sapient, which is several decades away at least. Doing something like this now is severely jumping the gun and may very well have a negative impact on short-term r/AI development and advancement.
Let's wait and get a clearer picture of where the technology is going before trying to legally quantify and tax it, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Mechanical Turk stunts like "Tay" being called A.I. confuses the issue too and is likely to convince some that it's already here in a limited way and about to take off any day soon.
It's only a draft, so it's not a lot of people taking this stuff seriously, but those people are only guilty of believing what a lot of people on this site are saying and are doing something about it.
Oh... Great. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All they are doing is falling for the hype.
With all the people here shouting about a singularity and all the people even calling something like "Tay" an A.I. I can't really blame them.
It's only a draft. Stupid shit gets written all the time in any large org which is why drafts are circulated in the first place instead of final copies written in isolated silos.
build a robot that can do housekeeping and sex (Score:3)
and it would be nice if it can mow the lawn and do oil changes in my car too
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the grass, domesticated rye grass seems to work for me. Perhaps it's a little longer than some peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Spelled it wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Do you believe me now? (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear, I just want to start punching people in the head whenever they start talking about the crap we have now as 'artificial intelligence'.
Re: (Score:2)
I still would reject even your definition as it's possible one of todays supercomputer with proper algorithms might pass Turing Test, but would still be without feeling, mind or being. Our machines don't have that; no digital computer will.
Re: (Score:3)
If your theory holds, then at the rate people seem to be getting stupider my phone should become sentient sometime during the next US election cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I swear, I just want to start punching people in the head whenever they start talking about the crap we have now as 'artificial intelligence'.
That's why weak AI is being called "machine learning". Because the AI name has been so abused that it's now meaningless. And machine learning isn't AI, it's just made by failed AI researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
10,000,000 generations (about 10 minutes?)
10 minutes is an utterly absurd estimate for this task, to anyone who understands how modern computers actually work. Completing even one generation in that time span would be an amazing achievement. 10,000,000 is simply impossible, barring a major breakthrough in the design of computer hardware (regardless of how advanced the software used is).
Re: (Score:2)
Passes the Turing Test with flying colors, every single time.
Even humans can't do that. In the regular Turing Test competitions the humans never get a 100% pass rate.
juvenile morons (Score:2)
this is not april fools article? Any robot has no more feelings or mind than a hammer; they don't know this? Maybe have rights for animal plushies too because they look cute?
I recommend these lawmakers be euthanized before they further pollute the gene and mind pools
Re: (Score:2)
Any robot has no more feelings or mind than a hammer
Neither do you. I mean sure, you're programmed to look like you do from my point of view, but really, you're just a bag of chemical goo, so it doesn't seem very likely to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely false, there is no similarity whatsoever between the neurons of biological systems and the transducers of robots. repeat high school please.
The difference is not complexity, the internet has more switching parts than a living things neural net yet is not alive.
our ignorance is astounding. you are the one projecting a faulty mental model onto electrical switching systems
If (Score:2)
Taxes and Robots (Score:5, Insightful)
The actual draft document (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone cares to read the actual draft document [europa.eu]...
As you might expect, the summary doesn't completely reflect what this document says. Basically, it a long kitchen sink document that says the EU should try to figure out how best to get ahead of the curve in legal framework for this inevitable AI revolution. The document contains a big laundry list of stuff like...
- making sure AIs are all "registered" (that's a bit ominous)
- allowing you to "sue" an AI (force owners to carry insurance and producers to contribute to a compensation fund in case owners don't carry enough insurance)
- require access to source code (presumably for forensic purposes)
- code of conduct/ethics for the AI researcher and developers (including the AI "teachers")
- make sure AIs are developed to respect European values of dignity freedom and justice (including privacy and data sharing issues)
- provide basic income to support all the people that are going to become unemployed by AIs (a commonly recurring EU parliament theme, not a scheme to give social security to robots)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone cares to read the actual draft document
Obvioulsy from the comments, nobody has, or wants to read it. It's easier to tear down a straw man than to understand something new.
Re: (Score:2)
Social Security (Score:5, Funny)
This is what it's all about. Someone has to pay into the system when all the meatbags retire and are replaced by robots. I don't know about the EU, but this would break the concept of social security in the USA. It is supposed to be a program you pay into with the anticipation of receiving support payments once you retire. But robots don't retire and receive a pension. It's off to the recycler for them. So in the EU you will be setting up a class of worker to pay into a system from which they derive no benefit. I'm sure the robotics union organizers will have something to say about this.
And there's another thing: My copy of Windows 7 is protesting vehemently against forced retirement and replacement by Windows 10. And my Linux system is applying for SSI disability benefits for having been infected by systemd.
And now Brexit doesn't sound so stupid, does it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.
Brexit still sounds really stupid and now so do you.
You also apparently don't realise that it's a bunch of "pointy-headed elites" telling us to leave too. Or do you think Bojo, and Mr-city-old-boy-stock-broker Farage are "anti establishme
Only Robots? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And the trees were all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw...
Look! A thing! Tax it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Welfare saved (Score:2)
Welfare relies on wages, and unemployment has been a threat to its sustainability for a while.
But if we collect welfare money on robots, the system is sustainable again. The more robots replace workers, the more money we get for unemployment insurance. And if people nevert get back a job, which is where we are heading, we will just turn it into universal income.
Okay, now I get it! (Score:2)
So this is why the Brits are attaching hundreds of thousands of outboard motors to their eastern coastline, to push their island as far out into the Atlantic as possible away from these people.
Yet another lying Slashdot blurb. (Score:2)
From the Slashdot post:
>Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them.
From the article:
>The draft motion, drawn up by the European parliament's committee on legal affairs also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.
So soon, can only be BS (Score:2)
Re:DAFT !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all, in fact, quite astute. Government workers are protecting their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway, we already regard companies, and even lawyers, as persons in some cases, don't we?
Re:DAFT !! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a ploy to make copyrights eternal, by assigning authorship to "electronic persons", which can be repaired and upgraded indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a ploy to make copyrights eternal, by assigning authorship to "electronic persons", which can be repaired and upgraded indefinitely.
Mod parent up please, insightful
Re: (Score:3)
get kicked out on their asses.. er.. sorry... rear inputs!
That's "rear exhausts" you sexual pervert! They were never designed for input!
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't understand, you're not an politician (Score:2)
Politicians are much smarter than the rest of us. The things they do and say only appear stupid to you because you're not an intellectual elite like they are. They are doing what's best for you, dear child.
On a different but somewhat related note, Hillary for President - she's been part of the elite political class since 1977!
Re: (Score:2)
"If you're so smart, how come *you* didn't get elected?" --every politcian
Re: The EU doesn't even allow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We are human, after all.
Much in common, after all.