The perceived threat of an emergent-hard-bootstrapping-self-aware-full-on-singularity-in-a-lunch-box intelligence stems as much from from its supposed intelligence and influence as it does from the fact that its motives are inscrutable. We just don't know yet what it would "want", beyond the assumed need for reproduction or self-preservation. That assumption itself may be wrong as well...

Agreed - the most damage could be done physically if a hostile entity were to gain control of widely-deployed and/or destructive autonomous systems. But such destruction would be limited without pervasiveness. Barring some sort of AI-instigated WMD attack, it would require physically self-replicating machines (Grey goo? Rampant 3D printers?) or a massive infrastructure in place for that AI to take advantage of.

One such infrastructure is the Internet itself. If such a hypothetical AI were savvy, it could create a large measure of influence over social networks through impersonation and massed artificial identities. Were it clever enough, it could mask its own incursions into physical space - effectively remaining undetected while vulnerable to human interdiction.

This is all assuming we could comprehend the motives of such an entity...

Relevant - if facetious - commentary by Randall Munroe. Seriously though, I think a hostile hard AI would get away with much more damage as a software entity on the Internet than in physical space.

Somewhere in San Joaqin Valley. Started right after the polls opened (0700 PST), there was practically no wait...though I imagine it's going to get much busier after business hours. Decent age cross-section, too.

Indeed it is. Here's a better suggestion.

Here you go.

Case in point - the LOIC software stack.

In the case of games, the user is free to not play the game and thus not subject themselves to the developer's terms.

The B-52 has indeed been used to drop many rocket-propelled aircraft, unmanned rockets and missiles from external pylons - including the X-15 and prototypes of the Pegasus rocket. When compared to civilian aircraft, it's quite expensive to maintain and operate at about $72,000 per flight hour. It might not seem like much compared to the cost of the launches themselves, but these carrier aircraft are flown often for testing/certification purposes. Those recurring costs coupled with the fact that these airframes are decades old mean that it's probably less expensive in the long run to go with a different air launch platform.

Talk about a stiff proposition...

Regardless of how they started the fire, they should at least be liable for the taxpayer cost of containing and fighting the fire. That's the law in California and at least some other states with frequent wildfires.