Reading that sentence I thought: "hey, I know where that black hole lives!"

Also it's its, not it's.

This AI machine first has to be able to throw a chair before it can take over Microsoft.

I missed the previous article. Just checked my son's laptop that I bought him for Christmas and had to remove this crap. Thanks to whoever exposed this.

That was my first and last Lenovo ever (as in "my first Sony"). What were they thinking.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo.html/

If they're talking about a pulsating universe, there may be a way to verify some of it. I'm looking at this from a layman's perspective. If a big crunch happened before our current universe's big bang, could it be possible that this big bang happened before all of the material from the previous universe had been drawn into the singularity? Because simply put, why would the singularity wait for everything to fall into it? What if 'our' big bang annihilated that still inward falling matter while rapidly expanding? Would it be possible that we can see evidence of this in WMAP CMB images?

I know that the idea is that the entire universe including its dimensions is supposed to be expanding or eventually possibly contracting, so everything stays inside it and there can be nothing falling into this self contained universe. My idea needs time and space to exist outside our universe, so I'm probably just rambling.

It will take a reboot of the universe.

I'd send an email to that wrong address, explaining my concerns and asking them in the most friendly way not to abuse the information they unintentionally received and to please delete the banks' email. If they answer, I'd take it from there (at least I would have some info about that person). Stay polite and don't make threats because they could cause a lot of damage in return.

If they don't answer, then I would talk to a lawyer.

In the mean time I would monitor my bank account(s) closely.

I can follow your argument and I actually agree.

But what I meant with scientists having tunnel vision is this: if scientists have been working on a brilliant solution for several years, there is a possibility that the desire to finally apply it in the wild, might cloud their judgement. I'm not saying that they purposely avoid thinking about negative results, but their mind is set on a positive outcome. That's perfectly understandable and very human behavior. If you've been working on a, in your mind, solution that's going to bring a lot of good to the world, you want the world to benefit as soon as possible and it's not unthinkable that you may overlook unwanted side effects.

Biofuel from algae can be produced much more efficiently, should its development be ditched as well? I think there's a future for biofuel from algae.

The reason why people don't trust GMO food for instance, is that it's sometimes impossible to undo mistakes that are made. Scientists tend to have tunnel vision and have made mistakes with global impact in the past. So I don't find this gap surprising at all. People are wary because they think scientists want to mess with the planet.

Or the battery in your calculator is failing.

You could teleport the key of his jail cell to an inmate, destroying the evidence that you stole it in the process.

Dear Diary,

Today I learned that I'm not so bricht after all and changed my name accordingly.

your friend,

Ross Ul

So it means you get one year to decide if you want to upgrade for free. Any future upgrades for that device will be free.

From TFS I understood that Microsoft would be going the Google way and make us their product instead of customers, but that summary indeed seems to be wrong about that.

But I'm still not clear on their new business model. Are they going to charge for every new device, and/or for additional software?

I was wondering what company would be the first to come up with a device independent "personal assistant" because I think that's the successor of our current smartphones, tablets, televisions etc. It looks like Microsoft is first, so I guess the other giants will soon follow.

Imagine a type of encryption that changes text into other text by swapping words with words from an agreed dictionary (swap verbs with verbs etc). The resulting text wouldn't look like it's encrypted, it just isn't meaningful. A private and public encryption key can determine the seed for the swapping and the dictionary to be used.

Would such an encrypted text still be recognized as encrypted, or would it be able to stay under government radar?