Slashdot Mirror

The linked CNET article has a bit of a misleading title.
The title and by-line states: "Bush order covers Internet secrets" and "President Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet."

But the last paragraph states:
"Steven Aftergood, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who tracks government secrecy, says the change in definitions "creates an opening that could be exploited in the future, but in practice the previous policy would have permitted much of the same thing."

Meaning that the previous act (signed into law by President Clinton in '95) would have allowed the same thing as President Bush's re-do of the act.

Unfortunately, most people won't read the entire article to see what the real information is.

Sometimes you've just gotta smack some people.

Maybe, but you don't have to smack his mother, his cousin's whole family, his entire neighborood, a significant fraction of the architecture in his city, their power and water, and dump hundreds worth of tons of radioactive armaments into his environment. That's what the fuss is about.

All of the United States' chemical arsenal is slated for retirement and destruction. Specifically, all of our chemical munitions and agent stockpiles will be destroyed by 2007, in accordance with the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention. Read here.

I read an article recently (I wish I could remember where) that mentioned the Army is having some trouble disposing VX gas. The article mentioned that the EPA wouldn't issue a permit to move the VX to incinerators, because it's too dangerous. As such, it's being left in storage for now.

but my morals tell me that even in a time of war, assasination is wrong

Not just your morals. Ronald Regan said it was wrong too, as did most every US President. The current rule in effect is Executive Order 12333, sections 2.11 and 2.12.

Of course, while most US Presidents pay lip-service to the principle of no assasinations, hardly a term expired without the Commander-in-Chief ordering something that looks exactly like one. (Regan tried to kill Quadafi, Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden... they all do it)

(Bush attempted to rescind this order in specific regards to alQuaeda)

You can get entertaining articles on the subject by searching for 12333.

What are the implications?

Actually, the implications could be positive. Traditional "no assasination" rules are a way of making warfare more paletable to heads of state. It gives them some assurance that just their soldiers' lives are risked, not their own. The US claims to have such a rule as a way to protect it's own president (whose exposure to assault from a single operative is much higher than Saddam Hussein's, or other enemy leaders)

The Security Council... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

The US military is currently in the process of ensuring that they won't have to do this again in the next war. There's a whole alphabet soup of DoD programs to expand their communications capabilities: Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion (FCW article), Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite system (Fed of Amer Scientists site), Joint Tactical Radio System (Army site) and more.

That was Libya, 1986.

"Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect."

US MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION
FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, 10 December 1990
Appendix B, pp. 100

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/a ppb.pdf
-

Now I REALLY don't know what to believe!

It's JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), not JADM.

[/Pedantic]

Double Medal of Honor Winner Smedly Butler

The Imagery Product Library can serve JPEG images via a Java-capable web browser to any machine on the network that is granted access. Cross-platform.

The actual analysis is done on Sun workstations, of course. Real mission-critical work is never trusted to anything but real machines.

There may not be "secret patents", but there are patent secrecy orders. See this page.

The Federation of American Scientists have had a really informative site about Echelon, for quite some while. The FAS provides an excellent service to the onliune community by making widely available much of the source information of various government entities and various publications. FAS seems to be able to present its information in an objective manner that allows the reader to interpret the information from the source (with the option of reading further analyses).

The Federation of American Scientists have had a really informative site about Echelon, for quite some while. The FAS provides an excellent service to the onliune community by making widely available much of the source information of various government entities and various publications. FAS seems to be able to present its information in an objective manner that allows the reader to interpret the information from the source (with the option of reading further analyses).

(Thank God for typeahead find in Mozilla, I was just about to post this...)

Anyway, I think the somewhat big news here is that non miltary agencies will be moving to the SIPRNET. And switching over more "routine" communications to this systems has to be a good thing for a variety of reasons.

And for those to lazy to google, here's a link . SIPRNET is designed to encrypt and send traffic, and they use their own wres and relays. (Although I can't swear that they don't use some of the commericial wires as well.)

