So the thing to ask is then 'How do you train your AI'.

I may be wrong, but this looks to be a typical US problem, at least in the developed world.

In most of Europe, firing at will is not possible. Some countries only allow firing based on lawful grounds, others require written motivation that can be contested in court or similar. In almost all countries in Europe there is a minimal severance pay by law.

We are talking about the GDPR here. Assuming that the people involved are EU citizens, it does not make any difference who the entity is that has the data. *Any* entity that is storing or processing data that can be attributed to an individual EU citizen must be able by law to provide all information that is stored or processed regarding that citizen in a human readable form for at most a nominal fee (I believe â 25 max) . So the legal relation between you or where the entity is located does not matter, only the fact that personally identifiable information is used or stored matters.

4990/135809 is more like 4% (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries)

The company that has used the pubklic funds to create the AI and patented it.

Dutch governmental institutions are allowed to compete against commercial companies as long as they:
- Account for all cost
- Do not make misuse special governmental privileges. For example the government cannot use a loan that has better conditions then a private party could obtain.
- Do not gain advantage out of data use. You cannot use data that a commercial party would have to buy or cannot access.
- Individuals do the work should not have regulatory responsibility that may cause conflicts of interest.

So as long as those requirements are met the people that are writing the software account for their hours, and the cost is administrated properly, there is no problem

Edsgar Dijkstra did not use a computer for most of his career.

When a free market monopolist censors just as well.

Software companies should not be allowed to hold your creative work at ransom.

A subscription model in itself is not a problem. But companies that want to use this model should be forced to provide full specifications of their data model, so that you are able to take your business elsewhere whenever you want to.

Because you cannot patent an idea. Not even a brilliant one. You can only patent the implementation of an idea.

So the question to be aswered is: 'is this implementation obvious to someone familiar in the field', which is exactly what the patent office is supposed to do by law.

There are many useful applications of RPV's and the general public should be allowed to enjoy those. However that same general public also has the right to be protected from unreasonable danger. Drones *do* fall out of the sky and therefore can harm people and property.
So instead of trying to register everything I'd say there should be ate least two categories of drones. One 'free for all' that is sufficiently lightweight and slow so as not to cause any serious harm and another which is everything else. You should not be able to buy the 'everything else' category without at least some training.

Audi has built an industrial scale plant that converts renewable gas to chemical energy ( although not liquid) see http://www.audi.com/content/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/energy-turnaround-in-the-tank.html. Actually, if commercially viable, converting electricity back to nautral gas as this plant does is a very bright idea. In Europe we already have infrastructure to transport gas so this seems a good way for storing excess energy.

And the bandwidth cost is mostly covered by the consumer anyway.

Seriously, what is the basis for this idea?

AFIAK, live stock are not fed coal or petrol. So any carbon that they emit must come from the CO2 that was stored in te plants that they eat during there lifetime. So how does that add to global warming? If the plant material was not eaten by the live stock, it would have been eaten by other animals (like humans) or would have rotted away.

Humans can't directly digest most plant material so we have to burn fuel to cook it, thus producing CO2. Also raw plant material has less calories/kg then most meats, we would have to transport more to feed all people in the world. If other animals animals ate the plants I don't see why the would not produce the same amount of gasses compared to live stock. If it was rotting away, some of the material would eventually become coal, but most of it would enter the atmosphere as methane.

So how am I wrong here?