Can we, perhaps, not refer to the entire tech community as one thing? Let's have the tech community, and then have the community that makes parking space auctioning apps, social websites, and "break-through" instant messaging apps who think they're on par with Tim Berners-Lee or Packard or Wozniak, because they made an iphone app where you can leave reviews for your favorite pigeon feeding seat in the park.

Fortunately, abundant litigation when dealing with US employees will surely make them want to hire more US employees, in the future.

I would be satisfied just in knowing that there is a branch of the service called SPACE MARINES.

Bring on space battles. I want space battles in my life time. I know aliens probably won't happen and neither will colonizing aonther planet or even the moon, but at least let me have space ship battles.

And then, we start using automated algorithms at Google to report drug users. ... and people not reporting every cent of income in their taxes. ... and alerting local authorities to "belligerent, non-compliant attitudes".

I've seen bus drivers take a corner without considering the other lane, and wipe out a driver and passenger in a truck, waiting in the turn lane. I've seen a bus driver carelessly activate the bus-stairs-convert-to-wheel-chair-lift before it was safe, completely knocking over an elderly wheel-chair bound person onto the concrete, head first . . . and then just sit there, not doing anything, requiring myself and another passenger to jump off and assist the person.

I don't see how automation can do much worse.

Netflix gives me unlimited access to an enormous library of content for $8/mo. Playstastion Now gives me temporary access to individually purchased items. The two are nothing alike, other than the fact that they transmit temporarily owned content over the internet to the customer.

As to the pricing issues -- yes, they are destined to fail. Netflix and Amazon Prime made it cheaper and easier to pay for content than for people to acquire it through other means. Services like RDIO made it almost absurd to bother acquiring music any other way, for the mere $5/mo. A gaming service could accomplish this, but they need to provide a massive catalog of consistent content without a thousand strings attached and for a really low price. Additionally, it needs to be through a unified distribution channel; nobody wants to subscribe to EA, then to Ubisoft, then to Valve, then to Activision/Blizzard, then to Riot, then to Sony, then to Microsoft.

Gaming suffers from the problem television still does and that others (music and movies) used to (but still do, to a smaller extent). They want to profit from constraining their distribution; not operate like the manufacturer of ANY other product. Almost every company in the world wants their product in as many stores as possible for as many avenues to the customer as possible. They don't care if they're sold at the gas station, convenience store, Amazon.com, Target, Albertson's, and Safeway. Unfortunately, when it comes to digital media -- especially games -- some are available only on Origin. Some only on Steam. Some only on GOG. Some only on one platform for awhile, then no longer. This model has to change. Constraint and hassle needs to be eradicated. Distribution channels need to compete not on exclusivity, but on price and service and interface and community.

Until that happens, this ridiculous "pay a dollar or more an hour for a twenty year old game streamed over the internet" idea is dead.

Sorry, I don't buy into all this "we need to get kids using computers and programming in grade school!" crap. Or this "we need everyone to be in STEM!" crap.

Why do we need this, exactly? To keep the pool of employees huge and the pay low? Where is the push for teaching kids automotive skills in grade school? Cooking? Surgery?

Let's just focus on the basics. Teach kids to be inquisitive, critical thinking, human beings with a strong grasp of reading and writing and math and history and geography skills and knowledge. Those with an interest in other things will pursue them and doing so will be much easier with a solid primary foundation in these universal fundamentals.

Brought to you by Carbonite.

I enjoy kids, but when I sit down and figure out the math, I don't like them enough to risk my retirement (or early retirement). This is the driving force behind making sure what kind of people I get involved with and ensuring that protection is always a necessary precaution. There are also a lot of other things I would like, in life, but am not willing to risk a couple hundred grand or more on for the limited return that comes with it.

If I were a multi-millionaire, it would be a simple thing to accept (well, no it wouldn't - lack of sleep, diapers, screaming, babysitting, teen years, mooches, layabouts, etc). Not being a multi-millionaire, it is an easy decision -- just like deciding not to buy a yacht is an easy decision.

I just feel bad for my parents. The burden of raising three children has made it a difficult life of sacrifice and less reward or stability. One, likely, without even any promise of affording a retirement as they now approach that age. This won't be a burden I shoulder, however. As most parents desire for their children to have more successful lives than they had, I will be saving myself that burden. (But let's be frank, I'll probably die very young from shitty health anyway, so it isn't like there's a long retirement to contend with anyway!).

Exactly. People who work for minimum wage for a prolonged period of time don't have the foresight or fortitude to do any such thing and just pump them out like pez.

God damn.

I read "male for perspective" in the same mindset as "banana for size comparison".

I've had enough internet, this week.

Better to be smug about being child free than smug about being burdened with children that you can barely tolerate and can't afford.

Kind of like all those "smug" people who rub it in everyone's faces that they didn't get 0 percent down mortgages that they could never afford and therefore didn't go into financial ruin due to poor decision making. The audacity of such people!

This is what really disturbed me about Sarah Palin playing the whole "look what a saint I am, caring for a child with downs/autism/whatever it was!". Despite the fact that she was a "saint" for caring for *her own damn kid*, the fact was that she had him when she was like 40. The risk at 30 is something like 1:1200. At 35 and later, it goes to 1:30 and so on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for people not having children when their lives aren't together, they don't know who they are, and they are not financially capable without the aid of the rest of us coming to their rescue -- but that doesn't negate the risks you assume in waiting too long, either. And, really, it won't hurt anything if you just don't have any at all. The planet isn't exactly hurting for human resources.

No. In a few decades (at best), I'll be dead. What do I give a shit if my "genetic material" is left behind? I'LL BE DEAD.

If you really want to leave something behind, go murder a few thousand people and guarantee a spot in history books. Or help some people. . . but frankly, you're better killing them. Everyone remembers Manson after a few murders, but almost nobody remembers Borlaug after a billion and counting lives credited to his work.