"I see this software and I find myself very afraid. It neatly packages up a military grade cryptographic communications solution and makes it freely available to the public."

As opposed to the people who package up miltary-grade firearms and make them freely available to the public?

Or indeed, to Iran, China, Iraq, Indonesia, and others...

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Don't worry, George Bush will see that you were right the first time! He'll get rid of those nasty Iraqis, hoarding all that sweet, sweet oil for your SUV. While he's busy destabilizing the Middle East, more terrorist attacks may be prompted here in the US, and North Korea (you know, that crazy guy who threatened war?) will go forgotten while he builds an arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons.

Here's a helpful score card:

Iraq: Tiny dictator that hasn't attacked anyone since Bush's daddy while trying to steal Kuwait over 10 years ago. Has short range missiles that don't fly too straight. Leader enjoys gassing rebels (especially when Reagan was paying for it), torture, killing family members, and long walks along the perimeter. Problem to nearest neighbors that claim to be "friends" of America (you know, those guys that fund and house terrorists, pay blood money to families of "martyrs", spew hatred of America in their schools, etc.)

North Korea: Tiny dictator that has nuclear weapons or is very close. Has medium range missiles and will have long range missiles capable of hitting American targets. The leader also enjoys starving and torturing his subjects, and saber rattling with an eye toward actual global war

Moderators: this is NOT flamebait. It is a troll. Learn the difference!

What about putting this kind of things in a satellite instead of a plane. For a laser (that could depend on the kind of laser, I suppose) this normally don't have to be a big problem, and most of the problems of availability in the place that should be and maintenance cost must be solved.

Not an option, because the US signed the Outer Space Treaty on January 27, 1967, indicating that space should only be used for peaceful purposes.

FAS: Airborne Laser

"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, a member of Team Airborne Laser (ABL), has begun fabrication of the revolutionary, high-energy laser weapon system's turret assembly at its Sunnyvale, Calif., facility.

"The turret assembly, located on the nose of the system's modified 747-400 Freighter aircraft, houses a rotating 1.5-meter telescope designed to locate hostile missiles while in their boost phase."

SpaceDaily: LockMart Begins Building Airborne Laser Turret

Nuclear propulsion is not "radical". Untested, but not radical.

Lt Col Virgil Grissom USAF, Lt Col Edward White USAF and Lt Cdr Roger Chaffee USN. All died, as a previous poster stated, in the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. Apollo 1

On the friendly fire issue - no, not yet. The Canadian casualties (Canada's first combat losses since Korea) were in Afghanistan. Friendly Fire in the Afgan Campaign

In Iraq the US has only yet managed to kill American, French, British and Turkish personnel. Operation Provide Comfort

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

The US used them in Kosovo in the late 90s.

Unfortunately, that will be $0.00 , since it's free open-source property.

As you said, the government doesn't enjoy invoking it's rights of Eminent Domain, because there's so much paperwork and doublechecking before the forced sale can move through. They really have to demonstrate that free-market purchasing has failed before this step can be taken.

If they wanted any piece of software or IP, they would certainly try to purchase it conventionally before starting the seizure process. And, if when they tried to obtain it, the author asked for some value greater than $0.00 in compensation, then they couldn't later claim that it cost zero dollars. The original developer could solicit a quote from SAIC or some other government software contractor, asking how much they would charge to deliver a product of equivalent functionality.

They probably wouldn't even notify him that it was being done.

I can tell you from experience that this is not the case. For one thing, actual government employees rarely do much programming. It's delegated to contractors with virtually the same legal status as Microsoft. (And, anything written by a 100% government employee is public domain anyway, so it's very likely the original author will get a copy of the changes offered him)

If the gov't decided they wanted to use Linux to run their new tanks or super-duper death ray gun, and Linus said "no"

He's already said yes, back when he choose the GPL license for his project. Linux is already used in some tanks (just experimental things, not fielded yet)

the gov't can do anything they want.

