Yet, the police don't lock down all of Atlanta every other week just in case.

By this logic, the 9/11 attacks were "just another plane crash that should be handled and investigated by the NTSB, warranting no additional response or scrutiny from any other agency. Jesus, we don't shut down a COUNTRY because some planes crash into buildings!"

The arguments about trading essential freedoms for security are specious in this case, because the immediate, short-lived steps taken by police & government to apprehend the suspects have NOTHING to do with any real "loss of freedom." The REAL risk to your freedoms becomes having to subject yourself to invasive probing before you're allowed to stand on the railing at the marathon next year. The REAL risk to your freedoms comes from the legislature applying ineffective and invasive laws riding the wave of fear that these sorts of events create.

You "freedom fighters" are picking the wrong battle. Your enemy is the Patriot Act and other similar laws, and no doubt some doozies will be proposed after this event, by well-meaning but misguided legislators and special interest groups. Your enemy is NOT the police asking people to stay home - and out of the line of fire - while they search for the suspect who is almost certainly hiding somewhere in their neighborhood. Your enemy is NOT the police asking for permission to search your homes in order to apprehend a suspect - it's legal if you consent, and it's arguably legal even if you don't consent, given the doctrine of exigent circumstances.

If you were growing your own Cannabis in a closet, you might feel differently.

1) If the officers walk up and knock on the door and ask the property owner / resident for permission to search, it's voluntary, and you've not lost a thing. THIS conversation didn't happen:

"Hi Sir/Ma'am, there's a dangerous criminal whose wanted in connection to the murders of four people this week, on the loose in this area, and we'd like to check your house to make sure he's not hiding here with guns and bombs. Is that okay?"
"FUCK YOU, cop, get a warrant!"

2) Doctrine of exigent circumstances -- long held as a completely reasonable justification for warrantless searches -- allows police to search without a warrant in cases where evidence may be destroyed, a suspect may escape, or significant harm may come to the public if they delay searching while they get a warrant. Any attempt to suggest that these searches - even if NOT voluntary - were illegal is complete and utter bullshit. A suspect running around a neighborhood armed with pipe bombs and guns who has already participated in the murder of 4 people and the maiming and injury of scores more absolutely presents a substantial threat to the public and the risk of escape, meaning that invocation of exigent circumstances is a completely legitimate - and constitutional - exercise of police authority.

3) In the circumstance where somebody was arrested for a pot plant in their closet during these searches, any defender who didn't immediately move to suppress THAT evidence (gathered during an unrelated warrantless search on an entirely different matter) is assuredly a stoner idiot himself.

4) No freedoms were restricted. People came and went freely during the day - unless you can point to a single person who was arrested for "opening his front door"? They were ASKED to stay home and stay indoors, so that police wouldn't have thousands of civilians wandering around the neighborhood they were searching. This means thousands of people at risk of being caught in the crossfire if another shootout occurs, and thousands of people into which a suspect trying to escape could blend in order to get out of the neighborhood. This means more police manpower drawn away from the search to search the people & vehicles leaving the neighborhood, which means the neighborhood is subject to a massive police presence and police control for even longer.

Far more lives were affected by the lockdown than by the bombing itself.

That you would draw an equivalency between "I lost my life or legs in a bombing" and "I was asked to stay inside for a day so hundreds of edgy police could conduct their search and not have to worry about thousands of edgy civilians wandering around a crime scene in which an armed & dangerous suspect is at large" speaks volumes about you.

I would find no offense, and perhaps even some small glimmer of comfort, in my community and country opting to follow the British war slogan: "Keep calm, and carry on".

I'm sorry, are you really suggesting that "Keep Calm and Carry On" was the suggested British response DURING an air raid? I can assure you, it was not. The British people regularly huddled in blacked-out houses and shelters during the Blitz, hoping that their pilots and anti-aircraft batteries would keep them safe.

