{ joke } You missed one option - kill massive number of people. Amazing how many people (excluding ISIL, et al.) don't bother to ask "What would Hitler do?" { / joke }

That only works with some people. But I will take your word that for you specifically, sugar can hide the taste. Not for everyone. Specifically, I am a supertaster and can taste alcohol no matter how much sugar you try to use to hide that bitter junk. Honestly I don't drink much (Martini was an example/joke)

And yes, all alcohol tastes like bitter junk to me. There is no such thing as a 'good' wine, beer, whisky etc. if you have the fully activated TAS2R38 gene. Only you poor non-super powered mortals, with your weak tongues with a puny, normal number of fungiform papillae can truly enjoy alocohol.

I, and many other people, drink only for the social and pharmaceutical aspects of drinking.

I heard a rumor (or possibly just started one :D) that one of Panda's competitors tagged Panda as a malware. So apparently Panda just took their word that Panda was malware.

You've got to be kidding, right? We take such a small amount of wind that it wouldn't matter at all. You might as well complain about all that light we are absorbing with PV panels will not leave enough for plants.

The politics of anthro climate change are "It doesn't exist, shut up, stop telling me the 'science'". You are stupid not because you disagree, but because your arguments SUCK.

You are correct that overpopulation used to be a problem, but the developed world has basically solved that issue. See Japan, where the population growth is basically negative. Note, we have always had a solution to overpopulation, it is called WAR - kill enough people and the problem is solved. But recently we have come up with far better solutions involving birth control.

Your malthusian prediction is garbage.

Overpopulation is no longer the primary cause of climate change, instead greed for the Western European lifestyle is the primary cause. The solution to that will almost certainly be technological improvements across the board, and energy - including wind - will be the primary tech improvement that eliminates the problem.

How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste? Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.

They only people that need to worry about this are the teachers at a high school dance. And we all know how effective they are at stopping kids from drinking....

It started with short stories - magazines were popular back when TV did not exist.

Then books started taking over. They made more money for several reasons.

Now a book is not profitable, at least not first ones. It takes time for authors to become famous enough to get enough readers.

So the only way to make money writing a book is to do it in series. First one creates a market, the second one makes small profit, the third or greater one makes the real money.

I can't see the trend continuing - having to write multiple series before you make a profit seems extreme. Or worse, not making any profit until it moved to video would be ridiculous.

Part of the problem is that while talent is what people want, it is much harder to measure. It takes talent to find talent, and if they had talent in the first place, they usually don't really need it.

Skill on the other hand, can be easily teach, but they can also easily measure how much skill you already have.

So what ends up happening is they look for their keys directly under the streetlight, even though they lost them in the dark area on the other hide of the street.

Please note that this test includes buses - which are far more likely to become the first self-driving vehicle that a private car.

The vehicles travel slower, set routes. The cost to add the self-driving capability is a lower percentage of the total cost of the vehicle. Finally, over the long term they save money by removing the necessity of paying a driver.

Still not as perfect as using the tech on garbage trucks. They move even slower, have less union opposition (because you are only getting rid of the driver, not the attendants that load the vehicle. But no one's perfect.

Basically, what this guy did was say "Hey, Privacy is EVIL"

His concept of a timeline is simply the opposite of privacy.

All the gains he thinks are present are gains for other people.

He refuses to realize that those gains for other people come at a cost - and the cost is paid for by you.

Timelines are great - for advertisers.

They are not great fore you. They do nothing good for you, except make it easier for other people to judge you.

Guess what, we already have something like that - it's called a credit history.

Yeah, a few - less than 10% - people benefit from having a credit history. But far more people suffer from having it. There are identity thieves, there are bad (and damaging) decisions made based on false ideas about credit history every single day - like hiring/promoting people based on it.

This guy is wrong about everything he believes in.

No. My equivalences are exactly the same. I am not applying state laws to an international framework, I am applying long standing international legal principles to a an international framework. when a country does something stupid, like you describe, you have two choices - International treaties and the penalties spelled out in them, or WAR.

Perhaps you have heard of it.

Which is exactly what is happening right now with ISIL. When countries get out of hand, we have two choices - diplomatic punishment or military punishment. You on the other hand, seem to think we can call their mommy and have them punish them.

Yes, the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime. Bit you demonstrate total ignorance of how that works. You've been watching way too many movies and think that's how it works. If you were aware of how Interpol actually you would realize it proves me correct, as they take a lot of effort to avoid extra-territorial jurisdiction.

I am not outside of my depth, I work in the legal field, and my stepfather is a defense lawyer for international criminals. I have had long discussions about what is and is not legal - and which countries obey those laws and which countries ignore them.

