If this were an online activity, it would be blatantly illegal under the GDPR, because it: 1) Collects permanent, personal identifying data (license plate number) 2) Does not allow the user to opt out 3) Is not relevant to providing the user with a service (shopping) 4) Retains the data indefinitely. Should they be allowed to do this just because it is private property? Websites are privately owned too, but they are required to comply with GDPR.

While discussing whether robots should be allowed to kill might seem like an obscure debate...

Yeah, he's secretly consulting a medium so he can go on competing with dead Steve Jobs.

Probably because making change for the better is hard work. First they grumble, then they get with the program, then they forgot who helped them because they're too busy grumbling about the next change.

Knowing is half the battle. Unfortunately, the other half is caring. Which is why I'm certain we'll still lose.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why they just don't use race-weighted skill tests? Pick the top 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Asian from the skill tests. No?

Interesting new development. I just read that Judge U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon has found that the metadata program is likely unconstitutional on 4th amendment grounds. May end up in the Supreme Court. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html

I suppose they could break their promise and look at the calls and emails. Technically, it would be quite simple to transcribe all those conversations, index them, and data mine them for any reason they can think of: drug war, kiddie porn, copyright infringement, whatever. Sometime in the future, when the public becomes more comfortable with the current level of surveillance, probably they will, with approval from Congress as well. I trust the NSA to the extent that I think they are mainly focused on terrorism, at least for now, although I don't expect they are entirely honest of course. I'm more worried about Congress giving them explicit permission to do all those things.

You seem to be misunderstanding how this works. I read elsewhere that they scoop up all the data and metadata, which they save for a certain period (I think one year, maybe). They look at the metadata for all phone calls and emails, and if it looks suspicious (as it currently does for 60 people) they get a warrant (or court order, I'm not sure) to pull the actual contents of the phone call from their electronic records. This approach allows them to get after-the-fact warrants for a wiretap. So they are indeed storing everyone's phone calls and emails in their expensive storage facility, they just aren't looking at them without permission (which they get from examining the metadata, that is, phone numbers called and email headers sent). Make sense?

It occurs to me that his actions really benefit his girlfriend. Now the US government and other actors can't attack her, thinking that she knows some vital piece of national security. If that is what he had in mind, I think he exercised responsibility and foresight.

If it weren't for the war on drugs, we wouldn't need all those regulations. How exactly do those regulations serve me?

That reminds me of a famous incident where a circus elephant named Mary was hanged by the neck until dead for committing murder on a human. She got angry at her human handler for prodding her and stomped him. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(elephant) for the details and a pic of Mary's hanging. I don't think she got to defend herself in a court of law, though.

My two cents on the subject is I think the law could accommodate intelligent animals, but each species should probably be treated differently based on their nature and capabilities. I don't think treating them as persons is the right idea.

I thought of that. Some variation of it might work in some countries or states worldwide, though. Nevada, maybe? Both gambling and prostitution are legal there. Plus, if you describe it as a "date" or some other appropriate weasel words, you might be able to work around the laws.

What's your suggestion for a business model? I just finished reading "Free: The Future of a Radical Price", by Chris Anderson. Here's my idea: sex raffles. The porn stars give away free porn recordings then use their fame to sell raffle tickets. For $50, you buy a chance to have sex with a porn star. Sell 10,000 tickets, have sex with the winner, and it's just as profitable as selling porn.

With artificially intelligent journalism, these articles will one day literally write themselves. Apparently that day is closer than we think...