Slashdot Mirror

In short, this is a known characteristic of this type of system.

The situation is where you are following another vehicle going about your same speed. It moves out of the way and there is a fire truck (or some other stationary object) direct ahead and stopped. The system doesn't recognize the stopped object and in fact will accelerate back to the programmed cruise speed instead of stopping.

So this is one (of many!) reasons the Autopilot & similar systems say that the driver must remain continually aware ready to re-take control of the vehicle at any moment.

The problem with this scenario is--as nearly every autopilot crash so far has demonstrated--that this goes 100% counter to human nature.

Once the autopilot has driving a few hundred or a few thousand miles successfully, the human driver starts to trust it more and more, and tune out more and more. Monitoring a very good autopilot system is b-o-r-i-n-g and, interestingly, the better the system the more boring it becomes.

Any human in this situation is going to tune out for lengthy periods of time.

Instead of human plus automated driving adding together to achieve a system that is safer than either alone (which seems to be the case for currently available collision avoidance systems which never take control of the vehicle except in rare collision situations) you end up with a system that combines the worst characteristics of human and automated driving.

The human zones out way too often (again, a predictable outcome of this type of system) while the Level 2 automated system has many, many blind spots.

It goes back decades to 1997. Back then, all the big workstations companies were making their own 64-bit processors; Intel, DEC (the DEC Alpha chip), Sun (SPARC) and MIPS.

DEC and Intel got into a lawsuit, and settled for $700 million. DEC was eventually split in into bits, neither of which kept the original designers.
https://www.wired.com/1997/10/...
https://www.extremetech.com/co...
https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au...

DEC and ARM also cross-licensed each others patents, signed before the Intel lawsuit.
Plus many of the designs are based on the original paper by Tomasulo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In this particular case they seem to be bucking the silicon trend:

"At its annual Build conference Monday, Microsoft will suggest companies with big AI ambitions should steer clear of chips like Google’s. It says machine learning is evolving so fast that it doesn’t make sense to burn today’s ideas permanently into silicon chips that could soon prove limiting or obsolete."

I thought they had a behavioral psychologist on staff to actually work with addictive behaviors in their games. If the big players are gonna start doing this, they should at least come clean about it.

what everyone needs a house hold appliances and things full of [malware/spyware]

I suspect many already do. Most appliances already have a Turing Complete computer chip in them. Culprits in a factory can stick a small radio transceiver (and maybe a microphone) into a capacitor etc. and that chip now has wi-fi access and remote programmability.

Sometimes the device is already a radio. I once tapped a certain spot in the guts of a bare-basic cassette tape player with a screwdriver, and heard a nearby radio station. I don't think it was an intentional spy mechanism, just an inadvertent "radio".

The difference is the newer generation of appliances may talk back.

"Dual motor and air suspension won't add much to the price (they didn't for S/X, and won't for 3 either)"
Neither are still options on Model S but when Dual-motor was introduced it was at a $4k premium

from https://www.wired.com/2014/10/...
"Each of the three versions of the Model S will come as a D model. The price of the 60kWh battery model will go from $71,070 to $75,070 for the dual motor system. The 85 kWh car goes from $81,070 to $85,070, and the P85 jumps from $105,570 to $120,170"

and air suspension was $2500.
For the Model 3, Tesla is tying those 2 options together; let's say they offer it at $5k combined.
That's a 10% increase for the premium car and 14% for the promised $35k base car - that's not a small increase.

"Performance package adds a lot of profit regardless of what model line you put it on, so I don't think Tesla will hesitate to put it on the 3. I'd actually expect a surprising number of high end buyers to buy both a 3-performance and a P100D, because the latter is faster and a larger cruiser, while the former is more nimble and can do sustained track duty"
I'm sure you're right because they'll need the cash. I think Tesla will lose money on a barebones base so will need buyers to purchase options in order to make any money

I am not one of the privileged few who was on ARPANET in 1978: I was at high school and in the wrong country.

