I certainly can't blame anyone for trying to inflate numbers by utilizing a loophole left by Google or YouTube; I would probably do the same thing if it meant making more money.

Ever heard of "ethics"? People with your attitude do not make the world a better place. If you found a wallet with money someone lost, I guess you'd keep it since it would mean more money for you.

Instead of using the electrode to destroy the nucleus accumbens, what would happen if instead they stimulated it? Could that provide neural impulses similar to those the drug produces, eliminating the craving? Or is some other deeper stimulation possible to achieve this?

What would the ethics be if a person could be brain-stimulated to be in a state of euphoria on demand, or even continuous euphoria, without the physical addiction or woozy systemic effects of drugs? Suppose it didn't interfere with productivity (or even increased it)?

Re: Flash crashes These only effect people who ARE algorithmic trading. The prices bounce back to their real market valuation again and again...

Unless you happen to have an open stop-loss order. Then you can be badly burned, as I have been personally.

In another flash crash, I made a lot of money due to a very low open bid, but then the SEC decided to nullify all trades during that particular flash crash. You can't win.

This is still inconvenient, because the unsubscribe link requires you to enter your email address. This requires a redundant step by the user (who may make a typo).

I have several email addresses forwarded to one place, and when an email says it was sent to "undisclosed recipients" I have no idea which one I need to unsubscribe without a tedious analysis of the header. I don't think an average user could do such a header analysis.

Finally, I'm just plain suspicious of any site asking me to type in my email address. If they already know it, why are they asking?

Although community colleges are often low-cost, it is hard to find one that gives more than a 2-year degree. One of the reasons is that private colleges, such as University of Phoenix, have lobbied against it, since it would hurt their profits.

Reference: University of Phoenix' plot to corner the cheap education market

When a heavy flow starts in one direction, the side directions are blocked indefinitely until the flow lightens

Implement an (enforced) every-other-car merge rule at each entry point. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Yes, it is outpatient, but it can cost $45,000 to replace the battery.

Please ignore my post above and mod it to oblivion.

After researching the claims in Kaufman's email, I'm now more confused than ever. I had assumed Kaufman would be on the side of the consumer, as he has in the past. Instead, unless I am reading it wrong, he is on the side of the auto dealers!

The already-agreed new law has a deadline of 2018 and seems to have a loophole that would allow the auto makers to weasel out of providing any meaningful information by not requiring it to be revealing if it involves a "trade secret".

Voting "Yes", which would override the new law, would set the deadline to 2015 and would not have this loophole, as far as I can tell.

Don't take me at my word but research it yourself. I am disappointed in Kaufman's misleading email and wonder if he is in cahoots with the auto dealer lobby.

(Sorry for all the caps, but voting is tomorrow, and there appears to be a serious issue here.)

I am far from expert on the proposal, and maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. But it seems there already is a law agreed upon in July, and the "Right to Repair" question is a TRICK QUESTION that replaces it with a WEAKER law, based on my interpretation of this email I got from Massachusetts Representative Jay R. Kaufman.

He is recommending that voters LEAVE THE QUESTION BLANK. My interpretation is that "Against" would defeat the existing law, "For" would replace it with a weaker law, and "Blank" would leave the existing stronger law intact.

Admittedly, after reading his rather vague email, I am very confused, and I wrote back for clarification. But here it is:

Question 1: Right to Repair

The so-called "Right to Repair" issue was thoroughly studied by a legislative committees as it made its way through the legislative process during this past session. The proponents and opponents of this issue eventually reached a compromise during the summer, and this compromise became law in July. Unfortunately, one side has now backed out of the agreement that was negotiated -- not exactly an act of good faith! The Boston Globe, in a recent editorial, encouraged voters to simply not vote on Question 1. If 30% or less vote on this measure, the Legislature's action stands. I encourage you to just leave Question 1 blank.

Let me propose a radical idea to discuss: abolish the income tax and replace it by a tax on net assets. I'm not proposing any particular rate structure, but let me describe the general ideas.

Income tax has too many loopholes for the wealthy. For example, the Facebook and Google CEOs pay themselves $1 per year, avoiding any income tax and paying only the low capital gains rate when they occasionally sell some stock to finance their lifestyles. The rest grows tax-free, indefinitely, as their companies grow.

It seems to me that a fair tax would be based on a person's ability to pay it. The ability to afford a tax is much more dependent on how much wealth you have than how much income you make. Taxing the income of someone who can barely make ends meet, preventing them from accumulating any savings, doesn't seem beneficial for society overall.

It is much harder for a wealthy person to hide their assets than to exploit income tax loopholes. Of course there will always be loopholes, but most of the information regarding the ultra rich, for example, is even public, otherwise it would not be possible to compile the Fortune 400 list.

The middle class is already subject to an asset (real estate) tax on what, for most, is their primary asset, their home. So it's nothing new, and although those who pay it don't enjoy doing so of course, it's accepted and viewed as a necessary evil to finance their local community. The real estate tax is actually very regressive â" the less equity you have in your home, the higher percentage of that equity you pay, since it is based on the home's value, not your equity in it. You pay it even if your equity is negative (i.e. if the mortgage is underwater)! If both real estate tax and income tax were replaced by a net asset tax, it would seem to me to be much fairer.

One argument I've seen against an asset tax is that it would encourage people not to accumulate wealth i.e. would encourage stagnation. I disagree. A positive benefit of the real estate tax, for example, is that it discourages the accumulation of property sitting idle, but encourages the development and use of that property. Similarly, I would imagine a net worth tax would encourage productive use of the money, possibly even finally leading to that trickle-down job creation we hear so much about.

And the 500000 stockholders who benefit from higher retirement income. And the 500000 consumers who benefit from lower prices.

It will be more like a handful of executives, already earning 500x the average worker's wage, giving themselves a raise. To whatever extent they can get away with, they will screw both retiree stockholders (less profits and dividends after they skim off of the top) and consumers (prices won't go any lower if the market will bear it).

Another IRV-type (I think) system I've been curious about is called "fractional voting". It seems relatively obscure and apparently is not described on Wikipedia. I hope to study it more eventually, although I'd prefer if someone more knowledgeable about voting systems could provide an opinion. Two links are: Fractional Voting for Presidential and Job Candidates and Arrow's paradox and the fractional voting system (PDF)

Why is this urgent? Answer: "The research is pressing because rapid [Arctic] warming is attracting more vessels, tourists and mining operators."

Gold chloride isn't exactly of "no value" - it is more expensive than the gold it contains (about $100 per gram of gold content). And bacteria aren't needed; from the wiki article it appears that simply temperature-cycling it betwen >160C and >420C a few times will remove the chlorine and leave pure gold. In short, the purpose of this project is artistic and/or political, possibly biologically interesting, but not necessarily of practical value.

Somewhere I read it originated on Fark, so that might be indicative of the demographic that uses it. The comment following "This." has a high probability of being a lazy, ill-informed, immature gut reaction, so to me "This." provides a signal that I should judge it with appropriate skepticism.