17% of your salary for 2 years, if you get paid over $50,000.
0 if you get less than $50,000.
(pause if you get fired)

Math:
17% of 50,000 is $8,500. That means you only pay $17,000 for your degree.
(It also means you're only making $41,500, so you're better off negotiating a salary at $49,999.)

That seems like exactly wrong way to do it. If you liked Logan, you would have probably liked it if it took place in the desert with a donkey, and he shaved.

Maybe though, they aren't talking about liking the movie, but rather if the trailer will hook them enough to go see the movie.

Even then, I think their analysis is pretty stupid. (BTW, I didn't read the article.)

That was my reaction as well. When did an 'update' even ask that question. I figured there was the possibility that it was a 'really big' update and so there was extra interaction involved. I wonder if anyone can validate that.

Bonuses do mess up the tax withholding rates though which typically results in more taxes being withheld than should be. This is resolved at tax filing and typically translates into less of an outstanding tax burden, (or a higher refund if you get one of those.)

I'm going to have to try this. I wonder if it will prevent the 'logging out' or 'pausing' of the primary browser account when someone logs out of a GMail session. It's been causing me headaches.

Sorry I can't be as tin-foil hat as the rest of you, but let me tell you how this affected me.

My PC at home is used by all my family. We pop in and out of Gmail users 100 times a day. However my browser always stayed logged in as the primary user, which affected how the extensions worked, among other things.

Recently that all changed and everytime someone would log out of email it would log me out of the browser. (Actually it would say 'Paused' but since you had to log back in to un pause it, it's pretty much the same thing.)

Interestingly, I never noticed it logging into the browser as these other Gmail accounts. It would only log the primary account out.

Correct. It needs to be an 'exchange' vehicle, not an investment vehicle. I'm not sure what to attach it too, but the value of a single bitcoin needs to be tied to something else, and it's worth the exact same value when you put it in as it is when you take it out.

For example...if, lets say, 1 bitcoin is worth $100 (USD). You put in $100 USD and you get 1 Bitcoin. Many years later, you 'cash out' and for your 1 Bitcoin you get $100 (USD). (Depending on inflation that $100 might not be 'worth' as much as it was before...but it's still $100.)

The trouble was because they wanted it to be it's own currency...not tied to anything at all... with the idea of 'exchange rates' and official stuff like that. Instead, it should have been more like the coins and cash of a currency. It represents an amount of a currency and it's used to enable transactions, but it doesn't have any intrinsic worth. (Or rather, its intrinsic worth is unrelated to its face value.)

I'm not 'satisfied' with the teleportation mechanics. I think it's a stop-gap solution.

In your experience, what will replace it? "Seated" VR and 'Room Scale' seem to be working fine, but we're going to need to get out of the box. How is that going to happen? Will 'pull the trigger to walk' ever work in VR, or will it always have these motion problems you mentioned as a physical limitation?

Have you been experimenting with other methods?

Ready Player One was super strange. (I know...movie)
They already had AR/VR devices. At any time and without any action (except thought?) you could look at the real world.
They also had wireless connections and during the final battle there were people running through the streets who were supposedly taking part in the battle. I'm not sure how any of this makes any sense at all.

The point is, aside from a brain stem interface like the Matrix...where your brain just 'thinks' it's moving. I don't know how you'll ever by able to do anything.

If you read the comments on the thread with the pictures, one of the top ones says, "the new 16:9 window is too large. I like the smaller window better." Same shape...just a little bigger, but they don't like it.

And that's called 'hating change.'

Can someone tell me how a physical key makes you 'phish-proof.' Phishing is primarily social engineering isn't it?

Like webnut said, gone are the days when someone would sell you a product. Now everyone is just using products as bait in order to hook a recurring revenue stream. They could make things that work 'stand-alone' but it's so much more profitable to make it go through the middle-man....with them being the middle man.

That being said, is there an indie/homegrown market for home automation? Is it all just Raspberry Pi based stuff? Are their light-bulbs that will work on my internal network? Is there a remote door lock system that listens on my own IP address and not routed through a server on the internet?

I think their are. The first security camera flaws were poorly secured little web-servers in the cameras themselves weren't they? But at least they had to come to my house to hack me..rather than hacking everyone all at once by hitting the server.

The distribution is supposed to come in the form of lower-prices. A room that's attended by a robot needs to cost half that as a room with an human attendant. Same with food. When McDonald's replaces all their people with robots, it's supposed to make hamburgers cost 50cents. The balance between robots taking all the jobs is that people won't need as much money, so they won't need as much 'job.' We can cut the work-week down to 15 hours and have 3 people share the job that one was doing previously because the robots have driven cost-of-living down.

That's not socialism, that's capitalism.

The problem is that the prices aren't dropping. As a previous poster said, the money saved on robots is filtering UP and creating wealth rather than reducing prices. Not sure who to blame for that. It's gotta be the people who are willing to pay 'human' price for 'robot' service. Of course, I personally don't know the difference, so I can't make that choice. I guess I'm part of the problem.

The Facebook users don't get financial compensation, but they do get value from the service that Facebook provides.

I wonder though, is Google in a different category? Is it fine to make all your money off of advertising, which is selling your users' eyeballs? If Facebook had ads on every page, would it still count as 'the users being the product?' Oh wait, it says in the Summary that he doesn't like ads or spam. (Not a Facebook user...didn't know how many ads were there.)

So that means Google is exactly the same? They provide a free service, (or dozens of free services) as they sell your eyeballs and clicks to various advertisers. Is he dropping Google as well? Or are Google services worth it while Facebook isn't?

That's what I want to know. If it wasn't Orbitz.com, what was it? Was it the 'old' orbitz.com before they were bought by Expedia? When were they bought by Expedia? My wife said, "Why do they call it Legacy, is it for old people?"