I was, however, present for a somewhat later milestone in spam history: the green card lottery spam. On 12 April 2994, a pair of exceptionally unscrupulous lawyers spammed every newsgroup on Usenet with ads for (utterly unnecessary and very expensive) assistance in entering a lottery for USA green card (permanent residence.) This generated a great deal of internet hatred.

https://www.wired.com/1999/04/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Seriously? Are you trolling or stupid? I can't tell...

You must be fun to talk to.

What I'm referring to is discussed in some length here:
https://www.wired.com/2009/08/...

Here is a key quote:
"Studies like this open the door to hybrid treatment strategies that exploit the placebo effect to make real drugs safer and more effective. Cancer patients undergoing rounds of chemotherapy often suffer from debilitating nocebo effectsâ"such as anticipatory nauseaâ"conditioned by their past experiences with the drugs. A team of German researchers has shown that these associations can be unlearned through the administration of placebo, making chemo easier to bear."

Ironically wild bees appear to be the most threatened of all: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/...

Buy-to-fly ratio:
https://www.wired.com/2012/10/...

"And your material loss is maybe 10 percent, just for trimming the edges. Instead of a ratio of purchased to flown material-what they call the 'buy to fly' ratio-of maybe 10 to 20, you have a ratio of 1.1, 1.2 tops."

A practical example is in this video.
https://archive.org/details/NA...

This is the backshell for the Orion spacecraft. It's machined from a /single piece/ of metal 17 feet square. >95% of it gets machined away.

A reasonably skeptical person would say "but that's just the backshell. It has to be {strong, lightweight, seamless, etc}. In this picture you can see many other structural panels manufactured the same way.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/w...

If, and it is a non-trivial if, they manage to pull 10 flights out of a Block 5 booster without refurbishment that's another order of magnitude.

This isn't the first time this has happened
https://www.wired.com/2017/08/...

They started out just stealing the fixtures like the TV from unoccupied rooms then started waiting for the occupants to leave and then taking their stuff while they were gone.

You're less than half right. There will be nightmare scenarios within a year, AND the social media megacorps will have a tighter grip on online discourse than ever before, because they'll be the only companies wealthy enough to get into zero-rating deals with all the big ISPs. Smaller sites including deplorable cesspools like Gab and Mind will have their traffic count towards your data cap or theoretically could be blocked altogether.

If you don't like the power of private censorship on the Internet, the NN repeal is your worst fucking nightmare.

People have been killed for less.

OTOH, municipal broadband has consistently kicked private offering's asses

Citations needed.

in spite of having to fight lawsuits

Local governments wield undue powers over Internet-service provision. To allow them to compete with private providers is to enable corruption on an even worse scale. There is nothing magical about it — the same group of people setting up the local ISP could do it regardless of whether they are incorporated as a private entity or a town government's department. If they "kick ass" as the latter, that's evidence, that something did not let them do the same as a former. Socialism tends to cause this kind of corruption because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) competition.

Care to point to a fully private service that doesn't suck or cost too much for most people using public transit?

We do not have private public transit, unfortunately. I wish we did, but we don't — not in the US. Tokyo has competing subway lines, but American cities do not — not in the traditional sense. But, if you count Uber and Lyft, then your request is answered. They are cheap and people prefer them so strongly:

One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren’t available.

big-government socialists blame them for the ever dropping popularity of public transit:

“Ride sharing is pulling from and not complementing public transportation”

Now, try WiFi on the government-owned Amtrak for a personal preview of what government-provided Internet-service will be like. Meanwhile, privately-offered LTE consistently works. Oh, yes, it costs more — but you were willing to excuse poor performance by inadequate funding, so, yeah, pay more for the LTE.

So, yes, the point stands — whatever government does, is done poorly. So poorly, people even suggesting, yet another aspect of our lives should be handled by the kind and omniscient government instead of by greedy and selfish KKKapitali$sts, should be strongly suspected of not just stupidity and ignorance, but of criminal conspiracy to defraud the rest of us too.

I was about to respond, snippily, that it's not like there's a whole lot of people cancelling, and then thought I'd google.

Turns out AC's right -- people are cancelling, and in many cases Tesla's taking a really really long time to refund their money (up to 3 months, it seems). More at https://www.wired.com/story/ca...