That may be nearly true, but most of us like to pretend there are things they can't do. But it's always true that "National Security" trumps many things, and in the past few years it may have become even more powerful.

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

• work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
  
• abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
  
• repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
  
• repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
  
• cease interference with the inspections process;
  
• acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
  

While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)

From a handy site: 21% benzene, 33% gasoline, 46% polystyrene.

Really, I learned a lot more in undergraduate genetics, microbiology, botany and orgainic chemistry courses on how to be a terrorist than I did by launching model rockets.

Got Botulism? It might take a while to isolate and identify the proper strain, but terrorists don't have the marketing department breathing down their necks to meet a shipping date. They're patient if they have to be. Once identified, it's just a matter of culturing and refining the toxin.

Got Ricin? Yes, the lovely castor bean plant (ricinus communis) produces a rather nice toxin. Readily available through many plant stores. A bit of applied organic chemistry lab work, and you too can get the desired organic compound.

Got GB Nerve gas? Malathion (an readily available and highly used insecticide) and the first component of the binary nerve gas GB are very similar. Any organic chemist worth his money would be able to do some work to make it exactly similar. The other component is isopropol alcohol. You can find that in any drugstore.

Got FAE? Why bother with ANFO (ammonium-nitrate fuel-oil, the fertilizer bomb that has been used in many, many places) truck bombs? A little bit of applied mechanical engineering and you to can have explosives on par with low-yield nuclear weapons. Sure, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide may be a bit hard to source, but you can use others to get a similar result.

Or, as was demonstrated by one nutcase in South Korea, all it takes is a determined individual with gasoline to kill many people on a subway.

Model rockets? Give me a break. Next on the list: slingshots.

• Body of Secrets - Anatomy of the ultra secret National Security Agency by James Bramford. - I'm reading this now and it is excellent. It is quite astounding what the NSA were capable of in the 50s, let alone today.
• Report by the European Parliament into Echelon - huge, amazing, has some great pics. Quite focussed on Echelon's abilities in the corporate espionage area.
• Books by Phil Agee - CIA Diary: Inside the Company and On the Run. Both out of print, no suprise but I got my copies through a mail order house in the UK. The were posted a day after my order but took a month and a half to get to me. suspicious moi? Although more about the CIA they contain fascinating insights into the overall operations of the Intelligence Services as they were in the 70s. Especially interesting is Agee's description of the CIA being alerted to his every move from hotel checkins, phone taps, border checks and so forth. Makes you think twice about checking into a hotel - anywhere. Also very interesting is his description of standard CIA destabilisation stratagem - you can see these same tactics being deployed today against Chavez in Venezuela and Schröder in Germany.
• A Secret Country by John Pilger. The chapter on the CIA's infiltration of the Australian labor movement and the subsequent 'dismissal' of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam is excellent in particular. Whitlam had threatened to evict the NSA's Pine Gap and Narrungar remote monitoring and relay facilities from Australia. This was also aroud the time of the ill fated Nugan Hand bank which was being used by the CIA to launder heroin money. The NHB was the prototype for the equally ill fated BCCI, Bank of Credit and Commerce International aka Bank of Crooks and Criminals International. The bases, with their unregulated traffic were perfect conduits for heroin from south east asia.
• American Tabloid and The Cold Six Thousand - If you like his style, and many people don't, this is historical fiction by James Ellroy that is rich with character driven insight into the working of corruption on the grandest of scales. If i see the Cold6K on someone's shelf I just can't help picking it up, turning to a random page and reading. I am always immediatly drawn in. I can't wait for the 3rd in the series to come out. :-)

...into Google or anything.

*sigh

It's pretty easy. If you want to create a link, you do this:

<a href="URL">Link text</a>.

The <a> means anchor (although people rarely use it as an anchor). It tells the web browser there is a link coming. The href="URL" tells the browser where the link points. The </a> indicates the end of the anchor.

