It still doesn't make it a product of the government. BTW, I would like to have some serious source behind this claim of yours.
First of all, the movie isn't a product of the USA government. You know about free speech? If free speech is considered by the rest of the world as cultural arrogance, so be it.
Second, hijacking a website and the cyberspace is a crime. It is not about the movie industry or whatever, it is about a crime perpetrated on american soil by another country. USA is perfectly legit to react and take action against anyone behind this crime. No matter how weak the security at Sony is.
Third, any real proofs US government is behind Stuxnet? I would like to see them, really.
Fourth, they also insult their own leaders. There is numerous movies where the President of USA is depicted as an idiot, killed or whatever.
By number of units? By pound? By size of the actions domain? By resilience? By IQ? By energy consumption? By number of other entities it kills? By distance it travels?
It is very likely our first encounter with extrastellar form of life will be with a non-living space probe or something like that. Sustaining life during an interstellar journey is about impossible. In the big void, there is no energy available to sustain life as we define it and the amount of time it will take to reach a target capable to provide some power supply is too large for any kind of power supply we know and can think of. Nuclear reactors won't fit the bill, they will need to be replace/rebuild entirely many times, radioactive material will be no longer radioactive many thousands of years before an alien world is reached, etc. So, it leaves autonomous probes that can hibernate until some source of power is encountered.
Given that, would you qualify an autonomous probe as a form of life? Surely not.
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it. Recently, many models were put exactly in that position. Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
The economists rational makes no sense. First of all, AI creates more jobs than it destroys at the moment. There is currently no autonomous car to buy anywhere. No taxi, truck, bus driver has been replaced so far and no one knows when it will happen and if it will happen at all.
Second thing, most examples given are low wages jobs, then the argument does not hold water if you pretend it is responsible for stagnation of the average wages, the average wages should go up if there is less people with minimum wages.
Third, it is false to say there is less salesman jobs because Google has automated the advertisement. If it wasn't automated it would not be affordable to advertise for many enterprises which then would not exist at all or would have lower earnings, then would not be able to pay well their own employees.
The problem is rather than that some enterprises are draining too much money for what they do. For example, to give an extreme one, Instagram is creating very few jobs and was valued at 1 billion dollars while what they are doing is easily replicatable by a small team of developers. These sectors are draining too much economic resources for the services they provide.
Yes, but you started with text and removed a layer of complexity. Also, as mentioned, the reverse operation is not as efficient as the forward operation. There is much more work done on spoken English recognition than any other language. I doubt the performance to convert spoken French to text will be as performant as spoken English to text.
In writing, you make an extra effort to make it clear. In spoken language, you have hesitation, slang, intonations, accent, prononciation, elusion, etc, that makes it hard to decipher by a language recognition system and hard to translate as well.
I have a couple of 100 watt laser cutters. They cut 3/16" plywood really nicely - and 1/2" plywood with difficulty...providing they are properly cleaned and focussed and cutting at around 2000mm/minute. A 2 watt laser...well, draw your own conclusions. There is no magic going on. To cut wood that thick, it has to move VERY slowly and probably make multiple cut passes.
The Blu-ray laser approach *IS* great for thin materials though. 1/16" balsa, paper, cloth, that kind of thing. So this is a useful contraption - I just wish they wouldn't over-sell it...it's just not that good.