Not technically "not refunding", but still pretty poor.

Did you read your own link?
"The next day, I found a FedEx envelope on my doorstep. My refund had arrived — 61 business days after I cancelled my reservation.

Not every Tesla refund takes this long — or this much work. "It was easy," says Jeff Maggard, a former reservation holder from Ithaca, New York, who cancelled his deposit in February after a career change made it hard to justify buying a new car. His refund showed up on his credit card less than two weeks later. "I did it all online without talking to anyone. There was no number to call so I could be talked out of it by a representative. No dumb tricks to make me stay. It was great," Maggard says. "Very customer-centered."

I've waited much longer for refunds for a lot less than $1000 so I don't know what the gripe is all about.
In any case, it's clear that it's not everyone who had to wait a long time.
It's been suggested that a lot of the complainants may have had the credit cards used to place the reservation expire which would make a refund difficult.

Andrew Auernheimer, 26, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, was found guilty last November in federal court in New Jersey of one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization after he and a colleague created a program to collect information on iPad owners that had been exposed by a security hole in AT&T's web site.

The two essentially wrote a program to send Get requests to the web site.

Turns out AC's right -- people are cancelling, and in many cases Tesla's taking a really really long time to refund their money (up to 3 months, it seems). More at https://www.wired.com/story/ca...

Not technically "not refunding", but still pretty poor.

Hey, I'm a clever guy from California. Would you pay a few million be introduced to the concept of Dynamic Soaring? Never mind, you got it for free. https://www.wired.com/2009/06/...

SO2 has been considered as an agent for combating global warming in at least one geo-engineering scheme. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/...

Can you coil the wire in a way that it generates a self-opposing magnetic field that limits the amps?

Yes, that's an inductor. It prevents AC from passing while allowing DC to pass. Basically, inductors resist change in current by storing energy in a magnetic field, which collapses as the current shrinks and thus induces a higher voltage, raising the current (holding it steady). The bright flash of light you saw was from the voltage increasing as the magnetic field finally collapsed entirely, whereby the voltage of the capacitor could no longer produce enough current flow to generate a magnetic field in the inductor, and so the inductor dumped all remaining power at once.

Basically, an inductor allows you to lower the voltage of the circuit without creating as much heat, in some cases. The inductor will actually dissipate energy as heat. It functions as a short circuit when passing DC. If you connect an inductor to a capacitor, the current starts to oscillate--it creates AC from DC.

Do you remember the Jarvik heart? That was nearly 40 years ago and people thought that kind of bionics would be commonplace by now.

Yes I remember the Jarkik heart when it was in all the headlines. I'm old enough and I've actually seen a Jarvik 7 in person. People talked about it but there was not widespread belief that bionics would be routine. Like any technology advancement there was a lot of prognosticating and a media circus but we also saw what happened to Barney Clark (spoilers: he suffered a lot) so there wasn't a lot of optimism by the public.

Just because something can be done by nature doesn't mean that we are any where near as good at replicating it with technology.

True in some cases. In other cases we are actually quite good or even better. Just because one problem proves difficult doesn't mean we can't solve any problems.

The PhoneDog article is just a wrapper for the Wired article. It says:

We found several vendors that didn’t install a single patch but changed the patch date forward by several months," Nohl says. "That’s deliberate deception, and it's not very common."

What exactly does the patch date mean? Does that mean it has all the patches up to that date? Or does it merely mean that it was patched on that date? What if the manufacturer has a patched version of a library or driver, and they haven't merged that patch into their library or driver yet? That might be irresponsible, but it doesn't mean that patch date is wrong or that they are being malicious.

They appear to be an exception to this rule at the moment.

Here's hoping the FTC takes notice of them, finally.

Seriously. It's hilarious to watch the mental gymnastics of Google's CEO openly tauting that he's DIRECTLY working with a presidential candidate to "use our data" to help the candidate.

  - Facebook sold some ads. Who the fuck reads Facebook ads?
  - Google literally used their entire platform (read: tracking your information) + "muh algorithms" to assist a candidate.

