What this means to me is that on a certain corner in downtown Sacramento there is a Street View photo of me on my motorcycle showing my license plate but obfuscating the engine block embarrassing both Google engineers at the weakness of the despicable AI they use to hide identifiable features. If I had known that that damned car with the cameras mounted on top would be on the street at the exact same time I would be at that intersection, I would have waited a couple minutes. Fortunately, I obfuscated my own face by wearing a full-face helmet.

Think of it. Here is this scare resource, IPv4 addresses, and no more are going to be allocated in North America. I see great potential in profit, online exchanges opening up allowing the trading of IP addresses, etc. etc. To quote the Ferengi, my lobes are tingling.

Why is there an assumption that we (or I) will retire? I like working too much to ever retire. It will only happen if my body and/or mind keep me from working. And all that requires is one good eye (no glasses because I'm near-sighted), two semi-functional hands (or decent speech recognition software), some way to manipulate a pointing device, and a way to get to the work place.

And even if I quit working, I will never quit "working". There will always be something I will do. I will probably continue to write, filling composition books with scribbles from my fountain pen that no one will ever read. And I am a life-long learner. I may never go back to school again, I will never stop reading history or biography or memoirs or something else that fascinates me.

I've had the Swiss army knife of knives for more than 25 years ago. It is, not all that surprisingly, a Swiss Army Knife that my sister bought in Switzerland and gave me for Xmas one year long ago. I still carry it with me everywhere and used it a few days ago when I was replacing some knobs on bathroom drawers at my parents' house.

The development of anti-drone weapons is the next step. Small radar-guided missiles the size of a bottle rocket used to destroy "enemy" drones. Or "fighter" drones armed with heat-seeking missiles. It could add a new dimension to the phrase "too close for missiles, switching to guns".

Of course, as someone has already pointed out, legalizing pot is the best solution. Then the pot growers and the thieves can kill each other off.

Oh, what sort of trouble? Court action? Are you going to spend huge amounts of money to fight the IRS seizing your assets for failure to pay the tax for not having the coverage when you had the opportunity to have it? Are you going to risk a prison sentence for tax evasion? Are you going to risk having liens placed on assets, have your house sold from underneath you, all because you have this weird notion that you don't need to have health insurance coverage? If so, you are a fool.

Sure, the government cannot MAKE you do anything. You have free will and while the law can compel you to do something, you can simply refuse to comply. But if you do so, there are consequences. In this case, it's 1% of your gross income or $95 whichever is more. You can refuse to pay the penalty but if you don't, the government will come and take it eventually... and if you refuse to do it often enough, they may eventually come after your physical body as well.

Frankly, if you qualify for health insurance coverage, especially for subsidized coverage, and you can afford it and you come down with some horrid disease like cancer, you will get no sympathy from me and thoroughly deserve to be driven into bankruptcy because of your foolishness. Let's face it, healthy people can get very sick, get hurt in accidents, etc. etc.

Kathleen Sebelius just announced her resignation. It's likely tied to the HealthCare.gov debacle although she is merely a scapegoat. Perhaps it also has to do with the supposedly funny numbers.

I'll start to worry about the German Wikipedia when a swastika appears on the main page and the those who threaten to curbstone other editors resort to more Gestapo tactics. Then we'll know that they have fully returned to their old ways. Until then, I won't lose any sleep.

Only in the UK. ;-)

As with all artistic judgments, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same applies to the sound of a Strad vs. a fine modern violin, or even another 17th or 18th century violin. I am not a violinist or not even that much of a musician but I know a good sounding violin when I hear it. The finest sounding one in my opinion is not a Strad, it's "David", the Guarneri that Jasha Heifetz owned and preferred. The rest of you may disagree.

Exactly, mostly. All instruments need tuned prior to playing because chances in temperature and/or humidity change their physical characteristics. But I suspect that someone who has been loaned a Strad can change the strings. Strings wear out and occasionally will break while playing or tuning. I suspect the loan terms dictate the kind of strings that can be installed.

Translation: I fear Greeks bearing gifts.

A reference to the Trojan horse.

A good dose of the Cosmos mini-series, both old and new, may be in order. Countless people of my generation were enlightened and educated by the first series. I would love to lock both houses of Congress in the House chambers, lock the door, and make them watch both series. Many scientific ignoramuses there may be enlightened, especially when they learn just how much good science has been government funded. But then there will be the religious fundamentalists who are thump their bibles and declare it all to be blasphemy. Those who are enlightened should be congratulated; those who cling to their religion despite the facts before them need to be put into a nuclear fusion torus and vaporized. That'll give them a bit of religion!

Wrong. It was overturned because Prop. 8 was clearly unconstitutional. Study civil rights law as I have and you'll understand. These are the facts: Marriage may be considered by some people as a holy thing but as far as the government is concerned, it's nothing more than a civil contract. When the government prohibits certain persons from entering into such a contract simply because of their sexual orientation or gender without there being a rational reason for that prohibition, it's unconstitutional because it's then considered to be arbitrary. There is no good reason for that prohibition that makes any sense. The excuses used by religious conservatives in the past have been shown to be crap. Gay marriage is almost a fait accompli in the U.S. and there is very little anyone can do about it.

Incidentally, recent polls show that California voters would not pass an initiative like Prop. 8 today and that a majority support gay marriage.