Luls. I wish I had some mod points for this.

I do agree with the OP, though: I have no problem with google glass in the abstract, in fact I think it's pretty neat. I have no desire to wear dorky-looking, heavy glasses on my face, though, no matter how much I can do with them. Give me google contact lenses like in crazy spy movies, then maybe I'll think about it.

Actually, it is probably literally true: all the tens of millions of people killed by Hitler and Stalin weren't killed by the books written by those dictators, they were killed by the dictators directly, or by their policies. If you only include deaths due to people directly influenced by those two books, but not deaths directly or indirectly *ordered* by those dictators, you have a much smaller number. Whereas if you go by the literal bible, the number of deaths Yahweh Himself directly ordered to occur, is not zero, but it's not that big, either.

that directly benefit them, they should pay me for it.

Which is not to say I don't run computers at home. Of course I do. I have a small server to do various things on that require running a small server. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with work. It couldn't be - work is an all-Microsoft shop, and my server runs Linux (though my personal, non-server machines are all Windows.)

Wait, seriously?! I had an unofficial Youtube app for a while, and the one I had, when Roku disabled it, it stopped working. :(

I hate you.

Yeah, except it's a huge pain, and always freaking breaks. Also, that is still technically a third-party service which requires an app (though not a PC or Mac app, and it was free. Though I thought PlayOn had a free version too?)

Anyway, this is great news.

My favorite is not actually an edit war, but a close/reopen war. The article about The Game has seriously been closed and then unclosed about a dozen times, it was hilarious watching it. (Also I just lost the game.)

"3. Dawkins completely misses the role religion plays in humans affairs when there is a crisis. This is my most serious objection to his stridency. Try telling a simple family the reason their child is dying of cancer is due to possibly random DNA copying errors in a meaningless universe."

And that's better than telling the family that God loves everyone, and that's why He decided for inscrutable reasons to give an innocent kid a horribly painful and eventually fatal affliction, how?

Reminds me of a great quote I saw somewhere a while ago (possibly actually here). I wouldn't have done it, but I still think it's a hilarious and not completely awful thing to do:

"One time, I found a cell phone in a dorm lounge. I was there watching my show and was planning to leave the phone in place in case the owner came looking for it. The phone began to ring incessantly, and eventually I answered in case the owner was calling to search for the phone.
Before I could say more than, "Hello", the owner started chewing me out as a despicable cell phone thief.
I didn't appreciate this sort of mistreatment. What to do? Well, I am not a thief, so naturally I decided to do the right thing.
I took the phone and dropped it down the nearby elevator shaft, then resumed watching my show. "

The Consumerist covered this a couple days ago. It pointed out that they were clear about the fact that they didn't make it a bra because of any feeling that girls need this and guys don't. They made it a bra because they were playing around with unusual smart devices, and the measurements they needed for this particular device required placing a sensor in a location that would require placing it in a bra.

(And anyway, this was literally just something some guys made because they were playing around with unusual smart devices to test their ability to make some unusual smart devices; nothing Microsoft was even considering making a real product.)

Oh yeah, totally. IF, and this is a big if:
* advertising were always clearly labeled as advertising
* advertising were off to the side rather than being interstitial or overlapping with content
* advertising didn't play music, jump around wildly, flash, grab your focus, attempt to create new windows, or do anything else distracting you from what you were trying to do
* advertising didn't try to download megs of data and refuse to fully render the page until it was done
* advertising never showed images that were NSFW (either because they were disgusting pictures of morbidly obese people, or because they were giant pictures of half-exposed breasts, and I have seen both of those exact ads on sites that had no business displaying either of those things)
* advertising actually announced what it was advertising, and in a way not clearly anticipating that I have the brain of a 4 year old
* advertising was actually relevant to my interests

IF all of those things were true, then I would totally be willing to turn internet ads back on, and might actually even click on them occasionally.

Unlikely, though.

I occasionally see advertisements in real life, like on billboards and stuff, for tv shows or movies that look interesting, and as a result go home and google them. Then if the reviews are good, I might end up watching them (of course in the tv case, nobody is getting any money as a result of that decision anyway, but that's not my problem.)

Every once in a blue moon I might click on an ad for a web comic on a site where I specifically un-adblocked their ads because I want them to get money and they don't put awful spammy in-your-face ads up. But that's quite rare.

I certainly never go out and buy soda or clothes or cars or whatever the crap gets advertised by traditional advertising, though. But then, I never buy most of that crap regardless, either.

I do agree with you completely, though - kids are the obvious demographic to advertise to. They're the most likely to DESPERATELY NEED random crap they totally don't actually need, plus it's not *their* money that would be spent. MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY BUY ME THIS THING I SAW ON TV IT LOOKS AWESOME was certainly heard enough by my parents between the age of 5 and 12.

Perhaps you haven't taken an algorithms class, or you've forgotten it, but go look up NP-Complete problems (you've probably heard of them). I'm not an expert, and also lazy, so I have no idea whether these problems are NP-Complete or not, and I'm sure there are other similar classes of problems that aren't NP-Complete, too. Anyway, the idea is, there are large numbers of computational problems that are astronomically difficult to find solutions to an instance of, but given a potential solution to an instance, it's easy to determine whether the solution is valid. Presumably the problems modeled by these games are among such. You make a move, it checks whether it's a winning one. It doesn't have to check *every* move, only the one you just made.

I do - take a hint from movie and music studios. Release your movies or music with all kinds of restrictive licenses, then surreptitiously hand them over to some other guy without your name on it to release it to the internet. When asked, say you got hacked and had nothing to do with it. Plausible deniability for everyone!

"And if you've got medical problems or any chance of getting pregnant"... so basically what you're saying is, you only hire guys (or women over 40)? That *seriously* doesn't sound legal.

Yes, it is. Specifically, it's $109 more than it's worth.