But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.

I think you're confusing advertised speeds with actual. My city is not as densely populated as any of those this is being tested in, and the connection here slows to a crawl on weekends and weekday nights. If they really can offer this without it affecting the connection of the home, then their own claims of network congestion causing slowdowns must be completely false, or else further saturating any connection must cause an additional loss of speed. If they can simply offer more speed to a home to make up for it, there must not be any real cause for the slowdown we already experience at peak times.

First, they charged me for the connection to my house at a certain speed. Then, they throttled everything I'd want that speed for. Then, they charged Netflix for the connection to my house. Now, they're offering the connection to my house to other customers when it already can't keep up with my needs or come close to their advertised speeds. What am I even paying for? The joy of twice monthly hour long phone calls to resolve outages?

I bet they'll count this as "upgrading their infrastructure," just another fine example of the innovation they claim will come to an end if ISPs are better regulated.

That could be it, to be honest I don't think it was ever fully explained to her it's just something she laughs about around iPhone launches. It leads to amusing stories about people coming in looking for an iPhone and sales people trying to convince them they want an Android phone, some people don't care but some people get annoyed pretty quickly when you tell them they don't actually want what they think they do.

I'm with a woman who does sales for VZW, she's explained to me that they actively push Android phones much more than iPhones because Verizon typically makes more on the Android phones. They don't actively discourage iPhone sales, but they run more promotions for Android and there are more Android related bonuses (or just additional quotas) for the sales people. It's partly because there are new Android phones out all the time and they run specials for a lot of new phones, but even during the months when new iPhones launch there are no incentives for sales people to sell iPhones while there are incentives for them to sell Android. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, if VZW makes more on other phones it makes sense for them to push them more, but it's part of the reason people who aren't really committed to one or the other will walk out with an Android phone. I wouldn't say they bought Android phones by mistake, though. We use both around here, if I'm being honest the iOS products run more smoothly but the Android products allow far more freedom, so I tend to think they each have an audience that suits them.

How did it fall apart? I think his point was it's up to the parents to keep the Oreos out of reach, much like how the government should do something to prevent this behavior by Verizon.

And we don't just expect these organizations to behave like toddlers with no impulse control, we watch it happen regularly, and we certainly do need to rethink how we handle their criminal behavior. As for them not being run by sociopaths, isn't it already established that sociopaths are ideal candidates for upper management positions like CEO? If they had morals like good people, we wouldn't need to regulate the crap out of them, they'd feel bad screwing us all over.

Combine it with this and dreams start to come true, scan yourself in first for added realism and then move on to scan in women you want to have virtual sex with! Obviously they'd need some method of simulating the nude version of a woman, as it's unlikely you'll find many willing to undress for a 3D scanning, but the future of cyber sex could be amazing. Amazingly invasive, too, but wouldn't it be worth it?

Imagine, in just a few short years, I could be banging your wife!

Seriously. I can think of more than a handful of Larpers who would kill to have one of these set up before or after an event so we can have figures made of ourselves in costume. Maybe offer a 1-inch figure for DnD!

But the Chinese might be spying on you!

Hah, gave myself a good chuckle with that one.

Right, so, electricity. It doesn't stop being electricity when it comes from solar panels or diesel generators, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Clearly, they were getting carried away suggesting you'll be able to connect to the internet without any electricity.

Agreed. With the recent headline about people using "Find my iPhone" to track down criminals, this headline made me immediately think somebody had their phone stolen so they loaded up their gun and went criminal hunting. Headline should read, "Police act reasonably, suspect not so much."

The article you link to has nothing to do with the Solar Roadways project, it's just another link to the same story about glow in the dark roads that was already posted in the summary. Thanks for trying, though.

I'm not defending Solar Roadways, mind you, as much as I'd love to see this being used and working perfectly as intended across the world, I don't really think it's going to happen any time soon.

Totally right. What makes anyone think someone who is well trained in the use of a firearm and required to practice with it regularly so they're prepared to use it as they are likely to need to in the line of duty might be more responsible than a guy who passed a background check keeps his gun in his closet for months or years at a time? And with all those incidents of criminals using firearms acquired from police on a daily basis, it's a wonder we haven't taken their guns away already!

Seriously, though, this is a stupid argument. Obviously the police won't and shouldn't be required to use them until the technology is reliable enough that it won't fail more than the officers do. For everyone else, I'd wager the failure rate is much higher than that, when you consider the problems a smart gun may solve. Just to throw out some wacky numbers because I don't know the real ones, if there are 100 incidents where a non-police firearm saves a life a year, and one accidental death a smart gun could have prevented, then the failure rate for the smart gun should be lower then one percent to justify it's use. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

Now, if you want to make all of the training the police go through (for as long as you have a gun, not some one-time class) a requirement of owning a gun, then you can compare police having firearms to everyone else having firearms. And before some guy jumps out to say "I train more than them," it isn't that I don't believe some people can be trusted as much as police (maybe more) with firearms, it's that these laws apply to everyone.

The usual problem people have with corporate personhood is more of a campaign finance issue than anything, and it's obvious that's the problem here, but there were arguments against it before anyone made a big deal of that. I think some of the arguments were based more around the idea of corporations being equal to people and less with the legal ramifications, but there have always been legitimate concerns. Corporate personhood is used to shift blame around, and as we've seen recently in GM's case, it can help people avoid jail time for murder. It's helped con men get away with ruining lives, charging for goods and services then closing up shop and disappearing. The only reason we need it now is that the laws aren't written to apply to corporations, they're written to apply to people. Without corporate personhood, contract law can't be enforced when it involves one or more corporations, because the laws just aren't worded that way. Basically, corporate personhood let us avoid rewriting other laws specifically so they can be applied correctly to corporations, it was the easy way to do things but that doesn't make it the right way.

Problems with corporate personhood long predate the "Occupy" movement, and if you've done any of the research you suggest he does you know that. I'm not saying I have a better idea in mind, rewriting laws to apply to corporations wouldn't be easy, even deciding which ones to change would be a challenge. But you're a fool to think there are no real problems with corporate personhood, especially replying to a post that perfectly describes the result of the most commonly cited problem with corporate personhood; their influence in government.

And before you spout some BS about how people can collectively donate as much as corporations, no, most of us can't. Here's a quick explanation of the situation: The people who decide how much money they will pay us have already decided how much they're going to need for lobbying efforts, and when we spend money fighting against them, they spend more fighting against us, and then pay cuts cover it. Like I said, this is more of a campaign finance issue than a corporate personhood issue, but every individual problem with corporate personhood appears to be a problem with the laws being applied. This is because we've opted for corporate personhood instead of rewriting the laws. The trouble is all we really do is swap the word "person" with "corporation" and that isn't enough, not by a long shot.

I spent four years studying and working full time, passed rigorous tests and would surely pass a background check. Why doesn't my government guarantee nobody who hasn't can work the same job as me?

I understand why there are regulations cab drivers must follow, but there is no argument beyond the safety issues, and those can be resolved without appeasing the drivers' desire to keep regulations as strict as they are. The fact that regulations exist does not mean they need to persist in their current form. As it is, you are taking a chance getting into any normal cab, bad things can and do happen. Do I think Uber should be required to vet drivers to some extent? Sure do! Does anybody think that's all these guys are after?

I want to believe they just want people to be safer, but I can't. Cab drivers get up in arms about everything that might dent their industry; where I live they complain about the buses, when I go to Vegas the complain about the monorail (for literally whole car rides), in NYC they flip out at every red light for costing them time, and now in London they are threatening to gridlock the city and deliberately cause chaos. If safety or serving citizens were any concern of theirs at all, this wouldn't even be considered.