You are so fucking stupid, it simply hurts. You give a bad name to dumb people. The logical hole in your argument is so huge, I could drive a dump truck though it. Now, most people could understand the logical problem with your claim, so I have honestly wonder if you are just shilling because you are an entertainment lawyer or some other paid big entertainment whore.

Claiming that because there was growth, that the laws aren't stifling creative output, is pointless. Growth might be boosted or stifled by the laws, but you cannot know because YOU HAVE NO BASELINE to compare it to. Shit, you haven't even tried to look at the industry growth vs. population growth. While those stats don't prove (or disprove) your claim about laws, you could see that a industry's 'growth' vs. population growth is might actually be a decline.

Please delete all your accounts, format your computer, and sell it to a homeless Frenchman as a broken etch-a-sketch. You are to dim to be allowed to have an opinion anymore. Please report to the nearest construction site and volunteer as landfill, for which you are actually qualified.

The libertarians (among others) are very, very scared of having an honest discussion about those issues, which is why they continually attempt to deny that climate change exists or has an anthropogenic cause. .

That is a interesting generalization, why would a libertarian in particular have a problem with the topic? Is there something in the secret libertarian manual that says that they cannot be honest about global climate change?

I think we should just call the 'Heretics', because then we could just burn them. Because that is what you do with heretics, right?

Of course, that would be a bad idea in practice, as it would just release more greenhouse gasses...

No, it isn't, it is an indicator of absolutely nothing. Without the laws there might be 100 times much entertainment available now. Your statement is pure speculation, and is simply an unfounded opinion.

As much music as what? You have nothing to compare it to. You cannot say what the industry would have done if there was no copyright, so the volume of content we have today proves nothing. For we know, we might have twice the content if we had no law getting in the way of creating content. So, sorry, your claim is still worthless.

Pipe all that magma into the ocean, release vast amounts of steam that turns into precipitation to end droughts, easy. You're welcome, now get to work and make that happen.

When it does erupt again, the humans might be long gone. Or, maybe not.

The real question is, will humans still be here after it erupts....

I was around when St. Helen's blew up, and that was a relatively modest eruption. A super volcano could be extinction event if it is big enough.

, proof is the amount of content available today.

That is a pointless argument, as you have nothing to compare it to. I could just as easily make the counter claim (which is just as hollow) that there would be twice the content available if the laws were different.

How does it stifle creativity? If you reuse copyright material you aren't being very creative.

Oh really? Go listen to Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys and say that again with a straight face. Huge chunks of that album are samples and remixes, and it is a rather famous example of how creative you can get reusing copyrighted material.

There are all sorts of works of art that are based off of using other people's creations in even more direct ways. Weird Al has been creating pop music parodies for decades that are based on other people's material, he seems pretty creative. Look at Johnny Cash's cover of the song 'Hurt', originally recorded by Trent Reznor. It was so good that Trent himself said that it wasn't his song anymore.And there are literally thousands more examples like these.

Saying that you cannot be creative by re-using other people's work is a very small minded view of art.

IAACWAIK (I am a coder with AI knowledge), and I don't fear any sort of sentient machine. I fear a lot of people. Perhaps we should get the dangerous people sorted out first before we start worrying about the sentient free roaming machines that don't exist yet and won't exist for many, many, years.

I mean Christ, what kind of retard is running around worrying about problems that aren't even real? This guy might as well be writing books about how to fight zombies or repel vampires and boogie-men. Entertaining fiction topics to be sure, but a real discussion topic? Elon Musk knows fuck all nothing about AI on the whole, and he is signing this letter because he knows first hand about killer AIs? Elon, you want to save some lives? Get back to making your fucking electric slot cars, because more people will die as a result of carbon induced climate change in the next 100 years than will die as a result of the cast of the movie 'short circut' going berserk.

Shit to be scared of: cancer, heart disease, auto-accidents.

Shit to not be scared of: killer asteroids, ebola, and oh yeah, and homicidal AIs.

People to think of as retards: Elon Musk

....black people will stand out too much in the company photos...

Wait a second, I always heard that the reason you don't hire black people is because they insist on wearing spats on 'casual Friday'.

I feel so foolish now.

It can be proved empirically that this is a correct theory - the longer you shuffle cards, the more random sequence you have.

Not true. There is a limit to entropy of a collection of objects, and once you reach this limit, any change to the system can only to be a reduction in the degree of entropy in the system. Also, it is entirely possible, (if unlikely) that you can shuffle a randomized deck of cards into sequential order.

I think they are called 'cruse missiles'.

It seems to me that these weapons are morally equivalent to a land mine. A land mine is an autonomous weapon, that has the following logic: 'Is trigger depressed? If so, detonate'.

Putting more complicated logic on a robot armed with machine guns is pretty much the same thing. If you have morale problems with land mines, you probably should have the same problems with kilbots. (Also, expect the exact same classes of problems to occur).

Most civilized countries are realizing that landmines are rather deplorable weapons, it seems interesting that they would be ok with robotic weaponry...

Is the less than 100 mph limit really necessary?

It seems reasonable. There needs to be some kind of weight/height/speed limitations.

Reasonable? I'd say its required. Consider what happens when a drone traveling at only 100 mph with a total mass of 10 lbs fails from 400 feet. Do you want to be under it when it lands? I am pretty sure that is gong to be a strait up fatality if it hits someone.....