What about the rest of the country? This is benefiting one group of people in a particular city and screwing the rest of the United States.

Horrible suggestion.

1) Totally true, but not instant.

2) Bull. Not teleportation. Anymore than magnetism is antigravity.

3) Not instant, but otherwise true.

4) A little bit true.

5) Not likely

6) already building houses out of it. But won't - too expensive

7) Totally true. Space applications are great.

8) printing food is a silly idea.

9) Replicators are hundreds, if not thousands years in the future. This is not the beginning, anymore than the printing press was the begining of the internet.

Yeah, no, it don't work that way. Price elasticity is not inifinate. As in, people are not willing to pay anything for broadband service.

What happens is this:

1) To pay for this, they raise their price by x%.

2) A small percent of people choose to get lesser service (i.e. slower broadband) as a result in the

3) They end up splitting the cost to pay for the broadband among their customers and their own profits.

Yes, we will end up paying slightly more, but their profits will also go down.

If they had a warrant, then it is perfectly good police tactics.

If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.

They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.

Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.

That's ok. They just have to wait until the inevitable account-compromising security flaw is discovered and THEN rightfully ban them from the store for potentially exposing their customer's entire bank accounts to theft...

Very funny. You just proved the Dunning Kruger effect is true. (The effect simply states that the less you know, the more sure you are.)

Will they hand me a charging cable if my phone is dead?

I can see how the phone is convenient, especially if you are already wandering the the aisles of the store with phone in hand, texting away, but people's phones die all of the time. Hell, maybe the reason you are making that purchase is because your phone is dead and so you are trying to pay for a taxi instead of calling your husband to pick you up?

Doesn't seem like a battery powered device is going to be a suitable 100% replacement for a card anytime soon.

That sounds like service from a cable company.

If she has Comcast in here area perhaps she can qualify for Internet Essentials? $10 per month broadband service to low income families.

If not what about DSL?

They can do that - but not if they say UNLIMITED.

The word unlimited means NO LIMITS. None. Zero. Nada. Without any restraints.

You can't advertise something as 'no peanuts' and then put peanuts in it. Similarly, you can't advertise something, or worse, put sell a contract for unlimited and then put limits on it.

The basic problem is false advertising here. The providers wanted the right to lie.

That is against the law. They deserve to be punished, and punished severely.

A contractual obligation to pay $1,000 would be about as close to a real 100% permanent guarantee as I can conceive.

Of course, we really should throw in an "adjusted for inflation"

Yeah, sorry, Bennett, but there's no way that someone can be bound to a promise when they're not getting anything in exchange. Contracts require consideration or an exchange of obligations... If Ello isn't getting anything in return - subscription fees, payments, etc. - then how can they be legally required to fulfill a promise? And if the users aren't giving up anything, what are our damages when they breach that promise? Our hurt feels? Our increased skepticism and distrust for organizations in the future?

Now, the one thing you note is that Ello could charge extra for special features... Privacy obligations could be tied into those features, where they have a penalty if they breach. But in a system in which users pay specially so that they remain anonymous, isn't it implied that non-paying users have their demographic information sold? In which case, isn't Ello doing exactly what Ello said they wouldn't?

Basically, all of this navel-gazing is stupid. If you want to avoid ads, don't use free services that have ads. Or, if you're going to use free services, accept that the service provider has to make back their costs somewhere, and your eyeballs are a valuable asset.

I am not talking justify, I am discussing what crime was committed. Intent is a major part of crime, particularly when done by a government agency.

If it's done for personal gain, it's always a crime, but that is not always the case for other kinds of intents. A prime example: f a cop kills a man because he hated him it's a lot different than when a cop kills a man because he was kidnapping a little boy.

Even when a random person kill someone by accident, is a different and lesser crime than killing someone on purpose.

Honestly, I think that Nixon's stuff is worse. Spying on a journalist is bad - but not personal.

In addition, Nixon's crimes were both for his personal gain and hit democracy at it's heart - elections. Those make it incredibly evil crime.

The CBS reporter's incident, assuming it is entirely true, does not have these issues. There is no evidence that it was for any one's personal game, nor was it an attempt to circumnavigate political system.

As such, Nixon's crimes are far worse.

You prove my point well. Asbestos was not something we made, it was something we found. As such, it's dangerousness provides a low bar for GMO to beat.

I am not saying that GMO stuff will be totally harmless. But it isn't any worse than non-GMO stuff, like asbestos.

As such, it does not need to be outlawed, just reasonably regulated (and that does not mean labels that will encourage fear).

The basic of this theory are rather flawed.

Living things have had millions of years to engage in a evolutionary massive arms race. Defense has kept up with offense. Evolution is all about using random processes. Evolution has already given us the full set of defenses we need to change from 'random' or 'unintentional' attacks based on genetics. That's why we have immune systems with white blood cells, variant blood types, skin, mucus, fevers, blood-brain barriers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The basic belief that human caused mutations will randomly create something dangerous demonstrates tremendous ignorance of evolution. It's like they believe in creationism.

I am not saying we can't get around these defenses. We can. But not by accident. The only truly harmful species will have to be intentionally designed by humans that go out of their way to make a dangerous life form, i.e. a plague genetically engineered to kill people.

But for every single 1 intentionally designed genetic species, there are (and will always be) millions of random mutations from cosmic rays, sunlight, etc. As the humans are not trying to make the gene engineered species dangerous, the chance of it happening are FAR more likely in the natural mutations than in the genetically created mutations.

Throw in the extensive testing that humans do to their genetically engineered species (that does not occur in the wild mutations), and you get a guarantee that for every single human engineered life that gets a dangerous trait by random chance, there will be 10 (or more) randomly evolved life forms with mutations we call dangerous.

Now, we might get things that inconvenience us - food that tastes bad or turns a funky color, etc. etc. Even something like a slightly greater cancer risk is just an inconvenience, not a real problem. We already risk that with non-gene engineered stuff. Basically, I am saying that a genetically engineered sugar substitute will be no more risky than Saccharine - which is still legal.