So to educate someone that clearly knows very little about how international law works, particularly Interpol, here is a short education

1. Interpol is not some kind of magic international police. Countries - and not all of them - willing sign treaties, agreeing with a set of rules govern how it works. The participating countries then change their own laws to do what the treaty says. Note treaties, not national laws control Interpol. The treaties in question (like all such treaties) specify what happens if the country signs the treaty but does not change their own laws in a timely fashion.

2. Interpol does NOT HAVE ANY POLICE. There are no Interpol cops. No SWAT, not even traffic cops. They provide training and communication between national police. That's it. So when a crime takes place in say Sweden, committed by a band of criminals that reside in Finland, Sweden does not send cops to Finland. Finland does not send cops to Sweden. Sweden investigates, gets an extradition order, and sends information to their Interpol office. That office sends it to all their other offices, and notifies Finland. In Finlnd, the standard, regular Finish police go and arrest the criminals. Once the Finish cops arrest them, the criminals go through the Finish legal system, where they are either extradited to Sweden or a Finish judge say no.

You live in a movie based fantasy world that does not exist. There are NO EXTRA TERRITORIAL INTERPOL COPS.

I never said it was. In fact I will outright agere that it is not illegal for a company to use a VPN. Nor is it illegal to use a glove when firing a weapon, nor is it illegal to burn that glove.

But it IS illegal to destroy evidence. The second you do that, it becomes a crime. So if your burn a glove that was connected to a crime, that action becomes illegal. Totally legal actions, when taken in furtherance of a crime become illegal. And the use of a VPN you describe would be a crime.

No offense, but you are making assumptions about the legal system that indicate you don't know jack shit about how it works.

Knowledge of tcp/ip etc is irrelevant to the legal code.

I did not oversimplify, nor did I make a technical misunderstanding.

I simply applied long standing, generally accepted legal principles in use for hundreds of years to current issues.

I repeat - the fact that technology now allows people to hide the fact that they are breaking the law does not invalidate the law.

Here, let me explain is to you in a simple manner. 1) Online poker is illegal in certain countries (The DOJ says the US is one of them).

2) But it is legal in England.

3) If you personally set up a VPN to make it seem like people are playing London, when in fact they are playing online poker from Utah, then YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. Even if you yourself never play online poker, only renting out your VPN to your neighbors.

This is a very simple legal concept. Not that hard to understand. Legal actions become criminal when used in furtherance of a crime. Perhaps you have heard of the words "accessory to a crime"? That is what you are describing.

Some people use a glove when firing a gun to prevent fingerprints and gunpowder residue. Then they burn the glove.

Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.

The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.

If you think that someone eating a BLT or handing out fliers can legally get you deported and beheaded than you need to take some legal courses.

The existence of illegal actions do not prove that those actions are legal, whether they are done by a citizen or by a country.

No offense, but you are an incredibly ignorant of the law and history. You mention history books but have no idea what is in them. My idea is not 'my idea' - it is century old accepted legal principle that diplomats and ambassadors use to site all the time. The US can't tell Britain what side of the road to ride on, we can't arrest Putin for murdering his opponent, and we can't arrest people in Mexico for playing music so loud that people in America can hear it.

But the internet came along, and ignorant people did not know how to deal with it so they suddenly said forget the principle.

The fact that a new technology comes along and makes it harder to stick by your principle does not mean your principle is stupid, nor does it mean you abandon the principle. It means you work to create a new set of laws to handle that issue. In this case, the proper way to deal with the internet problems is with treaties. Treaties that establish what laws are in each country.

If the treaties don't work, you go to war against that country. That's why we are fighting with ISIL. We disagree with the laws that they created in their own country, so we bomb them.

You seem to think that all problems can be solved by laws. No. Laws apply to their own nations, not other countries. International problems can not be solved by national laws, and this is clearly an international issue - it happened between 2 nations. You solve international problems with either treaties between countries or wars.

Your insistence on solving international problems with national laws is a bad idea. The long established concept of jurisdiction is an intelligent, well tested idea. The fact you can't tell the difference is indicative of your intelligence.

Your objection makes little sense. First of all, International laws are not some strange set of things. Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.

International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not mean it has no teeth, it means it does not exist as a law.

In fact international criminal law lets the host country decide to prosecute first. It only goes to the international court if the host country would rather not try the case but want the court to try it. As such, it has SEVERE teeth - capable of imprisoning someone for life. But it has a loophole designed to let the host country have a veto on it. If they use the veto they lose reputation - which has some severe trade penalties - and possibly military ones as well.

Your comment about cybercrime being completely legal is true and pointless. As you pointed out already we have NO POWER TO ENFORCE THAT LAW AS IS, so my proposed rule does not create a new problem. It merely stops governments from abusing their current power.

My idea is well thought out, it simply does not solve all possible problems. Similarly, my idea does not cure AIDS, teach kids to read, or double your lifespan.

The question is does my idea cause more new problems or solve them. The answer to that is that it solves problem.