When it comes to Microsoft, I must paraphrase:

Never ascribe to malice, what can adequately be explained as incompetent malice.

Studying (and trying to create) hard AI is my day job.

I just want to let people know that not everyone shares the opinions or urgency of the people in the story.

I for one am trying hard to condemn humanity to death and/or enslavement at the hands of intelligent machines, and I know a number of AI researchers trying to do the same.

So don't worry too much about these guys - they are definitely in the minority. Everyone will get their chance to (as individuals) welcome our new robotic overlords, however briefly.

Not if the NSA's intent in doing so is to spy, directly or indirectly on US citizens. As I said, they can spy on me or random Russian/Saudi/Chinese guy no problem. But they're not meant to be snooping on US citizens any more than the US airforce is meant to be dropping bombs on Atlanta suburbs.

Meanwhile geeks, who do understand how computers work, instead of developing technologies supporting encryption and pricacy by default, have instead hopped into bed with big data and the NSA. There are more geeks helping the NSA builds a Stasi apperatus than there are geeks working on building a truely anonymous and untappable internet.

The more I think back to the likes of the whole Firefox self signed certs debacle, the more I see the NSA survellance apperatus collectively roaring with laughter at geekdom's heedless self-destruction of itself and the internet.

Reading history, you frequently come across periods where you wonder "How could people put up with this?" or "Why didnâ(TM)t they just do X" where X is the solution which was eventually reached 20 years later.

Looking at the modern world, I realise I'm living in just such a period. A pity I'm not longer "smart" enough to figure out what the current X should be. I guess I may have been a little too hard on all those "stupid" societies in the past.

Then again, maybe it's not wrong to think that they and we are just, actually stupid.

you know, I'm really upset and concerned about spying on me because I feel it violates my 4th amendment rights and is a slippery slope, but I'm relatively indifferent to spying on foreigners. Isn't that the point of the CIA/NSA anyway?

Yes it is. That is their whole point, and it should be only the whole.

I'm from Ireland, so it's actually OK for the NSA to spy on me and my communications. Americans should actually expect that the NSA is up to this and indeed a few shady activities abroad. That is what a spy agency is for, and should be paid for,

However, a spy agency is not for spying on domestic citizens. The NSA and CIA are absolutely not supposed to monitor domestic US citizens. That is not what they are for, or what they should be paid for.

This isn't very complicated. The NSA is an intelligence weapon, and can be compared to a missile or bomber. Americans might argue about targets, but most will agree that the US should have missiles and bombers and should use them abroad when nessessary. Most Americans would be outraged to discover that those missiles were being used at home on US citizens, and should be equally outraged that the NSA is being used at home as well.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." If Snowden hasn't committed treason using this definition, I don't know what is then.

You're probably trolling, but the simple answer here is

a) He has not levied war against any of the States or the whole of them, and
b) If he has given aid or comfort to enemies, then you should be able to name those and state the aid and/or comfort given them.

If you can spin either of those into a charge that will hold up in court, I'll be impressed.

The NSA is charging Snowden with spying?

I suppose " the logic of their position demanded it."

You tell Universities that they will lose x% of their funding until y% of their Biology faculty consists of female professors with 2.1 children, and you'll see just how quickly those biological difference simply melt away.

The US military M67 grenade weighs 400 grams.

A small drone like draganflyer-x6 can carry up to 270 grams (like a small digital camera)

http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x6/

And you still can't mount a Griffin (AGM-176) on a light surveillance drone.

The vast majority of drones owned by the Feds, law enforcement and military are sub-20 pound things like what Seattle PD tried.

Seattle PD used 3.5-pound Draganflyer X6 six-rotor helicopters

Those only fit on Predator (MQ-1) and Reapers (MQ-9), they can't put missiles on light surveillance drones

We identify things by both their characteristics and their context.

For example, if something looks like a duck we are tempted to say that it's a duck, and without regard to context that's the most likely explanation.

But then consider the context: If the context doesn't match, we change our assessment accordingly. If it's on top of a mountain, we think it's a rock that resembles a duck. In a store window, we think it's a stuffed-doll resembling a duck. If it's in the MIT swimming pool, we think it's a robot resembling a duck.

Absent any context, Sweden's request for extradition is innocent and benign - how could he possibly refuse such a simple legal request?

But the context surrounding the extradition does not match. There's a number of contextual inconsistencies with the situation, all of which indicate that this is not an extradition, it's something different.

It is abundantly clear that we're not seeing an actual duck. You can argue the probability in various ways, but it's not 100%.

You might next consider "so what?" What's so bad about being extradited to the US?

Consider the risk/reward equation. Julian probably carries around in his head contact information for informants and associates which the US does not know about, and activities of various people which the US would consider evidence of espionage. Once on US soil, it would be nigh impossible to keep this information from the US authorities. He would be forced(*) to give up not only his own freedom, but the freedom of people who put their trust in him. (Not to mention the chilling effect this would have on future whistle-blowers.)

It's likely that the value of this information is so high that even a tiny risk of extradition multiplied by the value potentially lost results in a negative payout. Taking the chance is too risky, it's not a good bet.

See previous link, or google for yourself. Plenty of evidence, you are stating an untruth.

(*)Ref: Bradley Manning's treatment