"In 10 plus years, we are going to have a half-baked approach to what we thought was the future more than 10 years ago and now realize _was_ the future! Dang!!"
gone off script, picking out its own targets for analysis -- precisely as planned
If that was planned, then by definition it's not off script. If a music score says "imrovise" or a sc-fi script says "// technobabble here" then that's what was planned.
It is worse than that. If a music script says "improvise", or a sci-fi script says "technobabble", one can do anything, using creativity, deliberation, whatever and however. All the rover is doing is operating according to pre-defined algorithms -- defined by the programmers. There is nothing "autonomous" about it.
The CIA is a bigger threat to us than Russia is.
Sure, right. Because Wikileaks has also given us equivalent info on Russian espionage.
Wait, they haven't? What's going on here?
Now if you think about it, this could be an unnecessary comma for some folks, or in some situations where it is really not needed. But in information theory, redundancy is a plus--it avoids common errors. For example, in common English text, a period (or other end-marker like a question mark) ends a sentence, an extra space may follow, and a capital letter begins the new sentence. Three indicators that say -- OK, sentence ending, new one beginning. Very useful practically, because it reduces parsing time.
Since the U.S. hacks 1,000s of computers (both foreign governments and individuals), does this mean any other country can now pass laws against hacking and immediately convict the U.S. for criminal behavior?
Why should they, if the U.S. does not?
Or perhaps you confuse "indict" with "immediately convict"?
Certainly if U.S. citizens, say employees of the CIA, engage in economic espionage of say, China's Baidu, why on earth wouldn't they file whatever legal claims they can? And I think they should.
Yeah, what's it been? A month?
We live in a Republic, not a democracy. The Electoral College does serve a purpose, one that you disagree with, but it still serves a purpose. The GP outlines it very nicely and in unbiased terms.
It did serve a purpose. A long time ago. Now it unnecessarily makes some citizen's votes more powerful than others.
But you wouldn't be writing about it if we had.
All the evidence concerning the universe has not yet been collected, so there's still hope.