In a city? A .308, even a .223, or the venerable .30-06 will do that job just fine

Yes, but we want asteroids, not meteorites. Or worse, an impactor that doesn't just break up and lie there.

No offense, but that's not a very sensible response. Your job may require off-hours work, but that depends largely on the needs of the company your supporting, and what you negotiate your job to be. Regardless, there's no reason why you shouldn't try to diminish the amount of off-hours work, and make it as painless as possible.

For example, let's say I have to do server updates similar to what this guy is describing, and my maintenance window is 5am-9am. The updates consist of running a few commands to kick the updates off, waiting for everything to download and install, rebooting, then checking to make sure everything was successful. Because the updates are large and the internet is slow, it sometimes takes 3 hours to perform the updates, but only 10 minutes to roll things back.

It's an exaggerated scenario, but given that basic outline, why wouldn't I just script the update process, and roll in at 8:30 with plenty of time to confirm success and roll things back if needed? What, I should still come in at 5am just because an Anonymous Coward on the Internet decided it was "part of the job"?

So nothing is real or possible before you see it? Why not kill yourself now, then? After all, tomorrow may never come.

People smarter than you (or I) believe that mining asteroids is not only possible but even feasibly. That doesn't mean that it is, of course. It only means that I have no reason to give a shit what you think about asteroid mining.

And I think you're implying this, but all of the pirateocalypse nonsense, whether it's regarding Aereo or Bittorrent-- all of it really comes down to "we want to maintain our current extremely profitable business model in the face of changing technology which renders it obsolete." Like record labels and news organizations and all the other forms of media and information-related industries, they will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Internet age.

Well also the networks want people to subscribe to cable specifically because the owners of the networks also own other cable channels.

OK. Tell that to MPEG-LA. By your definition it's a cartel plus extortion. Have fun with that.

Asteroid mining is the only way we're going to build large structures in space anytime "soon". There's plenty of asteroids, this issue can be revisited later.

It says in the article (iirc, read it a few days ago) that this was a problem a few years ago but now is mostly licked. So I'm not sure why it's coming up today.

Why is low power consumption a special, unique requirement? All of my computer equipment was chosen and/or assembled with low consumption in mind. My Desktop's TDP is under 350W and I can play games at 1920x1200, albeit not with everything turned on any more. I have a small fleet of netbooks for performing long-running tasks or for traveling, I sold an HP EliteBook and bought three of them. I even took an EEE 701 4GB running Jolicloud on a six-week vacation to Panama. My most power-hungry portable has two cores and the CPU has a TDP of 13W, and I'm undervolting.

Much of the goal was to be able to run on solar for long periods, which I do occasionally. Not so much lately, unfortunately, but I've mostly rebuilt my mobile solar rig. That reminds me, I should order some aluminum piano hinge.

They have shown that they can not be trusted. They must lose the power to do this.

Pull someones certificates or kill some CA. Someone needs to suffer because of this.

What happens now is that there's an investigation. Depending on the outcome the CA may be revoked for good, or merely forced to reissue lots of certificates. The deciding factor is the reason for the screwup - for instance they may have got hacked, rather than been actively corrupt. In that case Microsoft will have to decide if they have patched things up enough to continue as part of their root store program or whether to pull the plug. I doubt many people have certs issued by this CA so the damage would be relatively minimal.

Unfortunately you can't just kill any CA that screws up. For one, if the CA was widely used it'd be disrupted. For another, nothing is unhackable, especially when you get the NSA involved. Expecting CA's to be able to reliably fight off professional hackers from dozens of governments and never ever fail is likely an impossible standard to ever meet.

Hard decisions ahead for browser and OS makers for sure ...

INTERPOL itself has no teeth. It's left to the nations themselves to decide if they care what it has to say on a case-by-case basis. It permits information sharing (etc) but does not require it. Their goal is "To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and not to enforce laws themselves.

Only if you fail to understand that it's always pointed at something interesting to the wearer. I know this is complicated, but please do try to keep up.

Yes, and so do many netbooks. My Acer Aspire One D250 only came with 1GB, as did my EEE 701, but those are old. My LT31 came with 2GB. I upgraded the dimm to get lower-latency memory, mostly to speed up the integrated graphics. Most of the machines that will support 1GB will support 2GB and some of them will even take a 4GB SODIMM, but don't count on it.

I think more to the point, at least as far as I understood it, the Turing test was not meant to be a real test for whether an AI was actually intelligent.

The point of the test was essentially this: If a machine becomes able to imitate intelligence well enough that we can't tell the difference, then we may as well treat it as actual intelligence. As much anything, Turing was making a philosophical point from a pragmatic point of view. It doesn't make sense to ask whether a machine is "actually intelligent", but only whether it's capable of behaving as though it has intelligence.

So it's not really about fooling a certain specific percentage of people, or having the test go on for a specific point of time. Those are just issues of how you might hypothetically conduct an actual test, but what you're testing for is whether the effects of the machine "intelligence" have reached a level of being indistinguishable from human intelligence.

So really, the point was to have something like a "blind taste test". You say you can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, but if I pour Coke and Pepsi into identically glasses, can you tell the difference? If not, then maybe you shouldn't express a preference. Similarly, if I can put a series of questions to a person and a computer, and no matter what questions I ask, I can't tell the human's responses from the computer's responses, then maybe we shouldn't think that the computer is less intelligent than the human.