*In between* air raids, they were asked to "keep calm and carry on" - and that's a reasonable request. But in the middle of an emergency, they weren't being told "Pop over to the cafe for a spot of tea and crumpet while the bombs fall, don't let that Luftwaffe ruin your day!" They were being told, "take shelter, and turn out your lights.

1) Facial recognition: if you have friends on Facebook whose faces you don't remember, you might want to consider trimming your friends list a bit.
2) Overlay of items at grocery store: Better would be to transmit my list ahead of time, and have my groceries delivered to me, or waiting for me when I pull up after work. Don't trust that the produce will be any good? A quick shopping trip on your own shouldn't take long - hit the local farmer's market & butcher for the stuff that's likely to spoil.
3) Guided tour: Marginally useful. I could see something like this being used for a self-guided tour.
4) Education: Not sure how an overlay would be any better than a virtual cadaver in high resolution on a large monitor for learning anatomy.
5) GHang/Skype: Can't see you with these on - if you want to participate, still need a camera pointing at yourself.
6) Record videos: Yes - POV videos for athletes, creepers, protesters, cops, etc. But they already make head-mounted cameras, and it's likely that those head mounted cams will record far better quality than GGlass, at least for the first few generations with small optics.
7) Play music and video: Sure, you can. But I already have my phone which has a lot of music, and a pair of headphones. Video arguably better, but a 4-5" phone screen (or tablet screen).
8) Play games: Sure, though it seems you'd need something like a Kinect system added to them before they'd have much use for "games requiring interaction."

I've yet to see much of a compelling use case for these. As somebody pointed out in a sibling post, "AR is cool, but GGlass isn't an AR system," and that's sort of the problem with them. People are imagining it'll do all these amazing things that it's not being built for. Kind of like saying "I'm gonna break the sound barrier in my new hang glider." Hang gliders are cool, but they ain't built for supersonic travel.

Yes, if you changed a few sentences in any document, you can, literally, completely change the meaning of that document.

We could change just a few sentences in an assault weapon ban, and ban all firearms completely.

We could change a few sentences in other articles of the Geneva Convention, and make it okay to literally torture people.

I don't see how this is relevant.

I realize that.

Then why did you say, above, "You'd think all of this would be illegal under" the UN convention you linked to? There's a difference between "I think this should be illegal, and the UN should add it to this convention..." and "You'd think this would be illegal under a convention which explicitly does not cover weapons like this." It'd be like pointing to an assault weapon ban and saying, "you'd think that pepper spray would be illegal under this ban."

Boston Police have announced that they have no suspect in custody, as of the press conference at 6:06 pm EST.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boston-police-no-arrests-have-been-made-in

Again, the thing you're missing is that there's lots of cases of employers providing free food, whether it be catered meals for special functions, or free donuts and snacks, and the IRS doesn't tax employees or the employer for that either.

This is clearly addressed in the guidelines. I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on the distinction. On the one hand, you're arguing that the tax code should be simplified, and on the other hand, you seem completely unaware of what the tax code says currently. Curious.

"catered meals for special functions" are exempt because they are:
1) A business function which requires people to eat on-location;
2) Not "usual" - i.e., delivered regularly;
3) Not a "goodwill / retention / attracting new hire" measure;

Google's free meals do not qualify on all three of those points, therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt. If you want to exempt "free stuff that's not money" as compensation, then you've opened the door for even more tax avoidance and abuse. If you're going to say that, then why not simply do away with the income tax entirely, and slash government spending accordingly?

Not all employees will want massages anyway (but of course will happily take the raise

And not everybody will choose to eat in the cafeterias, but of course will happily take the raise, too. So why doesn't Google simplify *everybody's* life, and simply give everybody some extra money in their paycheck, and begin charging for these services? The employees benefit (those who want to use them don't have any net loss, while those who don't want to use them can use the money on things they value more), and Google benefits in not having to go through all the tortuous process of having to account for these things

It's not the IRS' job to make sure that Google gets to save a few bucks on offering services instead of additional pay because they're banking on the fact that some % of their employees won't take advantage of those services.

