That's a great red herring you made there, but it's irrelevant. Taxes are on profits, not sales.

Question: What role do people who think that AI research is dangerous hold in the field of AI research?

Answer: None...because regardless of their qualifications, they wouldn't further the progress of something they think is a very, very bad idea.

Asking AI experts whether or not they think AI research is a bad idea subjects your responses to a massive selection bias. And discounting the views of others because they don't specialize in creating the thing they think should not be created does the same. You do realize that at your core, that's your only point...not that Hawking is an idiot, or that Gates doesn't know anything about technology. It's just that they don't work in the field of AI, so therefore they must not have any inkling whatsoever as to what they're talking about.

I'll stick with Windows Vista, thanks.

Your mirror would cease to be a mirror in very short order by either sheer ablation or the formation of oxides, reducing its ability to reflect, causing the absorption of more energy, at which point your mirror ablates. HTH.

You're either very young or very naive, or a combination of both. If you're an adult, tough, I'd seek help because you're delusional. We're moving towards less freedom, more and more surveillance and a general understanding that we're better off censoring ourselves. Think how many things you can say today that would not only be perceived as "wrong" but actually cause you very serious trouble. One wrong word uttered and you can find yourself unemployable if not the target of the State's rough attention. We're not getting more access, we're getting more surveillance. It's going to get a lot worse.

Well, some people who earn less than $15 work in tech companies. That's a tech angle, right? /s

There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.

Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."

stop repeating this nonsense about technology not disrupting peoples lives. Yes, over the course of several decades the economy replaced those jobs. In the meantime millions were without work. There's a reason why the Luddites existed. That word has meaning beyond an insult. There was nearly 60 years of joblessness following the industrial revolution before other tech caught up. Google it. Read some history. Jeez.

I agree the solution isn't to go back on technology though. It's socialism. Plain 'ole socialism. When we don't need these people to work we don't just let them starve while we all take turns seeing who can make the 1% the happiest. And btw, I said _socialism_, not communism. And not a fascist dictatorship that occasionally publishes a pamphlet with something written by Karl Marx either...

if he ACTUALLY did any such thing the FAA would have issued a notice requiring aircraft WiFi

You obviously didn't read the search warrant.

First, it states that in previous interviews (in Feb, and I'll bet the FBI has audio records to support that), he had described connecting to the network using Ethernet connected to a "Seat Electronic Box" ("SEB") which is mounted under the seats. So, WiFi has nothing to do with it. In the same interview, he said he understood the legal ramifications and would not access airplane networks.

The warrant goes on to state that the FBI inspected the SEBs around the seat he occupied on his 4/15 Denver to Chicago leg, and found signs of damage and tampering.

That, along with his history and the tweet regarding being on the flight and suggesting he could tamper with the flight systems seems to me to be reasonable grounds for a warrant.

And, I hope he's prosecuted. Also in the Feb. interview, he admitted actually tampering with flight control systems. It's one thing to find a vulnerability and try to get it addressed. It's quite another to actually make use of that vulnerability during a flight, placing the public at risk.

If it works as well as hoped this will save a lot of
big birds from an early demise.

Big fans rotating like heck are an astounding challenge to keep intact
and maintain. Not that these will be any easier but "Big Bird's" yellow
feathers will be safer (one can hope).