If this person is going to be so irresponsible with his program -- which appears to be the case based on his github comments -- then he better be ready for rights users to fight back with very real legal weapons. People will put a rights declaration img/txt/whatever file on their server. Then they will have a basis for suing him when he downloads that file but does not obey the legal rights of the images on the website.

Arguments about not knowing what the content was won't hold water since he's explicitly downloading everything for use with AI which, by definition, can interpret such things.

Now we can all move forward.

The level to which a superintelligent AI can dominate a lesser species goes far beyond the scope listed in this article. A sufficient intelligence would be able to dominate our entire society with only a text output on a monitor and a single person reading it. It can use an unwitting proxy to accomplish any goal it wants, and that proxy could no more resist that training then an intelligent dog could resist its training.

Think of a talented public speaker and what such a person can accomplish with their average or above average intelligence. Now imagine something that is dozens if not hundreds of times smarter. Human beings have no defense, and we never will. We can just hope that such an intelligence finds us useful or worth saving.

If the TSA letting you take soda can full of fluid that is more-easily ignited than gasoline onto a plane isn't a sign of security theater, I don't know what is.

Damn I hate Google keyboard. Swype RIP

You are right with the statement "same as 3D," but will about exactly what was wrong with it.

First and foremost, people have shown that they do not want to wear things to watch stuff. If someone won't wear lightweight 3D glasses, they certainly aren't going to wear a VR headset.

Second, for anyone with a motion sickness it vertigo problem, VR has many of the same issues. If one of those people lives in a household, the value of purchasing a VR rig immediately drops.

Those two core issues are identical between the two platforms.

A non-neutral internet is just like a curved-screen television: it's an invention whose only purpose is to generate money for the creator without providing any actual service or improvement, while providing noticeable cases where it detracts from the original experience.

I don't know what kind of software you develop, but we have on-site development only for security concerns. Not only that, but certain developer offices are physically locked to prevent unauthorized access. Then there is the issue of people farming their jobs out to third world countries -- if you are being paid 6 figures to develop software, your employer certainly doesn't want you to pay 20k/year to some Indian or Chinese company for them to have cheap labor do your job and steal your work. There are some very good reasons for on-site-only software dev.

*. . . there are a lot . . .

I wonder if it's politicians with WMDs or just simple A.I. with intelligence far greater than its creators that wipes would-be advanced civilizations out before they can colonize the universe . . .

Lidar was doomed from the start. If a car is going to be autonomous, it must function when drivers aren't paying attention to conditions. Otherwise, what's the point? Other systems will have to be good enough to work in fog. And if you have systems that can work even in poor conditions, then lidar is uselessly redundant.

Honestly, $640 should be plenty for any smartphone. Let's just set that as a hard cap.

If you install the facebook app on a phone, then it gets all your contact information. Same for linkedin or any other social networking app. You do not have to have an account with facebook. The app takes the data as part of its security permissions. So if your father or your aunt, both of whom had each other as phone contacts, ever had a facebook app on their phone, then the connection is in facebook's databases.

If obscurity is the primary method of security, meaning "if they discover how we are doing it then they can defeat it," then you have no security. You must plan for the eventuality that someone will know how you do it. So, if the FCC's new method requires that it remain obscure to remain effective, then it might as well have already been compromised. Of course, having an obscure security system that nobody knows about is helpful. Nobody would argue otherwise. But that should just be icing on the cake - a nice little perk. Think of this comparison of a time-lock safe vs. a hidden book box:

Look at a time lock safe:
1. It is known
2. The way it works is known
3. It is effective because of the security measures of the safe

This is opposed to hiding valuables in a hidden book box:
1. If it is not known, it might work
2. If it is not known, it might be discovered through thorough searches and thus fail
3. If it is known, it definitely won't work

If you hide the time lock safe, then you do add a layer of cursory security. However, it is not the location/disguise of the safe that matters. It's the function of the safe's defenses that protect the valuables.

On the one hand, we have United Airlines. On the other hand we have the TSA.

Let's just assume they are both somehow lying, incompetent, or both.