So what? Google's paying taxes to buy the food, they're paying payroll and FICA and other taxes for the employees working at the cafeteria, they're just making it more efficient by not giving a bunch of money to some third-party vendor to use as profit, by doing it in-house. They also give other valuable benefits that are untaxed, such as free parking. Why should free parking be exempt, and not free lunches? Why not free bus fare?

I don't get to claim a tax deduction when I buy food in the cafeteria at my work, yet my company still "pays taxes to buy the food, pays payroll and FICA and other taxes for the employees working at the cafeteria," so why, exactly, should Googlers be exempted from paying taxes on the money they buy food with? That's the essence of what we're talking about here, and it's a question that NOBODY has answered in any way other than "but I like Google!"

As for bus fare - the IRS allows for numerous transportation benefit exemptions, including bus / mass transit fares, parking, bike commuting, and ride-sharing. These programs are ALSO generally exempted up to the $240 dollar per month amount. In cities where parking is expensive, it's quite common for employers to offer mass transit benefits - bus, subway, commuter rail, ferry, etc. (An "Unlimited 30-day" MTA card in NY will run you about $115 a month, well under the $240 per month limit. I'm sure there are still companies that offer parking stipends as well, even in New York - many of them probably cap the benefit at $240, to keep the benefit non-taxable, so the employee has a choice: keep driving & parking (and pay the difference between stipend & fees out of pocket), or take the subway. There are plenty of tax-exempt fringe benefits your company can offer instead of / in addition to a parking program. In most areas that are not smack in the middle of the business district of the closest city, on-site parking is the fringe that makes the most sense, but it's not the only one the IRS allows.

When the meals are provided every day, all day, for free, using expensive ingredients, and for the purposes of retention, goodwill, morale, and attracting new hires (the food is featured prominently in lots of their recruiting materials), it is not exempt, and is considered compensation, and thus taxable. Again, this doesn't seem unreasonable - everybody MUST eat, and their other alternatives would be brown-bagging it, or spending money on restaurants in the area. They don't have to spend on either of those, and instead can eat on site free of charge. Since this has the net effect of putting more money in the pockets of employees, Google has provided them with a significant (4000-5000 could easily be an effective 4-5% raise) additional source of income.

And this is precisely the point of my whole argument: the tax code needs to be simplified.

s/simplified/modified to provide specific benefits to Google, because they're cool and stuff./g.

THAT is the essence of your whole argument. People everywhere are expected to pay taxes on income, with a fairly narrow set of exceptions for perks that are exempted. $4000-5000 / yr worth of meals and free food qualifies as income no matter how you want to slice it - it'd easily cover yearly groceries for a typical person who isn't pinching pennies when they buy food - averages published by the USDA suggest the average grocery bill is topping out around $360 per month for a single person.

The IRS has created specific exemptions for fringe benefits that don't include this type of meal program - it sucks for Google if that somehow makes them spend more money to administer the program differently, but bear in mind that "it's cheaper for Google to do it this way," really is an argument that says "Google shouldn't be expected to pay the same taxes everybody else has to, they should be allowed to ignore the law if they like." Whether or not the law *should* be simplified, it is NOT simplified today - and so Google should be in compliance with it while they use some of their considerable lobbying power to buy new laws -- that Google "doesn't like the law as it stands today" is not sufficient grounds for them to ignore it.

Wrong again. It's not a product, but it is a service. Services have value, and can be taxed.

It is specifically exempted as a fringe benefit, up to a certain amount ($240 per month, in 2012, I believe), and it MUST meet the "qualified parking" definition. The value of the parking at Google is far below $240/month per employee - by comparison, the average price of parking in lower Manhattan is around $400-450 per month.

If a company wants to give out free weekly massages to employees to help them work better, or free lunches, or whatever, it shouldn't have to account for this exhaustively to the IRS.

