I want to know what happens if you report it to the police as a crime. (But not enough to fall victim to it myself so that I can.)

I would have thought, in the UK for example, this would violate the computer misuse act (Samsung were not authorised to install ad-displaying software by people) or the criminal damage act (a television which doesn't display what the user wanted to the same degree as before has been damaged). How do they get away with vandalising people's property like this? There's not even the "you have to copy our software to use our software in the way advertised, so sign an EULA" nonsense with a television.

Time to move the source code and the signing key to Germany.

Signing keys don't have to be kept in just one country. Secret-sharing schemes allow you to "split" them up into as many pieces as you like, which can all be stored in different countries, either requiring them all to agree to make a signature, or requiring a certain number of them to agree. Having an insufficient number of pieces is no better than having none at all.

It's exceptionally easy to determine the factors of any large prime number because there are only two; the number one the number itself.

But you don't know that it's prime until you've discovered its factors... (Specifically, that they don't include anything other than itself.)

And proving that a large prime number is in fact prime is actually quite hard. Fortunately, it's not too difficult to very nearly prove it. What actually happens in real-world large-prime crypto is that you run enough statistical tests on the number that the probability of it not being prime becomes lower than the probability of someone just guessing the key with pure luck, or is otherwise not the weakest link in the chain.

A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.

The grossly disproportionate punishments for possession?

The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.

Not necessarily. Certainly if someone's paying for it, they're going to incentivise production. But at the other end, there's the situation where someone's downloading it off a server which isn't counting the number of downloads or isn't telling the provider, which is often going to be the case when, for example, it gets spammed onto third-party imageboards, in which case people viewing it aren't affecting the outside world in any way.

And consider. So downloading child porn off P2P services, which is a way of viewing such material, that increases the incentives to make it? Well, downloading copyrighted material off P2P services reduces the incentives to make it, as the copyright lobby loves telling us. These two things don't sound very consistent.

As Slashdot loves noticing, the normal rules of supply and demand don't apply to information when you have this almost infinitely efficient machine for copying it called the internet.

It might require some payrises due to the recalculated hourly pay falling below minimum wage laws.

The SNP surge is irrelevant, since they're anti-Tory. (Except perhaps for the scare games it allowed the Tories to play.) If every SNP seat had been won by Labour, the Conservatives would still have a majority. And if Labour reached a point where they would have a majority if only they had those SNP seats, the Tories would be out of power because Labour and the SNP would certainly unite to block them, even if they weren't able to unite to do much else.

Do you think that if Air Force One was forced down by Bolivians who were seeking a dissident of theirs that the average American wouldn't care at all? I strongly suspect that the average Bolivian does actually care.

The new headline does actually convey strictly more information than the old one, since as well as conveying what the bank spokesman is saying, you can deduce from his criticism of "inappropriate" that it is not illegal, otherwise the criticism would be that it was illegal, or at least contain this information.

Small note: due to Google's policy of showing different people different search results, your first hit might not be their first hit.

Porn isn't a problem in general, but a fair amount of porn is problematic, the "rapeyness" of some porn is normalising non-consensual sexual pratices amongst teenagers to a certain extent. It's probably a good idea to surreptitiously promote "responsible" porn to divert their attention away from the completely unfiltered mix of what's out there, but the methods for doing this aren't obvious.

I would be flattered.

"Who defines it?" - the courts define it, whenever a case is put before them.