Fewer mistakes do not lead to fewer fraud cases. Fraudsters know they are cheating. They're not making 'mistakes.'

I'm not indisposed to simplifying the tax code, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this would somehow 'simplify' the ever-inventive schemes of tax fraudsters.

Presumably, it just gets dumped out of the rocket somewhere.

Fixed the subject for you. About 90% of the methane from cows comes from their belches. The rest comes from the other end, in the form of farts or outgassing feces.

Actually, cow belches account for most (~90%) of the methane produced by cows. The remainder comes from the other end, either as farts or as outgasses from feces.

It's the Linux-haters who are being modded down in this thread.

You want 3? Here are ten. And there are more.

AC got modded down, but is right. The word 'near' is an adjective in this context. It was a miss. What kind? A near miss.

Education is already tax-subsidized. There's no way most of us could afford it if it weren't.

Live remote viewing implies broadcasting, and that raises the question of the intended audience, and of the expected fate of the rifle-operator.

To me, the situations that would "require" live viewing instead of a static file after the fact are one or more of the following:

1. The audience has a real-time tactical interest in the video.
2. The rifle-operator may not be able to provide a static file later (i.e., may be captured or killed.)
3. The rifle-operators or their organization wish to send a real-time message, whose impact would be reduced if it were displayed after the fact.

The only groups I can associate with the above situations are the military (1,2) and terrorists (2,3) with obvious differences in their respective objectives and rules of engagement. One can imagine many benign consumer-oriented situations that might use this technology, but none of them really require live-streaming.

No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.

Fair enough, although live-streaming isn't crucial for those applications.

It's the live-streaming that gives me pause. Real-time remote viewing might be useful for the military, but in consumer hands it seems like sick voyeurism.

It's worse: the rifle live-streams to the internet. So, even if the attackers don't survive (though they likely will if they're a mile away) their deeds are broadcast already to the world.

That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor.

Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

And yet you seem more eloquent than many posters on slashdot.

I respectfully disagree. Tablets, for example, are an attractive and practical alternative to paper. My point is that they will never kill paper -- in fact, nothing will.

I was hoping some other examples besides paper would be mentioned in this thread. Anyone?