North Dakota and Texas, primarily, due to the shale oil and oil-to-gasoline-refinery booms, respectively, a lot of jobs that don't seem like they'd pay $150k are paying tons of money due to the laws of supply and demand in order to entice people to move there.

I actually know a guy that sells fairly expensive cars down in Texas and he says it would blow my mind how often people come in, missing teeth, looking really fucked up and generally like they can't afford a $100,000+ automobile and plop down cash on the barrelhead for their new M5. Where do they work? Oil refinery. Oil field. Oil drilling. Oil services...

"That word... I don't think it means what you think it means..."

Carriers have been "ready" for years--nothing whatsoever is stopping Comcast, AT&T and everybody else from flipping 100% of their users to IPv6 tomorrow, in fact. ...But there's no content to access via IPv6... So what's the rush?

The odds of us ever actually "transitioning" to IPv6 are somewhere between slim and none for the foreseeable future. The most likely way it will work out is mobile applications (where it doesn't matter what you're using because it's a mobile phone that mates only to the provider's network) will be mostly IPv6 before too long, if they aren't already. Some consumer ISPs may move customers to IPv6, but that will be somewhat delayed by the incredibly slow pace that content providers are switching to IPv6--that is to say, as Akamai has illustrated for us here by getting themselves a /10 (FUCK ME, that's a shitload of IPs for a company that already controls multiple other swaths of space this big) the content providers just aren't bothering to move to IPv6.

And yeah, the ISPs can choose maintain a bridge between the universes, but the more traffic you pour through that bridge the more resources it requires to operate... Eventually, if the ISP can't force the issue it stops making sense to transition any more users to IPv6 until more content providers get on-board.

I fully anticipate retiring in another 25 years or so and still having IPv4 be the vast majority of IP networks in operation because in the end, even if your ISP switches, what's the point of changing your internal network over? Any company of decent size will have a security team that says "No fucking way will outsiders directly connect to your IPv6 address" and block it with some kind of firewall/NAT arrangement which almost instantly negates the biggest "advantage" of IPv6. And once that "advantage" is off the table there is zero business reason to incur the expense involved in such a change-over.

DON'T BE A DICK ON THE HIGHWAY! Drive conservatively, dress conservatively, and be completely (able to pass a blood test) sober.

Most importantly: Don't draw attention to yourself.

Apples to zebras, my friend: VISA and MasterCard process transactions in hundreds of currencies. Even if one of those currencies (or even ten) were to simply become worthless it wouldn't really do any damage to them: They'd just figure out how to process Visa card transactions in the currency that replaced whatever disappeared.

Bitcoin processors are basically fucked. Maybe they can repurpose some of their uber-expensive GPU rigs to mine other currencies, too.... But maybe not.

I think it would be hysterical if, in three years, eBay had 10,000 auctions running for these overpriced "GPU in a box" rigs that were selling like hotcakes last year before the late-adopters figured out BitCoin wasn't really a workable currency.

Its value will plunge precipitously. There simply isn't enough money "processing transactions" for other people for a reasonable "business" to be run doing so, and that is all that would be left for "miners" once all the bitcoins are found. So "processors" will start disappearing almost immediately. This will in turn drastically reduce the ability to spend your bitcoins which will in turn demolish their "value."

All of that is to say "Dump them now, avoid the rush, maybe get some of your money back."

Perhaps, but most of these devices have a separate category for that (so you can run a report and quantify just how much "more secure" you are than if you'd stayed with your old product.)

Uh, no.

It isn't "fascism" to say your unvaccinated-child may not infect my too-young-to-be-vaccinated child with a preventable disease and risk his life/kill him. In general, your "freedom" to choose an activity end at the point that you're harming another person.

We have a problem, but it is only partly the "messaging." The other part is the "population that can barely read at an aggregate 4th grade level" problem. Specifically, we live in a nation of morons that squeaks through high school with a minimal amount of required "hard-science" and can even get university degrees that require minimal or zero science education (Bachelor of Arts, anyone?) and can then consider themselves "educated" besides knowing neither jack nor shit beyond 12th grade science, and only having a passing familiarity with even that basic level of material.

Certainly if every newscaster mentioned, every time they mentioned flu vaccinations, that it was a vaccination for specific flus and that you can still get other flus, that might help. But if Americans weren't so fucking blidningly stupid when it comes to science, more of us would be able to imply such information by using our noodles.

Religious and personal beliefs are a crock in this situation. Specifically, your right to believe that vaccinations are a direct ejaculation from Satan's loins is one thing, but when your unvaccinated child goes to a park and spreads the disease to younger children, too young to be vaccinated, that's the point where their religious beliefs become irrelevant.

You have the right to believe anything you want--what you don't have the right to do is risk other peoples' lives for your beliefs.

Best. Throwaway. Shot. At. The. French. Ever.

Thanks!

Why not translate it into a useful language, like Klingon?

People might "get over" in broad strokes the concept of stationary security cameras, but I have a hard time believing we'll ever be "A-Okay" with roving glassholes filming everything, everywhere, including them. Consider: Still cameras have existed for 150+ years and to-this-day we have violent physical confrontations involving people who don't want to be photographed by creepy strangers on the street. I have a hard time believing a technology to make such rude and invasive behavior "normal" is going to work. Probably the early adopters will just keep getting beaten up until the fad ends and the next "revolutionary useless technology" comes along.

Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

Your question is nonsensical: Those people would likely be even more furious if they knew your clothes were covered in pinhole spy cameras.

The problem is people don't like having creepy strangers record them in public, regardless of whether they have the "right" to do so or not. The issue is the human discomfort and you might get to a point where people won't just kick your ass for looking at them while wearing Google Glass (or similar invasive, idiotic, and useless products) but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. Nor will you ever get them comfortable with the perception that they're being recorded.

I wonder what the over/under on somebody hacking Google Glass to disable the "recording" light is--assuming such a hack doesn't exist already in the wild and we just haven't heard about it.

The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.

I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud. The project this person agreed to appear in bore zero resemblance to this one, and while it is true--she definitely has no right to control the work product she agreed to appear in, she has every right to sue over this other work that essentially puts her in the crosshairs of terrorists--totally without permission.