No, Elon Musk was actually at a point where not only these companies were in risk of bankruptcy (noting also that he personally guaranteed much of the debt of these companies too, not to mention having fiduciary responsibility over the debt of these companies as CEO), but that he even was in debt at this time too.

You are simply wrong. He was very much at risk of personal bankruptcy too and definitely losing everything he had.

I'm glad to know that you are so cognizant of the future that you can possibly anticipate that nobody in the future will possibly develop any sort of technique or capability for capturing or restoring intelligences and personalities of those who currently are alive, may have been in the past, or will be in the future.

That is the kind of prophecy that really requires some sort of religious faith.

I'm not asserting that such technology will ever be developed, but it is silly to think it could never happen too.

I would tend to disagree with your assertion. There is something a little different in terms of a soul, or self-awareness, or however you want to describe that thing which is an intelligence. It is more than merely a pile of facts and data.

While the physical structure which is me is certainly a pile of data stored as DNA and developed over time that is my lifetime and the various environments I have lived in, not to mention my memories, there is much more to what is "me" than just that physical structure and data. There is also much more to "you" as well.

This is BTW one of my largest complaints about those who talk about artificial intelligence being something other than a bunch of tools which mimic but never achieve actual intelligence. Those who claim self-aware computers are just around the corner and a few years or decades from being developed don't have a clue as to what actual intelligence involved. This includes those who try to make claims as to how big of a computer must be to have human-like intelligence.

Data without that intelligence is meaningless, which I guess is the point I was trying to make. Yes, that thing which is "me" or my children for that matter does represent a huge pile of data, but I am more than just that data.

You left out privately building space ships delivering stuff to the International Space Station with more reliability and for a fraction of the cost of anything NASA's done.

So there's that.

I wish the internet was any good at preserving information. In reality, I have lost far more data to network servers, including some rather important information, than anything I've ever lost from moves, water damage, or even fire. As a medium of information exchange it works really good, but it does a damn lousy job of preserving data for more than a few years. It is also odd what information does get preserved, as some things sort of stick around and persist for a very long time, while other stuff goes away... and I can't predict at the moment which kind of data will persist in terms of content I've generated.

The only kind of information that I've been able to preserve on the internet for certain is stuff that I am very active in preserving. It really doesn't get saved in multiple locations though.

In other words, it's a problem. A solution that requires all users to have technical knowledge isn't a solution, it's a fantasy.

Servers don't have anywhere near as much software installed/removed as a desktop machine, so this is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.

It's not a fallacy when he is addressing the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online.
It's called the subject matter.

"-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;"
vastly stripped down surveillance. BTW, that's their job.

"-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;"
wanting to be ab; to execute legal warrants is no making surveillance inescapable.

"-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration"
there wasn't enough troops to deal with the war. What would you have him do? All this shows ois the the previous administration underestimated needed capacity.

"-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)"
and?

"-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries."
which is far fewer if they used none drone weaponry. Civilian deaths is tragic, but historically it's a lot less now then any other war.

"-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval."
He has congressional approval. More specifically, the office of the presidency has authorization. YOU might want to ask yourself why the pubs scream about this, but don't actually talk about removing the power congress gave him?
too wit:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

"-- let every single bankster off the hook."
fasle. several are in jail, and most DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. Why is that hard to understand?

"-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out."
So you don't remember what Obama originally wanted? What we have in a compromise. Do try to remember history.

"-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs."
Sigh. Did you just go to a web site and copy and paste? How about you find out why things are done, then be specific?

You take you guns, I'll take missiles.
Hey, I win!
Guns are useless against the government. Actions, words, advocacy, the law. These things work.
You just need to get off you apathetic ass.

Wow, you use bold letter so everyone can really notices how wrong you are. HAve you heard of 'Encryption'?

The constitution says the government can search your think if they follow procedure.
Holder wanting to be able to execute lawful warrants is a reasonable thing for him to advocate for.

Obama hasn't violated any Constitution, regardless of how popular it is to claim he has. The office of the presidency was given permission to do everything he has done right after 9/11.

IF the pubs were serious, they would take a vote to remove it.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Angry? they write your congress person. Tell them you want that authorization removed. Let people know. Screaming on /. about something you don't understand does not help you.

Seriously? not eve the original quote from the actual person?
This is the bigger problem, uneducated buffoons also get to vote.

Calm down Frances, you are mostly wrong.
The rest, well it's just inaccurate.

Do you think that the fact he was speaking to the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online might be why he brought up children?

If he was at the Global Alliance Against Terrorism Online, do you think he might have mention terrorism?

The government has a right to search you if it goes through the channels in the constitution. YOu do NOT have a right to hide info from the government if they go through the proper steps.

And you know what? that's reasonable.

"America is marching into becoming a facist state,"
Still? by golly we've been becoming a fascist state as long as I can remember. I"m sure we will get there any time now.
Nothing in the article at all is fascist.

The only crazy thing is that you seem to thing a random post on /. is correct and don't bother to research even them most simplest detail's regarding something as important as this topic.

I'm being redundant because understand is important.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...

Fortunately, there's more to it then that.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in...