> U.S. officials have also said that there is substantial risk to the U.S. economy if China invades Taiwan and reduces access to TSMC chips.

> “We’re going to bring it all over so we become self-sufficient in the capacity of building semiconductors,” Commerce secretary Lutnick said.

So they really were not joking when they said that they were just going to relocate TSMC to Arizona. Crazy how effective government can be when it has an existential strategic purpose.

Is the EU even remotely capable of such a thing given all the grumbling about dependence on American and Chinese tech?

"So imagine a scenario ten years down the road, as you’re taking a stroll in the park." .... "WHAM. You are now a criminal, guilty of recording, distributing, and possessing child pornography."

I find this highly implausible. Hypotheticals like this damage the argument. Crimes are caught on camera everyday. Seems to me the crime here (aside form the rape) is to knowingly destroy evidence of the crime, which the innocent strollers in this scenario are supposedly encouraged to do out fear for themselves. I have not thought about this enough to have a strong opinion other than simple gut reaction, but it seems more evidence to support this idea in particular is needed.

In this case both destroying the evidence and possessing the evidence are crimes. What are you supposed to do?

I challenge anyone to find actual foundation for the claim that unwittingly recording a child rape in the park is a crime even if the witness reports it and provides the video evidence. Seems to me that this is the "slippery slope" argument taken to unreasonable extremes.

Twenty years ago I would have challenged someone to find a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves. Or a 19 year old being forced to register as a sex offender because of a 17 year old partner.

These laws have already been pushed to unreasonable extremes.

Like I said I haven't thought about or researched this enough to have a strong opinion so I'm relying on really basic assumptions.

"a case of a 17 year old being prosecuted for child pornography for taking a picture of themselves."

Has this happened? Hypotheticals don't help any. We need facts in order to move forward with the conversation.

EDIT: it has, in fact, happened. The facts are indeed in Google.

It satisfies the elements specified in the law. By definition it's a crime. Now, it's quite possible that the police and prosecutors will be reasonable and not prosecute it... but prosecutors and police are human, and quite possible to be unreasonable. In fact, they have great incentive to prosecute open-and-shut cases and rack up their conviction count.

Here's a description of a similar case that discusses the catch-22 that the witness is in: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&pg=PA23...

There is no need to slip before the argument is valid, so there is no slippery slope argument.

possessing the evidence is a crime, unless you can make an "affirmative defense" (I've commented about it elsewhere on this page.)

One form of "affirmative defense" is "contact law enforcement and turn over the recording". This is what you are supposed to do (standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

They're both crimes, but you're much less likely to get arrested if you don't go to the police.

What is the advantage to this vs running under supervisord and gunicorn's django app?

Input is almost always filtered. Without mincing the semantics of that, let's say you receive free-form NL query as input. You don't filter that to reduce it to core terms you send to the database? You don't remove prepositions? You don't tokenize at all? Input is ambiguous and reduced/filtered into pseudo-meaningful terms to return relevant output.

If I want to tweet

  I <3 O'Reilly books

you could pre-encode that as safe to paste into raw SQL, or as well-formed (X)HTML, but you can't do both simultaneously. Either encoding would end up distorting the content in the other context. You have to encode during output (and writing to a database counts) using the rules of the system consuming that output. Lots of crappy web forums visibly mangle punctuation in a futile effort to avoid this.

What a great example. I am going to remember that one.

This is true for all structured data, but the problem always comes from freeform text fields, which you cannot filter for one context without mangling or destroying the data for all other purposes—except perhaps trivial things like trimming leading/trailing whitespace.