itsgreene

I'm not saying a computer can't fly the U2, but I do think it'd be more complex than a conventional aircraft. It has some pretty unique flight characteristics. From Wikipedia:

"...To maintain their operational ceiling of 70,000 feet (21,000 m), the early U-2A and U-2C models had to fly very near their never-exceed speed (VNE). The margin between that maximum speed and the stall speed at that altitude was only 10 knots (12 mph; 19 km/h). This narrow window is called the "coffin corner", because breaching either limit would likely cause airflow separation at the wings or tail. For most of the time on a typical mission the U-2 was flying less than five knots above stall speed. A stall would cause a loss of altitude, possibly leading to detection and overstress of the airframe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

Some friends and I have defeated a few other devices with face unlock features. It was the super technical task of finding and printing a photo found on social networking sites, then holding it up to the camera. I wonder if apple has hardened against this.

The best answer I've heard to this and your previous question was at a QandA with Dr. Daniel J. Levitin. His answer was to a question "Is there any music that can make everyone upset or unhappy?" His answer was that in all his research the only music that can make someone upset or unhappy, was music the listener didn't like. It's 100 percent listener preference. The same was true for music a person did like. Unfortunately, the only way we could find out if Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles like the music is to ask them. I'm sure we'll find both support and disdain from the music community on AI generated music. Time will tell if there is a major preference on either side.

Dr. Levitin has some really interesting research on music, but also has some great easier to read books for those of us without a neuroscience degree. My favorite is called this is your brain on music. The world in 6 songs was also a great read.

http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/

I want to disagree a little on this. I won't disagree that the 'war on drugs' is out of control, largely mismanaged, and likely unnecessary. What I do want to say is I think it's a bit unfair to say "It never was about fighting drug use or preventing the harm it can do."

I think it's fair to say the funding and huge catalyst for the war on drugs started in Miami in the 80's. During this time where was a ridiculous amount of violence. Violence that occurred in broad daylight, that had no regard for the public, with weapons police didn't have access too. CENTAC was started and gave law enforcement a more level playing field, and had a huge impact on the violence related to the drug trade in south Florida. It effectively removed lots of violent criminals from the streets. Just look at the crime stats before and after the initiative, it's pretty clear there was a public benefit.

While I agree there are very unfortunate unintended consequences of the war on drugs, I think we also have to give credit where is credit is due. Lets learn from it and do something better moving forward.