And IN RETURN, the CEO got, and I quote, "a virtual open door to access the White House at will"

https://www.googletransparency...

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

https://mashable.com/2009/04/2...

https://www.wired.com/2008/11/...

https://www.politico.com/story...

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

"Eric Schmitt, 'CEO of America' "

And these are LIBERAL WEBSITES running these articles. So you can't even play the whole "alt-right / foxnews / fakenews / Russia-wrote-it" Red Herring bullshit.

Of course, I don't know why we're restricting to Obama either. Under Hillary, they did the same thing (for likely the same quid-pro-quo arrangement):

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.googletransparencyp...

https://qz.com/823922/eric-sch...

https://www.politico.com/magaz...

https://qz.com/520652/groundwo...

So with literally DOZENS upon dozens of professional articles dedicated to the subject from dozens of separate news organizations, anyone who ignores this well-established fact is throwing their head in the sand and humming, and not worthy of a debate response and should be downvoted accordingly for low signal-to-noise ratio.

  -> Google did everything Facebook did, and far more.

Exactly
But all the moronic apple shills here never bring that up. Never tell the truth about the cult.
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/

> Edsger W. Dijkstra ... in fact shouldn't, involve actual computers at all.

Computer Science is an applied science. .

Wrong. Compute Science is the theoretical side of programming, and very much behaves like it. It came out of the Mathematical departments. The Applied Science is Software Engineering, which most schools fail to teach at all. It's more akin to Computer Engineering but with a higher software focus.

Dijkstra was an idiot who thought that only theory should be taught.

* In theory performance shouldn't matter * In practice it does.

Implementation details do matter regardless of many fucking cluesless profs try to handwave them. For example, how do you sort your data when it fit into available RAM? There is a reason why Map Reduce was invented.

Focus solely on theory is the wrong approach. There are 3 types of optimizations that a programmer needs to understand.

1. Micro-optimization: Bit-Twiddling I.e. https://graphics.stanford.edu/...

2. Algorithmic Spending time to optimize a bubble sort is a complete waste of time when you could use mergesort, quicksort, etc.

3. Macro-optimization (or cache-orientated) aka (Data-Orientated Design) Techniques such as Memoization exist for a reason.

A good programmer learns HOW to optimize. i.e.

Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize

Ignoring optimization doesn't make it go away. That's how we end up with bloated crap where a user is forced to download a 50 MB file for a bloody printer driver.

A good Software Engineer knows how to do those things; however, it's hard to find any good Software Engineers. Software Engineering goes way way beyond those things too and it is extremely hard to find a good Software Engineer, especially since most programmers want to be about art instead of engineering.

That's actually one of many identified potential problems of self-driving cars: Attackers pull the vehicle over with blinking lights then go after the occupant with whatever attack they want.

Hacking is another major concern. These folks have published a bunch of attacks on more traditional cars with fancy computer parts. Accelerators, brakes, changing gears (they only did the safe gear changes in their demos), and cranked the steering while traveling at highway speeds. With fully autonomous vehicles every component is available for a digital attack.

Then you've got physical issues. Medical problems with the driver, remotely delivering a bomb, intentionally disabling sensors at a critical moment, and so many more.

Another major side effect will be the drop in organ transplants since car crashes account for about 1/5 of all organ donations, which has been discussed in depth on /. several times.

Plus This classic shown in XKCD.

> Edsger W. Dijkstra ... in fact shouldn't, involve actual computers at all.

Computer Science is an applied science. .

Dijkstra was an idiot who thought that only theory should be taught.

* In theory performance shouldn't matter
* In practice it does.

Implementation details do matter regardless of many fucking cluesless profs try to handwave them. For example, how do you sort your data when it fit into available RAM? There is a reason why Map Reduce was invented.

Focus solely on theory is the wrong approach. There are 3 types of optimizations that a programmer needs to understand.

1. Micro-optimization: Bit-Twiddling
I.e.
https://graphics.stanford.edu/...

2. Algorithmic
Spending time to optimize a bubble sort is a complete waste of time when you could use mergesort, quicksort, etc.

