Any sort of in game currency where there isn't any value isn't going to be an issue since, well, there's no value. Now I know WoW gold is sold by Chinese farmers, but over all it is a zero value item. Blizzard doesn't allow sales, they'll ban you if you buy or sell, etc, etc. It isn't the kind of thing anyone buys as an investment or speculation or anything. It also isn't worth very much, and you find most IRS rules exempt things under a certain amount.

Particularly if YOU don't buy or sell it then there isn't really any issue. They aren't going to come after you for something you never exchange for currency, if for no other reason than they aren't going to monitor it at all.

In general game currency is likely to be left alone just because the amounts aren't likely to get that high. Plus most games have a highly inflationary economy. There is no limit to money, there's no "Horde Reserve Bank" that issues gold. The game just generates it whenever you do something that is programmed to give gold, and you can do it as much as you like. So buying gold to hold on to would basically always be a money losing proposition.

Stick to HTML & CSS.

This would effectively outlaw automation, given that the costs are not zero to operate such machinery. I can understand the argument that prices should be lower, but to say that they should be near zero is to argue that those who use automation heavily shouldn't be allowed to make a profit at all. I can't get behind that philosophically.

Well, Boss, we have good news and bad news:

- the good news: we've got it up!

-the bad news: it's tossing off splinters!

Break to chorus of "Hurts So Good!" by John Mellencamp.

And it blows open in the wind, I can just hop on in to your house and nose around?

The answer, in case you are wondering, is no. While you should take precautions to secure your house, your failure to do so is not the same as permission to enter or do as I please.

Pragmatically speaking:

Nuclear and wind power will likely never reach the public support necessary to eclipse the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power because of the perceived harm, and wind power because "ohh those windmills are ugly and I don't want to see them".

That leaves solar+hydro. Since pure hydrogen does not occur naturally, that means it must be manufactured somehow, so you're basically reduced to solar power (unless you use fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, which sort of defeats the purpose here). I don't think our solar extraction technology is quite efficient enough to cover all of our fuel needs, or we'd already be doing it.

As opposed to the release of massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere from animals exhaling?

I know this is possible with other devices as well, but I can stream 1080p content directly from my computer to my iPad and given that the total bitrate doesn't exceed my network capacity, there is no re-encoding.

I'd say I personally want more information before determining who is the psycho. I have on more than one occasion seen a person claim that they have a psycho who is out to get them, only to discover that the person making the claim is the one who's psycho, not the person who's allegedly out to get them. Or, sometimes, both are psycho.

There's a situation like that where I work. One of the advisers HATES the head secretary. She will tell anyone who will listen about what an evil bitch the secretary is and so on and so forth. Ya well, observational evidence does not bear this out. In fact it shows the opposite is true, the adviser is the source of the issues and is the one who's being a jerk.

So not claiming that this lady's story is untrue, but I'm not willing to believe it without some more verification. Particularly in light of the other trivial issues like the hula-hoop thing. Often a sign of psycho behaviour is making a big deal out of little things.

That doesn't seem to be claimed. You have to remember, some people like to show off and have fun. Back in my partying days I saw all kinds of people, men and women, do all kinds of things that they enjoyed doing, but also with the intention of having an audience. That was part of the reason they were doing them at a party, in public. They wished for an audience. Also people usually did watch because, well, when something is going on it is natural to watch. One of my friends loved to breathe fire, he'd get some 151 in his mouth, hold a lighter near it, and spew it out, causing it to catch fire. Looked pretty impressive and always drew a crowd.

So ya, if the women were pushed in to then and/or if men were making inappropriate comments then I see a problem. However if the women decided it would be fun to do and the men watching because it was something going on then I don't see a problem.

Not the lower res/graphical fanciness, but the controller. It isn't that much fun to use as a controller because, well, it is fucking huge. It is a tablet. Thing is, if people wanted to play games on a tablet they'd probably do so and on one that could travel around with them.

Also it is pretty expensive. The screen, wireless interface, processor, all that jazz costs quite a bit and pushed up the cost of the Wii U. Part of what made the Wii successful was that it was really cheap compared to the "big 2" consoles. So people got it for kids or got it as an "and a" console along with their favoured of the bigger ones. This time though, the price advantage is not as much. It is still cheaper but not by as much.

So since the gimmick isn't something people are that interested in, and it drives up the price, it really hasn't been a good move. Despite being out a good bit longer than the Xboner and the PS4 it hasn't sold more.

Actually similar issue on the Xboner's side with the Kinect. That is the primary reason is costs more than the PS4, and that cost has been putting a damper on its sales. People just have no fucks to give about the controller gimmick, they wanna play games.

Did you actually read that article? It clearly describes exactly what I said: they use resistors on the data pins to signal the available current. There is no bidirectional negotiation going on. There are no extra pins or wires. The charger just has 4 resistors to create two voltage dividers for the D- and D+ pins.

This is incorrect. There is no bidirectional negotiation between chargers and devices, nor are there any magic extra pins (at least for pretty much all Android and Apple products - dunno about Zune).

What there is is one USB charging standard, that basically says one thing and one thing only (that matters): if the data pins are shorted together (but otherwise not connected to anything), then the port is a Dedicated Charging Port. A DCP must meet certain voltage/current curve ranges and may be engineered to supply anywhere from 500mA to 1.5A (or more), with the voltage dropping as the device exceeds the charger's maximum. Devices are simply supposed to regulate current draw upwards until the voltage drops below a threshold, indicating the charger's capability. No digital negotiation takes place. Devices are limited to 1.5A charging current, which is quite typical for modern devices (and significantly better than the 500mA of a non-charging port).

There is a newer USB Power Delivery specification that is much more recent, supports higher powers, probably uses more complex negotiation (I haven't read it), and nothing implements it yet.

Then there's what Apple does - they have an incompatible implementation that uses resistors on the data pins in the charger to signal its current capability. Different resulting voltages mean different current levels. This is completely incompatible with the USB charging standard. Recent Apple devices (since the iPhone 3G or so) do support DCP chargers (to some extent - some charge more slowly, and I don't know about larger iPads?), but non-Apple devices will only charge at 500mA or worse from Apple chargers.