To make a new paragraph, just toss a <p> at the front of the paragraph. To make a new line, place a <br> for break at the beginning of the line.

So your post would look something like this in HTML:

Just a few links on the subject;
<br><a href="http://www.pafko.com/trips/norway/n10/"> about the sabotage</a>
<br><a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm ">about heavy water and it's use</a>
<br><a href="http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/haukelid.htm ">about Knut Haukelid; another of the heroes from Telemark</a>
<br><a href="http://www.390th.org/warstories/Rjukan.htm"> about how the USAF tried and failed to knock out the heavy water plant</a>

Yeah! I know proper HTML.

All of that would look something like this:

Just a few links on the subject;
about the sabotage
about heavy water and it's use
about Knut Haukelid; another of the heroes from Telemark
about how the USAF tried and failed to knock out the heavy water plant

Yeah! I know proper HTML.

Considering all the people who put up links without proper HTML markup, Slashdot should set up a quick HTML primer for people.

In case you're curious, for bold, you would type:

<b> bold</b>

For italics, you would type:

<i> italics</i>

To indent a section of text:

<p>
<blockquote>

indented text

</blockquote>

To learn more, look at an HTML quick reference guide.

it would be fairly easy to construct, say, a small 15-megatonne device

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


You are a complete fucking moron. If you seriously believe that, I would suggest that you switch of CNN and start looking behind the sofa for your brain cell. Seriously, it is people like you who have made it so easy for the current U.S administration to convince the world that Iraq is even slightly capable of creating a nuclear weapon.

Educate yourself Particularly pay attention to the information on South Africa. Notice how long it took them to produce a bomb, and the yeild (It wasn't even in the Mt range, let alone 15Mt!) South Africa had access to Uranium from their own mines and even shared expertise with Isreal (Who had contact with British, American and French scientists themselves!)

If you still think it is easy to build a bomb after reading all of that, then there is no hope.

They'll continue the project by funding it through the "black budget." Congress doesn't even know how much it is. Hell, the Federation of American Scientists had to sue the CIA just to get same to release the 1997 aggregate amount appropriated. This was after the CIA rebuffed FAS's request for the 1947 number!

Make no mistake about it, they're going to continue developing this project even if Congress defunds it, if they haven't fully implemented it already.

They'll continue the project by funding it through the "black budget." Congress doesn't even know how much it is. Hell, the Federation of American Scientists had to sue the CIA just to get same to release the 1997 aggregate amount appropriated. This was after the CIA rebuffed FAS's request for the 1947 number!

Make no mistake about it, they're going to continue developing this project even if Congress defunds it, if they haven't fully implemented it already.

They'll continue the project by funding it through the "black budget." Congress doesn't even know how much it is. Hell, the Federation of American Scientists had to sue the CIA just to get same to release the 1997 aggregate amount appropriated. This was after the CIA rebuffed FAS's request for the 1947 number!

Make no mistake about it, they're going to continue developing this project even if Congress defunds it, if they haven't fully implemented it already.

Thank goodness for the handful of sensible people in Congress. When the Patriot Act sailed through with only one dissenter in the Senate (Feingold/Wis.) I wondered whether I had lost my mind.

You might point out that we have had no real acts of domestic terrorism since September 2001. True.

You probably don't live in the DC area, but we remember the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Still unsolved, aren't they? Then we had these bastard snipers killing a dozen unsuspecting people ... one at a time ... over a period of weeks. When you find yourself wondering whether you're taking a risk by opening the mail or merely standing outside, you have problems. You have terror.

Mentioned rarely, these attacks were likely all the work of Americans. So was Oklahoma City. The closest thing to a 9/11 follow-up was the "shoe bomber" Reid, a British subject. (Apparently they're worried about him in jail.) Hunting for "suspicious foreigners" would have done no good in any of these. Nor would the unpatriotic Patriot Act. I'm not certain what would have helped, but I am sure they're headed in the wrong direction, enacting the longtime wish list of certain interest groups without regard to the present problem.