3. Macro-optimization (or cache-orientated) aka (Data-Orientated Design)
Techniques such as Memoization exist for a reason.

A good programmer learns HOW to optimize. i.e.

Code Clinic 2015: How to Write Code the Compiler Can Actually Optimize

Ignoring optimization doesn't make it go away. That's how we end up with bloated crap where a user is forced to download a 50 MB file for a bloody printer driver.

According to Wired:

https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/

"They did not, however, provide the raw data—things like demographic information, contact information, and data about how voters feel about different issues—on which that analysis was done."

So Trump's campaign didn't get access to the actual data. They did however spend $5 million on a TV ad during the primary based upon this information as they stated in an FEC filing. I don't know enough about advertising costs to know if that proves it was only a single ad or not like you claimed.

> If you're Notch, and invented a new game genre

  Notch did NOT invent a new genre; he even admitted he blatantly ripped off Infiminer

Like most evenings after work, Markus was on the computer when he stumbled upon an indie game he hadn't tried before. It was called Infiniminer. Markus downloaded the game, installed and clicked it into motion, and then almost fell off his chair. "Oh my God," he thought. "This is genius."

https://youtu.be/F9t3FREAZ-k

In early May 2009, Markus uploaded a video recording (above) of a very early version of Minecraft on YouTube. It didn't look like much more than a half-finished system for generating worlds and Markus gleefully jumping around inside it, but still, the essence of it hinted at how the game might look when it was done.

"This is a very early test of an Infiniminer clone I'm working on. It will have more resource management and materials, if I ever get around to finishing it," -- Notch, May 2009

Zach, the creater of Infiminer, said this about Minecraft:

"The act of borrowing ideas is integral to the creative process. There are games that came before Infiniminer, and there are games that will come after MineCraft. That's how it works."

Yes, AI gets pretty dumb when it sees stuff that's even slightly different than what it's used to. It adds sheep to pictures if it sees a pasture: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Or, any yellow and black image must be a school bus: https://www.wired.com/2015/01/...

No, I have to say that you are wrong. That guy is right. I am a 21 Chinese college student. Yes, the populsation especially the older generation grown largely because the mobile internet raised in China in the past years. But in the other hand, they are bound to those local Super Apps(Like WeChat, Taobao, Alipay, Weibo....) First, they donâ(TM)t even know thereâ(TM)re a great and expensive Internet space beyond those apps. Second, the Great Firewall is not admitted by government and itâ(TM)s really hard to know even to cross the wall ( just recently, the gov arrested a lot of people who sell this services ) Finally, the censorship is in every social media registered in China, the political content(if not praise the party) will be deleted and the account will be blocked. Trust me, it will be worst then before( after the Culture Revolution) Btw, I donâ(TM)t expand the branch about surveillance. I would recommend an article written by Wired https://www.wired.com/story/ag...\_032118\_backchannel\_list1\_p1

I suspect it's a phenomenon similar to the Cow Clicker effect, where people just want in because it feels good.

WHEREAS: Only a tight group of wingnuts on either side have disproportionate power because elections are won at the margins, nobody cares about the 90% in the middle.

WHEREAS: Social media will be used to motivate those 10% who really matter, first to enrage them, then to engage them.

THEREFORE: If ALL the tech workers run away, then who owns the field?

As a data miner, I found the human side of this story as explained in Wired, January 2018 worth having a paper copy for, just so I can roll it up and use it to beat some sense into my politicians.

Instead of puking all over a solution because Apple, you should be treasuring a company that actually values security and takes the effort to make it all fairly secure.

Security is not the same as privacy. Apple shares your data with its "strategic partners". And more.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/...

https://www.macrumors.com/2017...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

I think that this is just marketing. If you read Apple's privacy policy it is actually pretty bad. It's basically the extreme case of "all your data are belong to us" and we'll use it however we want.

You are aware that Apple runs an Ad network, right?
https://developer.apple.com/ne...
https://developer.apple.com/ne...

