And the status quo will not have changed.

There are currently no drones on the market below the .55 pound limit that are serviceable for any sort of commercial use. The lightest drone capable of anything meaningful is the DJI Spark, which weights 10 ounces or 300 grams, 50 over the 250 gram limit. I'm sure DJI could produce a lighter drone to sneak under the limit, but they already had to sacrifice a lot of functionality (short flight time, only 2 axis gimbal, limited obstacle avoidance cameras) to get the Spark to 300 grams. The important bit here is how many manufacturers work with the FAA to get drones above 250 grams certified.

This product lets people use much less makeup while achieving a more natural look. It also helps people who don't know how to apply makeup well. I'm all for this if we see less of the painted-on face look.

Additionally, cosmetics are regularly scrutinized for containing potentially dangerous chemicals, and this product reduces the amount needed significantly.

Apple has removed the headphone jack from ALL of its phones. Samsung removed it from one midrange phone, and still offers dozens of models with it. This is clickbait, pure and simple.

Absolutely. The alts are technically superior in almost every way. Realistically though, the only coin that can take over for legacy Bitcoin directly is something like Bitcoin Cash. All those miners with dedicated hardware can't mine alts. And all the companies integrated with bitcoin would have to retool in significant ways to support an alt, whereas bitcoin cash IS bitcoin.

This isn't the usual headline of "Bitcoin goes up" or "Bitcoin goes down". The Bitcoin community has been trying to solve congestion on the Bitcoin blockchain, which is limited to 6 transactions per second, for years. For various political reasons, no solution has been proposed that reached "consensus," and as such gridlock was created, causing transaction fees to rise and confirmation times to increase. Bitcoin Cash forked off in August, specifically to solve these problems and return Bitcoin to its roots. It did this by increasing the transaction capacity by 8 and removing features that were antagonistic to using Bitcoin as an actual payment network (RBF & SegWit). It was initially disregarded by the hype-cycle media, but has wide grassroots support and important backers. After the recent cancellation of the 2x upgrade, which was scheduled to happen on Nov. 16, it became unclear how Bitcoin could ever grow to keep up with demand. Bitcoin Cash, on the other hand, had more capacity than the old Bitcoin would have had even if the cancelled upgrade had gone through.

This $1000 drop in Bitcoin and corresponding rise in Bitcoin Cash is potentially a turning point. Bitcoin isn't usable for actual payments due to high fees, slow transactions, and RBF allowing payments to be cancelled after services are rendered. People are buying into Bitcoin Cash in a big way. In fact, the 24 hour Volume on coinmarketcap.com shows Bitcoin Cash beating out Bitcoipn for the first time ever. It's truly exciting times.

This may be the beginning of "the flippenning", where Bitcoin Cash replaces Bitcoin as the gold standard of crypto. Or maybe not. Time will tell.

It's true that Greece was spending more than it could afford to. It's true that they prettied up the numbers to get into the EU. It's also true that the EU leaders knew the numbers were not completely accurate. Europe was embroiled in this romantic idea of a unified Europe, similar to Manifest Destiny in the US. So Greece joins the EU. Everyone wanted it to happen.

But Greece was spending at an unsustainable pace. That's nobody's fault but Greece, right? Germany, France, and the rest of the EU must be in the right. They didn't overspend, they were trying to help! Right? Not exactly.

Because the EU controls the ability to print money, Greece couldn't devalue their currency (print money) to spur exports, bring in tourism, and pay off debts, or put together a stimulus package to spur growth. Another country with full control of their economy (ie not in the EU) would have used one or both of these strategies to spur growth. The situation would not have escalated this far.

Greece didn't have those options, so they had to take whatever the EU offered. The only offer on the table was loans in exchange for austerity, which (wealthy northern) Europe seems to love. Greece had to take it. This is the moment that the blame shifted to the EU, instead of Greece itself. Austerity didn't work. The Greek economy contracted by 25% of GDP and unemployment shot up to 25% in general and 50% among the youth.

Five years later, Greece was in worse shape than it started. The EU effectively prevented Greece from saving itself with terrible policies. Other unions, like the United States, doesn't practice austerity, and have had much better results. The US responded with stimulus, and attempted to grow its economy. Debt is measured in terms of GDP. Greece is at 180% debt/GDP. Top lower that ratio, you can either reduce debt (austerity), or increase GDP. Greece reduced its debt by embracing austerity, but GDP contracted so much it actually erased any gains from reduced debt. The US strategy is to increase GDP. Leave the debt, it's not going away, we just have to get strong enough to carry it.

