"Internet of things" is basically a polite euphemism for "Consumer electronics SCADA". How could anyone even entertain the theory that it might go well?

On the plus side, even if we accept the assertion that the disorder is nonsense (which is questionable; but for the sake of argument); the usual treatment has the virtue of being sufficiently useful, safe, and even pleasant that plenty of people who don't even suspect ADHD will try to score some through alternate channels or complain until they get a prescription.

The risks aren't zero, and there are certain people who should stay away; but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.

Not all confessions are true; but the incentive to lie about having done good is obvious, while the incentive to lie about having done bad is less clear.

On the other hand, if somebody confesses to such a heinous crime it's probably worth at least giving their sincerity the benefit of the doubt...

This isn't like people fighting over a patent or the glory associated with some scientific discovery. This is a guy voluntarily admitting that he's guilty of a sin for which there will not, must not, and can not, be any forgiveness.

What surprises me is that the insurance people involved in these projects don't play hardass more effectively. The structure is going to have some trouble being built and leased/rented/sold if nobody is willing to cover it; and no insurance outfit would want some zesty wrongful death claims showing up because somebody is too cool for fluid mechanics.

In the case of the 'death-ray' building they don't even have that excuse. The one in the UK was put up by the same architect who had already learned (by experience, not with 'math') that "Build a 50ish-story parabolic reflector in Las Vegas" might not be the best plan.

We have flying cars. They care called 'helicopters'. Widely used, widely available, you probably don't own and/or can't afford one.

As with so much of a certain genre of science fiction, the 'flying car' is more a fiction about how 'the future' would exist as though post WWII advances in the American middle class were going to continue following their upward trajectory all the way to personal flying cars 4 hour workdays.

Instead, availability of things (like basically anything based on transistors) that have become radically cheaper is broader than most would have imagined (Dear ENIAC design team, how probable do you think it is that people who lack clean water or adequate food will be using vastly more powerful computers to send text messages to one another in less than a century?); but 'science fiction' that requires simply owning a big enough slice of the pie to implement with today's, or yesterday's, technology? Probably more distant now than it was then.

If something is an end user product, it appears to be sad but inevitable that nobody RTFM anyway, so you are probably better off doing everything you can to make it actually work when prodded by the clueless. Try to make sure that it's all point-and-drool simple(if it is possible to back yourself into a 'mysteriously doesn't work, provides meaningless or nonexistent clues as to why' corner; an elegant way to roll back is nice).

If the idea is that the product will be set up and administered by the customer's IT minions(internal, contract, or purchased 'as a service'), then Please, Please, Please document. IT minions are largely innured to the suffering of merely bad, hostile, and unintuitive software; but they are the most likely to need to know how things fit together, where they may need to bodge some shim together and keep an extra close eye on things, and so on. They won't like it; but they'll like it a whole lot more than an equivalent product where they need to deploy a mixture of reverse-engineering and pure mysticism because the system is a total black box.

If it became necessary, throttle them; but without regard for what sort of traffic makes them bandwidth hogs. My problem is not that networks don't have infinite capacity to deal with high demand situations; but that the various throttling measures put into effect seem to be focused against certain types of traffic and/or subscriber types that the operator dislikes, rather than being based on volume.alone. You can't avoid volume based throttling unless you pay enough for a guaranteed non-oversubscribed line; but if there is a crunch doing your throttling based on what sorts of traffic you like least, or what customers you like least, seems like a bad road to go down.

I realize that bittorrent is presumptively the protocol used entirely by piratopedophile terrorists and all; but what kind of bullshit excuse do they offer for treating one data-heavy use differently from another? Is this purely about making those pesky unlimited customers use less data by crippling their service in various ways, or is their network riddled with devices that can't handle the volume of connections a decently active bittorrent transfer tends to create, like some mid-90s router?

I have a kinetically fragile head, so I'd prefer to buy a protective helmet without particular regard for price.

I'm definitely in favor of more solidly adequate drives at attractive prices; but a quick look through newegg (without any effort at comparison shopping or grubbing for special offers) shows a fair selection at and under the $0.5/GB mark. The MX100 has a particularly good reputation for that price; but prices in that range haven't been a 'barrier' for some time.

I only switched to carrying sacks of bills across the border in the dead of night because dealing with those assholes at HSBC when I needed money laundered was too much trouble. I'll be seriously upset if enhanced security means I have to re-open my account with them. They wouldn't even upgrade me to Narcoterrorist Platinum Checking unless I provided proof of having ordered at least 50 grisly killings personally, or qualified for MegaMule Rewards by transporting more than a metric ton of high quality cocaine per quarter...

'Terrorists' quickly discover that a few milligrams of clonazepam right before the big martyrdom operation is way less haram than getting shitfaced and at least as effective at masking anxiety. In other news, state security services are stretched thin in their new battle against 'cosmetics', a class of nefarious concealment powders and pigments specifically designed to mask the user's true facial state. On a happier note, authorities report that perps with anxiety disorders are much easier to interrogate than the other kind and credit a 58% increase in the number and detail of mostly-voluntary confessions to a new focus on these low resistance criminals...

It could be better formatted; but our wiki overlords have you covered.