Indeed. "Mental" modeling — maintaining and manipulating an abstract computational representation of beliefs — is at the heart of strong AI. Such models include, for example, beliefs about the world, beliefs about other agents (including what they believe about you), and beliefs about self. This is where computer scientists, linguists, cognitive psychologists and others all have some common ground and interdisciplinary research can be very productive. Learning is the ability to make systematic normative changes to mental models as a consequence of reasoning about experience; normative in the sense that such changes improve the ability to reason with and about the model in ways that maximize some value (e.g., ability to make accurate predictions). Experience involves reasoning about both the outside "real" world and the internal reasoning process itself. This is where your comment about "the next level" is germane. Those of us working on this topic call reasoning at multiple levels "meta-cognition", that is, thinking about thinking. There is no theoretical reason to limit meta-cognition to any specific number of levels. Current research on meta-cognition typically considers the level (or two) "above" (abstracted from) experiential belief modeling and action planning. This is also about the right level of abstraction for ethical reasoning ("would", "could", "should", "may" and their opposites). I've observed that most researchers assume a utilitarian ethics, which makes some sense if maximizing performance is the overall imperative. However, I count myself among those who believe that future AIs must be able to reason about moral imperatives if we expect them to behave themselves appropriately as we live and work alongside each other. Ronald Arkin at Ga.Tech is a leader in this area and he is a pioneer on the topic of computational methods to help ensure ethical behavior by potentially lethal robots.

This is correct. They can detain you during the conduct of an investigation. It is also useless to ask, if you are arrested, what the charge is. The copy has no obligation to tell you and may not know. All the police need is a reasonably suspicion that a crime has occurred/is occurring. The Prosecutor is the one that charges you.

Deputy Dan is your friend! (google it)

Agreed, MOD THIS UP. It is the only correct response that preserves your rights and gives you the best chance of coming out the other end of the ordeal intact.

Truth. I know this first hand and also from lawyer friends. First thing to remember is that the police are not obligated to tell the truth. In fact, they are trained in various methods of deception and manipulation to get you to talk. [p] Second thing to remember is this: cops are going to do what they're going to do. You can object to a search (and you should, always), and not say anything (never talk unless your attorney says it is ok), and the police will still search, they will still arrest you. That's their job, and the prosecutor and judge sort things out, if you are lucky. Asserting your rights won't intimidate the police, or probably stop them, but it may help you later. Oh, you can also sue them afterwards, but do you really have the $$, Time, and do you really want to become a "person of interest"? Good luck!

In November 2012, President Obama signed Presidential Policy Directive 20 which lays out the specific "rules of engagement" regarding cyber- defense and offense. http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/267879-report-obama-authorizes-new-cyber-warfare-directive We in new territory here so it remains to be seen whether the policy, in practice, complies with binding international treaties on the "rules of war". If the question is whether the US government, or any government, has the right to respond to a cyber attack with deadly force, I think you have to refer to the treaties with specific cases in mind for the legal perspective. Having the "right" from a moral perspective is something completely different.

I have direct experience with submitting a number of my technical reports to the NASA Technical Report Archive, a requirement for reports of research sponsored by NASA. The submittal process included a third party assessment of the applicable technology export control laws. In my case, this was performed by our Office of General Counsel. However, I was also asked whether controlled information was included in the report or not under the assumption that it was my responsibility to know the rules. While I believe I was personally scrupulous, I will wager that many report authors saw the whole process as a poor use of their time and were not so careful. So I believe the archive probably does contain export controlled information. On the other hand, the really interesting work gets published in the relevant journals and professional society conferences, and there is no way to control that except through the classification process.

In the movies, when there is a lot of shooting in public places, the official explanation is often, "This was just a multi-agency joint training exercise." Yeah right. I'm suspicious that this event may be a(nother) counter-terrorism op about which we may never learn the truth. Multi-city suggests nick-of-time disruption of near attack. Multi-agency including military suggests possible NBC weapon.

Frictionless dating sounds like no fun at all. A little friction is a very good thing!

My favorite: Wind mobiles

Others: - Hors d'oeuvre plates - Feng Shui reflectors near your front door - Scarecrow in your garden - Pistol target practice

Your imagination is the limit!

I have run into this circumstance in the past with Linden Labs and SecondLife. Content I created was being copied and sold by others as their own original work without my permission. I followed the same procedure as you did: Notified Linden Lab. They took down the content. Then the other party did exactly what happened to you: they filed a counter claim. At that point Linden Labs told me that they could do nothing more without a court order. They, like YouTube, are not in the business of - nor do they have the resources to - investigate this stuff. They did everything legally required of them. So it all boils down to how much is it worth to you and what do you want to spend?

Talking with people-who-know recently about air bases and their problems let me in on a factoid that is relevant to this discussion: The engines on the F22 when it is in VTOL configuration are so hot, and powerful, that they actually seriously damage runways. Any given runway is good for only so many t/o or landings of this aircraft. The damage is so bad that it requires much more than a simple patch. This is one of the factors holding up wider deployment (as if pilots blacking out from oxygen deprivation wasn't enough!)

Our GC advised us that the legal wording is as follows: "Are you legally entitled to work in the United States?" And it is also legal to ask for verification.

I like the way you think. Color outside the box? What box! A technology such as this could have many positive applications as well. Need to learn how to fly a helicopter in an emergency? Flash. Done. It is a good question whether skills can be evoked in the same manner these experimenters have activated memories.

Assuming the analysis is correct and these games are NP-hard, then what is interesting is not that some of us failed miserably at the games but so very many people did quite well. The human brain is a special-purpose computer that excels at solving problems critical to the species' survival. This suggests to me that reformulating problems of interest into a form that the brain can process (e.g., video games) might be an excellent way to tap the computational power of the brain. Wouldn't it be interesting if the millions of brains playing games were actually solving major problems in physics, biochemistry, etc.? Call it "crowd-sourced computation".