So... give your employees a pay raise that will cover the value of a weekly massage, and then offer them the option of getting the massage, or not - there's no micromanaging required. If they want to keep providing meals, then they have to set a fair market value once per year for that benefit, and withhold taxes accordingly. It doesn't require micromanagement, either - it simply requires them to declare it and set FMV.

The issue here is that Google is giving employees a valuable benefit that employees are not paying taxes on; Google is also almost certainly charging the costs of this program as an operating expense (thereby reducing their declared profits, thus reducing their own tax obligations) - and they are doing so in a way that appears as if it violates tax laws. If the gov't doesn't care to simplify the tax code, it's Google's (and its employees') obligation to come into compliance.

Irrelevant.

no, quite relevant. We are talking about taxable compensation. Google isn't "giving you" the property they own that constitutes a parking space. They are allowing you to park your vehicle on their property as long as you're an employee. The service has monetary value, but it is not compensation for your work any more than "providing electricity to power your computer" is compensation for your work. It is a precondition of you being able to work, and it is provided for work purposes by your employer.

There's tons of tech companies where sodas and other drinks are available for free.

And these often can be exempted under the "de minimis" fringe benefit exceptions. You should review the EMPLOYEE's tax guide to fringe benefits: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf

They explain pretty clearly what conditions allow you to exclude meals and other fringe benefits from your taxable income.

I'm pretty sure the restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the employees of restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the suppliers of restaurants I go to pay taxes, too. Yet I'm not allowed to take a tax deduction for the value of all meals I eat at restaurants.

Yet, Google employees do get to do this, for the meals they eat at work. Stop knee-jerking over the fact that "Google" is named in this article, and engage your brain. This is an employer-provided benefit - why shouldn't it be treated as income? If I get a stock grant, that's a taxable event. If I get a corporate car for personal use, that's a taxable event. Why would meals provided by your employer exist in some sort of tax-exempt zone wrt income taxes?

"dinged for taxes on an extra $4000-5000 per year." Not "pay an extra $4000 to $5000 per year in taxes."

If they are given $4-5k in food by their employer over the course of a year, the argument is that this is a form of income, and thus they should be paying taxes on the value of that food.

Kind of a reasonable argument, actually. If "things" aren't taxable income, then can CEO's request to be paid in cars, jets, and yachts, and avoid all income taxes?

Computer and office furniture are already taxed when Google purchases them for business use - they are owned by Google, used by the employee in the course of business.

If Google instituted a policy where Googlers *owned* their Google-purchased computer & office furniture, and were able to take that stuff with them when they left, then you bet your ass that would be a taxable event that the IRS could expect you to declare as income.

Restaurants by from suppliers, and in bulk, and pay a lot less than $7/lb for quality beef, too.

So, when's the last time you had a "grass fed, organic, locally sourced, artisanal, gourmet" meal at a restaurant that *didn't* cost more than $10? And where was it, because I will certainly bring my hard-earned dollars to that restaurant.

And what will it do to people on those small boats, or if fired at a manned aerial vehicle?

The people on those small boats will probably either burn to death or drown, or maybe burn to death while drowning. Much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their engine room to disable or sink them, setting their boat on fire and sinking it.

The people in manned aerial vehicles will probably either burn to death, or die from the impact when their aircraft crashes, or burn to death while crashing - again, much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their aircraft to disable it.

I'd guess that both scenarios are probably *more* survivable than their conventional counterparts: losing control of your aircraft because a laser has burned through part of your wing and destroyed important hydraulic controls gives you time to eject. Getting hit with a Sidewinder, probably not so much time to eject. Having a hole burned in the hull of your boat might give you time to jump overboard in a lifeboat. Having the same hole put there by a ship to ship missile? Probably not so much time to jump in a lifeboat.

As far as unintended consequences go, I think the whole "killed while burning up, crashing, or sinking" is a "functions as designed" scenario. Worrying about whether enemy soldiers are killed by the weapon seems to run a little counter to its intended use as a weapon during wartime.