It is in light of these complicated affairs that the EU is to blame. They need to consider alternative strategies. Greece (and the rest of the EU) gave austerity a shot for 5 years. It didn't work. People are right that this sets a precedent for Spain, Italy, and any future troubled economies. They too should revolt like the Greeks if it comes to that. But that shouldn't happen. The EU should recognize that austerity isn't the way and change policies now so that Italy and Spain don't need to have a similar confrontation.

In many ways, Europe owes Greece big time. They have opened everyone's eyes. Austerity doesn't work. Things need to change. The only question is: Is the EU smart enough to heed the warning?

As a New Yorker, I much prefer LaGuardia, and strongly disagree with calls for its closing. As a small airport, it isn't burdened with its own size in terms of processing passengers. Everything at JFK takes longer than at LGA strictly because of magnitude.

JFK is literally too big to provide efficient service to individuals. Once the check-in & security hurdle is cleared, one still has to walk nearly a mile to get to their actual gate. Once boarded, the plane has to taxi for minutes just to arrive at the runway, where you will likely have to queue for an additional wait to takeoff. As others have mentioned, I easily save at least 30 minutes by flying from LGA, when adding up travel, check-in, security, walking to the gate, taxi-ing, and runway queuing.

I would love to see these large airports replaced with multiple smaller airports. A larger percentage of the population would have an airport nearby, and average travel times would be reduced significantly. It seems to me that planners are optimizing for everything except your personal experience when they design and advocate for mega-airports.

I think you've missed the point. There is no glut of competent workers. There is no conspiracy by large tech firms to drive down wages by hiring incompetent foreigners or off-shoring. The "foreigners" or H1-B's that I've got employed are the elite of their respective countries, and are paid based on their skill. You could call it a tragedy that they are working for me and not helping their home country compete in the international market.

Not all businesses allow you to post jobs to Slashdot, although I suppose I could lobby to change that internally. I'm also fully aware I need to entice people away, but if they aren't looking I can't entice them. I'm a happy employee myself, I'm not periodically checking to see if anyone has any enticing offers for me.

You're statement about narrowing my search is also part of the problem with this industry. A good engineer can work on almost anything. Hiring by keyword does not make success.

Exactly. The only positions I've filled recently were by internal referral.

As far as I'm concerned there's a shortage. I've been trying to hire developers for multiple high-compensation positions in NYC. Truly smart/capable/motivated people are not looking for jobs. They are already employed.

Don't get me wrong, there are many people looking who think they're qualified. I just don't agree. I'm not even looking for particular skills or experience. Just people who are genuinely into technology.

This is not true, especially with software developers. I manage quite a few of them, and it doesn't take long to be able to determine their approximate individual worth, without metrics. Activities outside of writing code are hugely influential to an employee's value, such as educating other team members and communicating with customers or our business sponsors. Obviously I can't pinpoint an exact number, but its obvious as night and day who the real catalysts are within the group, and I can adjust accordingly.

Companies that don't link your wage to your individual abilities are trying to take advantage of you. Plain and simple. I say trying, because one day it'll backfire. The most profitable companies that depend on skilled labor (not Walmart or McDonalds) pay their employees well, and do not use a uniform pay scale.

I am praying this happens. I do not enjoy the many "Would you like to download our free forum app? Press cancel to continue to the web site" popups I get on my phone. Even if this does happen though, do you really think it means that the app market will not be a thriving place? The quality of apps would go up for sure, but isn't that exactly what we need?

As people transition more and more of their time to Phones and Tablets, the market for iOS and Android apps will only grow. Was there ever a PC apps bubble? A career in software development isn't about "having diverse skills", its about learning whatever you need to know when you need to know it. Sell yourself as someone who is constantly learning and can pick up anything, and you will never go out of style.

Generally speaking, the Model S is one of the best reviewed new cars ever.

Motor Trend 2013 Car of the Year
Automobile 2013 Car of the Year

Just as importantly, Elon Musk is a truly great man who has not historically been caught spewing unfounded claims. Consider his eventual vindication about Tesla and SpaceX. People said his rockets were too good to be true (cost vs. capability) and wouldn't work. Now he just needs to scale up production, which he is doing, to corner the entire non-secret space launch market.

People said Tesla wasn't going to ever release a car. Then the Roadster was released. Then people said Tesla wasn't going to release the Model S before going bankrupt. Remember when Elon bet that journalist $1,000,000 that the Model S would be released on time? Yeah, he won that.

I'm suprised people haven't stopped criticizing this guy and got on board. If Elon Musk didn't exist, we wouldn't have PayPal, Tesla, or SpaceX. This is just one guy we are talking about! He revolutionized three separate industries by the time he was 40!