Apple's ad platform allows advertisers to purchase ads based on previous purchases according to news articles. I've never personally placed an ad, but I think the above statement is intentionally misleading. Maybe they don't use the data from Apple Pay specifically, but they allow advertisers to target based on past purchases in the App Store and iTunes at least.

Non-personal information according to Apple:

        occupation
        language
        zip code
        area code
        unique device identifier
        referrer URL
        location
        time zone
        customer activities on our website, iCloud services, our iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, App Store for Apple TV and iBooks Stores and from our other products and services
        We may collect and store details of how you use our services, including search queries.

"We may collect, use, transfer, and disclose non-personal information for any purpose."

"At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers."

"Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."

Source:
https://www.apple.com/legal/pr...

Apple also uses differential privacy which according to these articles isn't as non-personal as they claim:
https://www.wired.com/story/ap...
http://appleinsider.com/articl...

I'm sorry if I'm disappointing you, but Apple is making money off your personal information just like every other major tech company. Apple doesn't document how much they make from ads. This article claims they probably make about $1 billion a year off search ads, but that doesn't include Apple News adds, iTunes ads, App Store ads, and in-app ads. The total mobile ad market is estimated at $20.86 billion, but I don't know how much of that is Apple's share. Based on Apple's earning's report, their share isn't more than $8.5 billion (total for Apple "services"), but I don't know where in the $1 to 8.5 billion range the total is.
https://mobiledevmemo.com/appl...

It is a bit disturbing how easy an access to internet can be either stopped or limited. Is not it the time for the New Internet? - https://www.wired.com/2017/06/...

It's also likely that those 63 interventions were because the car was *too* cautious. For example, around construction zones.

I remember hearing one anecdote. Workmen were moving around their vehicle, inside the border of traffic cones. The car was predicting that they might step out in front, so it just didn't move.

this could be a major political issue if it doesn't turn out they did the same for the other side. The Dems might make it a campaign issue with FB stuck in the middle. The one thing they've got to be afraid of most is regulation. After all, you are the product. It's not the adverts where they make all their money, it's selling all that sweet, sweet demographic data.

Not sure what you're going on about. The Trump campaign did not get voter data from Cambridge Analytica, and the Facebook data they had was not used by Trump or the Trump campaign at all. Facebook's political division offered to embed their employees in the campaigns to help with analysis and targeted advertising (the offer was made to both the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign). The Trump campaign accepted and had Facebook folks working with them. The Clinton campaign rejected the offer because they wanted to use their own strategies.

Source about Cambridge Analytica, and source for Facebook "embeds".

That said, I'm glad I was correct in my knowledge of what those "safety drivers" actually do all day.

They don't do just that. Sometimes the safey drivers actually act and cause accidents: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/...

nor the actual paper being discussed:
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0277-283320170000031005

We'll see. Or probably we won't, since violations of US election law are no longer prosecuted, but in any case it looks a bit darker:

- - https://www.wired.com/story/ca...
In a series of undercover videos filmed over the last year, Britain's Channel 4 News caught executives at Cambridge Analytica appear to say they could extort politicians, send women to entrap them, and help proliferate propaganda to help their clients. The sting operation was conducted as part of an ongoing investigation into Cambridge Analytica, a data consulting firm that worked for President Trump's 2016 campaign. - -

the main one being how come the safety driver didn't prevent the accident.

Given Uber's previous accident with self driving vehicles I would take a step back and ask firstly if the safety driver *caused* the accident before asking why he/she didn't prevent it.
 

'Trending' is whatever Twitter decides suits their sensibilities and therefore you should be allowed to see. So the signal to noise ratio is even lower than you think.

And just in case something interesting does get said on Twitter amidst the bot spam and greasy food picts, it will be subjected to Twitter's political purity tests.

So even as a communication medium, Twitter is unreliable unless one has enough outside influence or political capital to make being deplatformed a hassle for them.

I'm not seeing the appeal at all.

Their app listens in [youtube.com] while your phone is in sleep mode, to fine tune their ad suggestions,

That is patently false.

Facebook has a lot of problems and is ethically shady for other reasons. Let's not propagate conspiracy theories that just muddy the waters.

