On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Proposal: Fixing Rule 2150 Bug (AI = 3, II = 0): > > As Rule 2150 goes on to further disambiguate between biological persons and > non-biological persons, it seems inaccurate to reference ALL persons as > being strictly biological. > > Change the second paragraph of Rule 2150 from: > > Any biological organism that is generally capable of communicating by email > in English (including via a translation service) is a person. > > to: > > Any entity that is generally capable of communicating by email in English > (including via a translation service) is a person.
Contrary to what you said, the second paragraph of Rule 2150 is not a definition of "person"; it is merely stating that, among other things, those things are persons. Allowing *anything* capable of communicating in English would probably include a lot of things we don't want to include, such as arbitrary computer programs written by arbitrary people. --Warrigal--no, that's not right. Thomas O'Malley.
