I don't think it is anything physical. It is just that it will automatically execute "sudo rm -rf /" when it detects any tampering, which will be done by more than one unspecified mechanism. And, of course, use a destructive form of rm.

What does STEM stand for? My first cache his is "Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope", which doesn't fit. I guess the first two are Science and Technology. But it would help if people didn't introduce unexplained acronyms. (Maybe it is a common US one - but this is, I hope, an international forum).

Not engine parts - the main bearings that carry the dish are gun turret bearings from battleships. Since they are so central to the structure, I doubt they have been replaced.

I like their pigeon prevention mechanisms as well - two nests of peregrine falcons, one in each support.

We just need to be clearer where we allocate blame. If I launch a robot, and the robot kills someone, the responsibility for that killing is mine. If I did so carelessly or recklessly, because the robot was badly programmed, then I am guilty of manslaughter or murder as the courts may decide. Bad programming is no more an excuse than bad aim. A robot that I launch is as much my responsibility as a bullet that I launch, or a stone axehead that I wield.

So the three laws, present or absent, are a problem for the launcher of the robot weapon. We don't need complex international laws about AI, we just need a wholehearted implementation of "You broke it, you pay for it".

Which is just as well, because by and large attempts to ban "immoral" weapons have failed. The only fairly successful instance is chemical warfare, which has succeeded because chemical weapons are actually rotten weapons, far too likely to misfire or backfire. Whatever rules are made, automated weapon systems will come in. In fact, they have: what is the significant difference between a mine which explodes when it detects a man, tank or ship, and a gun which fires when it detects a man, tank or ship?

They didn't. The malfunctions have all been in containment and cleanup systems. All Japanese nuclear reactors were closed down after the tsunami, and only two, a long way from Fukushima, have restarted - against considerable protest. None of the reactors at that site will ever run again.

This is to replace the Type A, the one at the Master end, usually on your PC. Of course, with "On The Go" and Power Delivery, which is master and which slave will become less obvious.

True, but it is still getting the speed from one balanced pair each way compared to Ethernet's four. Yes, it has a USB 1/2 interface hung on the side, but a stand alone interface it is pretty efficient. The legacy interface is what puts the conductor count up.

In part, Ethernet uses 4 balanced pairs to get 10 Gbit/s, so only 2.5 Gbit/s per pair; USB3 gets 4 Gbit/s over one balanced pair so is achieving more data per pair. Then again, USB2 has lower cost targets because it is intended to be on many low-cost devices (keyboards, cheap memory sticks etc) leading to many endpoints whereas generally there are only two Ethernet endpoints per computer (on on the computer, on on the switch it is connected to) so a higher per endpoint cost is supportable. Ethernet is single minded: do one job well. USB is trying to be all things to all men: a cheap low cost interface for mice and keyboards, while also supporting high performance disks. If you want an interface the only does high speed transfers to an expensive device at the other end, you could probably do much better.

The desktop/laptop PC market has always been two separate markets. One it the office, workplace, market. The other is the internet access market.

The standard PC was made for the office market. Both the office productivity market using the standard wordprocessor/spreadsheet/presentation apps, and all the various kinds of design and simulation software used by umpteen varieties of designer.

The standard PC was also sold for the internet access market - mainly web browsing and email, because initially it was the only device that could do it. But it wasn't actually optimised for these uses - is just did them because it was a good general purpose device. You could say that it was mis-sold for these uses: it was over complex for the simple uses people needed. When smartphones and tablets came along, they were actually designed to do the job these users wanted. Naturally they captures the market.

The PC market peaked at about 180 million devices. I reckon that was about 30 million work devices ("Sit forward" devices, as I think of them) and 150 million net access devices ("sit back" devices), The 30 million sit-forward market is still there, and growing at a reasonable rate. The 150 million "sit back" market is evaporating fast as people who want that switch to purpose-built devices.

Who is buying your product? Look at how they are sitting. If they are sitting forward, stay with the PC: you are selling to a steady segment of the market. If they are sitting back (or trying to), jump ship, because that is what your customers are doing.

In this case, I really don't think it is anti-American but anti-GM. There is a very widespread fear of GM. Which, as it happens, I disagree with. But, right or wrong, people are afraid of GM and shouting at their politicians about it.

Maize is the term used in the UK, where corn means, usually, wheat - sometimes barley.

Many dictionaries say that "corn" means the local most common grain crop, and therefore each grain type needs another name for use where it is not the most common.

There was certainly a case of it some years ago in the UK. A spate of a single model (a Ford again, IIRC) bursting into flames while quietly parked at a particular motorway service station. The particular model was a favourite with sales reps, who would drive from London with pedal to the metal, then stop at this particular station for a break. A plastic fuel pipe ran above a bit of the engine which got very hot under this form of heavy usage. with essentially no cool-down mileage after the high speed run. Round about the time the rep was finishing his coffee, the plastic melted and poured fuel onto the overheated engine. Whoof!

So it can happen. Maybe this scenario, or one like it, has replayed.

I have to say that this is hardly new: people have been modelling archaeological reconstructions for quite a few years now. This may be larger than many, but it is hardly /. novel. Not that I am suggesting that it is not worth doing, or that the professor has not done well. But it is news for archaeological students and educators, not computer geeks.

"One day" might be very soon, if leaks from the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations are correct. I had been, in a vague sort of way, in favour of this. But if the price is extending IP periods, I go the other way.

For individual works. But in context of /., we are likely to be looking at corporate works (for example, of a company that paid people to write software), for which it is seventy years from first publication.

Which, incidentally, suggests that corporations are not alive, contradicting the "companies are legal people" mantra used to justify a lot of corporate dubious practice.