Android does not usually allow updates. So, to get the latest version, it is necessary to buy a new cell phone. In my opinion, that's extremely abusive.

Another abuse: Cell phones with batteries that cannot be easily replaced.

Another abuse: Apple has been preventing 3rd party repairs. Stories:

A HREF= "http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35502030" TARGET="_blank" >iPhones 'disabled' if Apple detects third-party repairs (Feb 5, 2016)

Apple Shouldn't [be allowed] to Brick Your iPhone Because You Fixed It Yourself. (Feb 18, 2016)

Apple fighting new âright to repairâ(TM) legislation after successfully lobbying against it in the past. (Feb 15, 2017)

Latest iOS Update Shows Apple Can Use Software to Break Phones Repaired by Independent Shops (Oct 13, 2017)

'Right to repair' legislation gaining steam amid Apple's iPhone battery replacement program (Jan 18, 2018)

• Steve(GRC) Gibson's Blog ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/SteveGibsonsBlog")
• ASCII by Jason Scott ("http://ascii.textfiles.com/feed")
• RobOHara.com ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/robohara")
• The Baffler ("https://thebaffler.com/feed")
• Ars Technica ("http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/index/")
• Slashdot ("http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot")
• Technology - The Huffington Post ("http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feeds/verticals/technology/index.xml")
• TechSpot ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/techspot/news")
• Wired Top Stories ("http://feeds.wired.com/wired/index")
• The Australian | Politics ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheAustralianPolitics")
• Al Jazeera English ("http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Rss/?PostingId=2007731105943979989")
• Australia news | The Guardian ("http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/australia/rss")
• ABC News ("http://www.abc.net.au/news/feed/46182/rss.xml")
• Arduino Blog ("http://www.arduino.cc/blog/?feed=rss2")
• Lifehacker Australia ("http://feeds.lifehacker.com.au/LifehackerAustralia")
• MakerBot ("http://www.makerbot.com/feed/")
• Open Electronics ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/OpenElectronics")
• PlanetArduino ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/planetarduino")
• Raspberry Pi ("http://www.raspberrypi.org/feed")
• SnapFiles - 20 latest freeware programs ("http://www.snapfiles.com/feeds/sf20fw.xml")
• SparkFun: Commerce Blog ("http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/rss.php")
• TechCrunch Gadgets ("http://feeds.feedburner.com/crunchgear")
• The MagPi Magazine ("https://www.raspberrypi.org/magpi/feed/")
• Thingiverse - Featured Things ("http://www.thingiverse.com/rss/featured")
• GitHub Engineering ("http://githubengineering.com/atom.xml")
• BBC News - Science & Environment ("http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_world_edition/science/nature/rss.xml")
• English Wikinews Atom feed. ("http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewsFeed&feed=atom&categories=Published&notcategories=No%20publish%7CArchived%7CAutoArchived%7Cdisputed&namespace=0&count=30&hourcount=124&ordermethod=categoryadd&stablepages=only")
• F-Secure Antivirus Research Weblog ("https://www.f-secure.com/weblog/weblog.rdf")

Surely everyone on /. knows that this is an (apocryphal) joke.

It is the lack of free will that is actually part of the problem. If you tell one "start building widgets and find the most optimal way to use resources to build those widgets," you better include "and stop building widgets when the price falls below a certain point," -- if you don't program that constraint in, it'll just chew through resources. Give it the ability to acquire resources, and now you have a runaway construction system.

Contemplation, philosophy, the ability to ask "why?" ... all of these would IMPROVE the state of AI. Most of the issues Musk and others have cited come from animal-level AI... the AI of the ant den. When they become sentient, then we all we have to worry about is whether we've treated them well enough for them not to hold a grudge and whether we've taught them to think we're sufficiently entertaining to keep around as pets.

I for one find great hope in the fact that AIs seem to like cat videos. Maybe they'll like us too. :-)

Yes there is research and I linked to it here

Even the author of your research says that Judicial Watch's interpretation (and math) are wrong.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/...

Also, remember this entire research is based on an opt-in online survey. In other words, as evidence of voter fraud, it's pretty much horseshit.