Ahh... yes...

and, the chance to part with $250 US. ;-)

Am I missing something? Google translate can already be set for automatic translation and will listen to anyone who speaks. It's far from perfect, but it does work. Perhaps the benefit here is that the translation is much better? Cheers, Bruce.

Seriously? The concern is that the most ancient freedoms only applied to MPs??
So it was fine to spy on everyone as long as that did not include MPs?
How did anyone even say that with a straight face?

Well... that's the trick isn't it? How would we ever know?

I agree this isn't an issue with the current brain, but as I pointed out, there's no reason to believe they won't create much more mature ones in future.

Also, I'm not saying they shouldn't pursue the research. I just think that this deserves a very public airing.

Does it strike anyone else that this research should only have been undertaken after a great deal of public discourse?

I didn't see anything in the OSU article (https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/08/18/human-brain-model/) that indicated the scientists had to (or plan to) ensure that no future brain is produced that has the maturity of a one year old (for example).

Compared to creating a disembodied human brain, all the potential for a future self-aware computer system seems much less controversial.

“Now I prefer cloudy days when the drones don’t fly. When the sky brightens and becomes blue, the drones return and so does the fear. Children don’t play so often now, and have stopped going to school. Education isn’t possible as long as the drones circle overhead.”
I added the bold.

From: http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

I only read this a few days ago, but was really struck by it. The reason is completely different from that covered in the original article, but I wonder at the effects the author is concerned about...

Cheers,
Bruce.

More legislation to deal with with this form of terrorism will not deal with terrorism. In fact, it will validate terrorism as one more liberal democracy slides towards an autocratic police state.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the legislation is to reduce senseless deaths, it would be much more effective to simply outlaw driving by private citizens.

Cheers, Bruce.

Your comments are entirely off the point.

'cold fjord' did not indicate that he abhorred all spying. His issue appears to be with the NSA's use of domestic spying. Something that they are not supposed to engage in.

Domestic spying would seem to be the purview of the FBI. Since they are bound by the "normal" criminal system, they're use of spying is limited to ensure that your rights are properly respected.

The NSA and CIA etc, do not have to respect the rights of anyone they spy on because (at least in theory) they do not spy on US citizens. Once they are free to spy on you without respecting your rights as a citizen, you no longer have rights. Welcome to the very police state you suggest that the NSA is "saving you" from.

Cheers,
Bruce.

Netflix is awesome but it doesn't carry current network content. Hulu does for the most part (with CBS being a big exception).

I know most (all?) of this content is available online but I can't bring myself to go back to being tied to a schedule. The online content is often here today and gone tomorrow. Also, I really like all my content delivered by a box that's hooked directly to my TV.

As for the BBC stuff... (yawn). I can see all of it on Netflix without the commercials. If this cost Hulu any $$ I think someone saw them coming. Come to think of it, this brings up a question I never thought to ask: Is there anyone out there who subscribes to Hulu without subscribing to Netflix?

Cheers,
Bruce.

That sir, is a terrible thing to say about the guy who wrote COBOL!

Cheers,
Bruce.

I'm sure that this is non-sequitur, but I can't help it: The first thing that came to mind is: What about the banks?

I can't really see why the actions taken by this person's company are illegal or even immoral. At worse, it appears they may have misjudged (but even that assertion is only made with the full benefit of hindsight).

In the case of the banks, they knew what they were doing was against established business practices, was immoral, and was illegal in many respects. Further, they knew this to be clearly the case at the time!

So, I can't help asking again: What about the banks?????

No fine, however large will "hurt" a corporation. Even bankruptcy and dissolution will not hurt the corporation. In the worst case, those affected are most likely to be small stockholders and line workers without the benefit of golden parachutes.

If the CEOs and board members were given fines and jail, THAT would send a message.

Cheers,
Bruce.

Just to be clear:
I don't agree with what they did (on many levels). I'm just pointing out that this is exactly what they do.
See: http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml

Cheers,
Bruce.

I'm not condoning what the NSA has done, but this is firmly within their mandate. Who they spy on and how may be completely secret. The fact that this is what they do is not.
From their Mission Statement:
The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations.

Cheers,
Bruce.

You would not be subject to random searches in Canada:
According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Cheers,
Bruce.

I tried to watch them...

I can't tell if they take themselves seriously or not?

Makes me ache for the days when the news was news and strictly separated from 'editorial' content...

... of course, I'm not sure those days ever really existed.

Honesty, between them, FOX, CNN and MSNBC... I actually watch the Daily Show