I don't see how consciousness is a "real" phenomenon. How can you tell by observing whether someone is conscious or is just following a certain set of complicated rules?

If it's real, how do you measure it? I personally believe that consciousness is just a by-product of our brain as a convenient way of formulating models of the real world, but doesn't actually exist. It's so easy to trick the "conscious" mind with false memories or mis-direction, not to mention the clear lag between actions and the conscious decision to make the action (the nerve impulses to move happen before the conscious realisation).

Maybe he keeps an (empty) one in hes back garden just for times when he feels like laughing a lot. He's a strange chap.

I think encryption is the key here. Doesn't matter so much where you store it as how encrypted it is. However, if you put it onto a device that can fit very easily into someone's pocket, then you'd better make damn sure that it's encrypted.

What I don't understand is why there's so many killings in schools that teachers need to be worried about someone looking at a website with guns on it. Do you Americans really shoot yourselves that much that you get scared when a kid looks at pictures of guns?

Unless you were there fighting the war, it's a bit disingenous to take on other people's war victories as your own. I'm a Brit, but I had nothing to do with World War II or any other war since then. Just being born on the same piece of land as someone else is a strange way of measuring your worth.

Yes, that could be a problem though we do now have an issue with identifying reliable sources even with loads of ads. In fact, you could argue that the current system tends to promote populist writing and hides more detailed analyses as the increased eyeballs provides a monetary incentive.

I don't think it would make that much difference in the long run as people have a wide range of motivations rather than just money. Reputation is based on more than just ad revenue.

So, would her breathing heavily be the result of running away from you?

I'd be willing to bet that that's never going to happen. Communication is a basic human need and people like to communicate even if there's no monetary reward. Think of it like a hobby - there will always be people wanting to post information about certain topics just because they want to.

The next step would be to load the ad, display it, but the user could close their eyes.

They may want the money, but that doesn't entitle them to it. There's plenty of people who will willingly produce content for free.

I'm sure you're right, but I did enjoy Equoid by Charles Stross. Then again, I'm a fan of the Laundry series, so I'm not going to be that critical of his writing.

That kind of behaviour tends to happen when there is some kind of monopoly in effect (e.g. owning the fibre connections). When a market is operating well, you'll get companies trying those kinds of shenanigans and then being out-competed by other companies.

I think the premise of the study is flawed. Spending on R&D is not the same as innovation although there is some correlation. e.g. Companies might be able to get away with spending less on R&D as they are able to license the relevant patents rather than having to duplicate the research.

However, most patents aren't any use as most of them ARE obvious to someone skilled in the relevant discipline.

Possibly. I suppose it depends on what kind of wavelengths they use.

I reckon that autonomous cars will have some kind of radar that can easily see through rain and fog, so they should be able to carry on driving, but maybe at a reduced speed to allow for the conditions.