You are promoting the idea that there is safety in a situation for which you have no data.

Only a fool would follow you there.

For those like me, who just watched the video and didn't understand the point of view 'til quite late on, the camera is pointing back along the direction of flight.

Also, for some reason the video has strange out-of-focus side-pieces that are distracting and annoying. The view itself is gorgeous and amazing.

I'm curious what the reaction in the US would be if someone made a major motion picture about the sitting American president being assassinated. Not a film about actual events, or about a fictional president, but the actual one.

Making terrorist threats is certainly wrong, but I strongly suspect there's more than a little hypocrisy in the current "free speech, free speech!" reaction.

In order for you to drive a car, someone had to have the skills to make it. In order for sony to get hacked, someone had to have the skills to discover the vulnerability and write something to exploit it.

So assuming hacking sony is the result of wielding a superpower, who has that superpower? The jokers who pressed a button or the people who made the button and the thing it activated? I agree with the article, it's the coders, even if it was used indirectly, like tricking superman into doing something.

A little tweaking of the basic idea (and eliminating the floweryness) should make that definition viable.

Life is a collection of matter and/or energy that actively maintains a low entropy state.

That makes rabbits and bacteria life, viruses, prions and fire not.

That's not what AI is. It's one possibility, not necessarily the best one. Simulating neurons on digital computers has has given the best results so far, but only because we've got lots of digital computers around. Likely the best approach will be dedicated hardware that will probably work nothing like what we think of as a computer.

So when we build AIs that are not subject to our biological limitations, will they compete with us? Will someone weaponize them? It seems like a good possibility. Of course, lots of other things also have those possibilities. And maybe by the time we have hard AI we'll also have removed some our own biological limitations.

Sure, but they're tough to upgrade and a huge pain in the ass to repair. Not to mention the hardware is delicate and finicky. Given the technology to do so, any intelligent species is going to make some upgrades.

As others have pointed out, this is false. Here's a simple guide to the complex language of electromagnetic radiation:

1) If it was produced by an atomic process it's an x-ray, no matter what the energy.

2) If it was produced by a nuclear process, it's a gamma-ray, no matter what the energy

3) If the source is neither atomic nor nuclear, or unknown, it's field-dependent and circumstance dependent. I tend to think of bremstrahlung as gamma radiation unless I'm talking about x-ray sources for imaging or medical treatment. This is a purely cultural difference, with the terms "x-ray" and "gamma ray" being understood as interchangeable by practitioners, but with one or the other being preferred depending on context. Annihilation radiation is called gamma or x-ray depending on the field as well.

With regard to the EM radiation from storms, there are multiple possible origins. It's pretty easy to create neutrons from high-energy plasmas, as in the Farnsworth Fusor. Subsequent capture of those neutrons on nuclei will produce "true" gamma rays. On the other hand, various purely EM processes could be producing x-rays as well. So the EM radiation from storms could well be a mix of both nuclear and atomic processes. Call 'em gammas or x-rays, and don't make a big deal of it.

Are you joking? I thought it was well established that there were chemical weapons in Iraq we just only found weapons designed by us, built by Europeans in factories in Iraq. And therefore the US didn't trumpet their achievements. In the case of Iraqi chemical weapons, the US established that Iraq had chemical weapons not because they said so but because Western countries had all the receipts.

No, I didn't claim anything of the sort. I only asked how you didn't know that was the case, which is something else entirely. You need new reading glasses. Or remedial reading classes. Or something.

Indiana will simply legislate that all superconductors are performance-invariant.

Problem solved. See how easy that is?

You don't know if they've solved (the last part of) Kryptos. You just know the public hasn't.

The difference between what you think you know, and what you actually know, is often quite significant.

As for the "magic" straw man, not worthy of a response.

Apple was a niche luxury computer maker until they made the iPhone, which was purchased by everyone from the wealthy elite to the middle poor through the magic of financing.

Look around. The majority of jobs now are bullshit jobs. The sign of a successful modern economy is an overwhelmingly large service sector.

This has been going on a long time. Machines do most of the real work for us but we've bought into the fantasy that we all need to work 40+ hours so most of us are engaged in things like trying to sell each other stuff, handing each other stuff or throwing darts at a board to pick stocks for other people.

It's faded from the front page because it's now so routine nobody cares. iPhoto is free and does decent facial recognition. Facebook runs it on everything. My phone can take natural language spoken queries and respond with reasonable answers much of the time.

I worked on AI fifteen years ago and that was the stuff of dreams. Now you can have it in your pocket for a couple hundred bucks.