We don't want to live in a police state, both because it would suck and because the terrorists would love it.

Now we have a code red or orange or tangerine, I forget, isn't that dandy. I understood the defcon system better.

Well, we're obviousy getting our propaganda from opposite ends fo the spectrum.

Propaganda? Those were terse statements of simple facts. Nobody can dispute them. I leave open the question of why one "end fo the spectrum" hides from those truths. Don't like cannabisnews? There's plenty of other places to back up that claim. Do you find the BBC more worthy of trust? Someone wanted sources, I just gave the top few Google hits. 10 minutes there will get you a flood of consistent claims. (Some more links, for those too busy to search on their own)

Justbecuase we gave the Taliban money doesn't mean they complied very quickly or effctively.

Oh, so paying the Taliban for doing nothing is a lot better? The reasons Clinton called them evil in 1999 didn't go away.
(But they really did destroy the drug. Quite possibly the largest drug interdiction that has ever happened. Ask any street-level narc what's happening to the price or heroine these days- it's dropping steeply after the 2001 hikes.)

My understanding is that the Taliban was a loose conglomerate of several groups.

Not "loose", at least not relative to what preceded and followed them. The Taliban was the most strongly unified government in Afganistan for more than a decade.

Also, realize that it's an execute order, not a law.

Yeah, it sounds like a violation of US separation of powers, huh? Nevertheless, there are laws which declare it is illegal to violate an executive order. Regarding "emergency foreign relations", the President can nearly write his own laws. In 2002, an American citizen was prosecuted under them.

In the case of direct and specific requests of the President conflicting with previus executive orders,

Then the President should revoke that order. (This has often happened) To do otherwise is the baldest hypocracy. In a free society, the set of actions which only the government is allowed to do must be kept as small as possible.

(Note- I'm not being partisan. Clinton is similarly guilty. In November 1998 he violated Executive Order 12333 Section 2.11, leading to costly repurcussions)

Well, we're obviousy getting our propaganda from opposite ends fo the spectrum.

Propaganda? Those were terse statements of simple facts. Nobody can dispute them. I leave open the question of why one "end fo the spectrum" hides from those truths. Don't like cannabisnews? There's plenty of other places to back up that claim. Do you find the BBC more worthy of trust? Someone wanted sources, I just gave the top few Google hits. 10 minutes there will get you a flood of consistent claims. (Some more links, for those too busy to search on their own)

Justbecuase we gave the Taliban money doesn't mean they complied very quickly or effctively.

Oh, so paying the Taliban for doing nothing is a lot better? The reasons Clinton called them evil in 1999 didn't go away.
(But they really did destroy the drug. Quite possibly the largest drug interdiction that has ever happened. Ask any street-level narc what's happening to the price or heroine these days- it's dropping steeply after the 2001 hikes.)

My understanding is that the Taliban was a loose conglomerate of several groups.

Not "loose", at least not relative to what preceded and followed them. The Taliban was the most strongly unified government in Afganistan for more than a decade.

Also, realize that it's an execute order, not a law.

Yeah, it sounds like a violation of US separation of powers, huh? Nevertheless, there are laws which declare it is illegal to violate an executive order. Regarding "emergency foreign relations", the President can nearly write his own laws. In 2002, an American citizen was prosecuted under them.

In the case of direct and specific requests of the President conflicting with previus executive orders,

Then the President should revoke that order. (This has often happened) To do otherwise is the baldest hypocracy. In a free society, the set of actions which only the government is allowed to do must be kept as small as possible.

(Note- I'm not being partisan. Clinton is similarly guilty. In November 1998 he violated Executive Order 12333 Section 2.11, leading to costly repurcussions)

In 2002, the US DEA was quick to claim that opium was a prime source of Taliban funding.

But back in 2001, the US government gave the Taliban $43,000,000 dollars in exchange for destroying the opium crops that had previously supplied a major portion of their GNP.

(Never mind that "Transacting with the Taliban" had been illegal for US citizens since 1999. I don't see any of Bush's administrators being arrested for helping the Taliban much more than John Lindh ever did. It seems ignorance of the law is an excuse.)

Now that the Taliban has been deposed, the flow of Afganistan opium is starting to resume.

Not to mention the presence of a Mossad agent (read: Isreali war hero against Iraq) on board.

The most successful laser launch to date, using the biggest continuous laser in the US, lifted a 50 gram vehicle two meters. And that took a laser that cost $800 million to build.

Thanks, that's interesting. Of course, it conflicts with a lot of what I've read, but a lot of what I've read conflicts, too. :)

My understanding from many sources is that a breeder can produce material of 20-30% Pu. Yes, it "can breed more fissionable fuel than it burns" but that new fuel is (as I understand it) exactly the Pu-239 we fear. All Pu comes from reactors, anyway, it's just a question of technique, esp. removing the material after a brief bombardment by appropriate-speed neutrons.

Bombarded Pu-rich reactor fuel is not the only problem, there's also the fuel-grade Pu after reprocessing. I've seen a couple of accounts of fuel-grade Pu bombs detonated, and I assume if one had the facilities to purify the fuel it would be even easier.

There are serious technical hurdles to engineering the actual bomb, but here we want to deny them even the fuel. Plenty of countries have surmounted the techincal end, anyway, such as Pakistan. Even a sloppy detonation would be bad enough. BTW, I'm not thinking about terrorists, unless they somehow stole a complete weapon. They'd take the surer low-tech path of a dirty bomb or flying a plane into a building, etc. Terrorists with nukes are a Hollywood thing for now.

On policy, here is a rather different account of why we don't reprocess -- economics. According to this account, Reagan vacated the Carter order in 1981. Truth?

Eh, sorry. Follow this link which goes into more detail. There's plenty of other links, and I have a few books on the subject, so it's hard to keep track of what info is where. Google for "Project Babylon" for loads of info.

It'd be dirt cheap, and handy to have available.

Get a fscking clue, weasel-brain.

Get a fscking clue, weasel-brain.

Jan 27, 1967: Apollo 1 fire
Jan 28, 1986: Challenger explosion
Feb 1, 2003 Columbia breakup

--LP

AFAIK, all grenade launchers are actually shells, designed for indirect fire. (To not be, it would have to either use a seperate launch mechanism (a spring or some such), or be like the WWII-era rifle grenades.

This is a particularly nice implementation, though, yes. :-) For more on it, see here.

Actually, you're wrong

Actually, you've just redefined AI to be an easier problem. AI can't work yet, so you've picked some related research and "promoted" it to be called AI.

"Intelligence" is the ability to succeed on an Intelligence Test, like an IQ test or SAT. Until AI starts to get reasonable scores on those (or the more field-specific Turing Test), it's not AI.

AI is about allowing computers to use concepts approximating human reasoning

"Articifical" "Intelligence". Anything else is incorrect. The expansive definition may be more useful for you in your research, but it is linguistically wrong. Your examples only use parts of a potential future AI system.

This pheomenon is fairly common, and a little interesting. A new thing is invented, with a new name, and a professional class springs up to study and improve it. As they work, they decide to focus on something other than what the word originally meant, so they create a new definition for their own use.

Look at "tank" (a military vehicle). Originally (and to the public, still) it meant "a heavily armored ground vehicle". (As developed in 1918 to survive machinegun fire) But today's professional soldiers define it as "a heavily armored ground vehicle, with weapons capable of destroying something similarly armored". Thus they say that the M1A1 is a tank, but not the M2A3

AI isn't just about making things act like humans. That's only good for human-computer interaction (...) and entertainment

No, there are many more reasons to make a computer act like a human. Economic predictions, military simulations... I won't insult you by listing more.