Genuine question. If I employed the services of a company specializing in archiving paperwork, and the government had a search warrant for potential evidence in their case which could be contained in that paperwork, wouldn't the prosecutor (or at least someone working under the prosecutor's direction) be the one looking through it? As the argument goes so many times against the government's practices, why should we expect that, in the case of email, searches should operate substantially differently than with paper records? In this case, it seems wholly appropriate to apply it in the other direction.

If you generate CO2 in one location, you can sequester it quite easily for other uses - for example, for anything ranging from paintball tanks to soda to welding to fish tanks to greenhouses - if not just dump the stuff underground in old oil wells.

Those specific examples are closely-held, according to the only legal definition I was able to find. I also looked up self-insurance, and found a citations that say anywhere between 50 million and 90 million people are under corporate self-insurance health plans. "Pretty narrow" doesn't seem to apply when it's somewhere roughly between a third and two thirds of the entire insured workforce.

You mean it doesn't apply to around 90% of all corporations according to the IRS' definition of the term, and that it absolutely doesn't apply to companies like Cargill, Koch and Mars?

I looked around for a bit, and couldn't find a source for this. Mind providing one?

I know two people who use Facetime daily when they work past about 6 or so to call their kids. It's not some crazy thing that isn't even on the typical person's radar in the industrialized world, it's just not 100% of all phone calls like some people envisioned it.

Ah, but there's a difference now compared to then. We have the ability, at least in the developed world, to push again past the old cap, which originally existed in a natural environment. Who knows if the modern environment would actually select for higher intelligence in practice to do it, but the possibility is there with modern resources.

Google is also written in to the summary, specifically mentioning how the French want them to pay sites they list in their search results. That seems like a terrible idea, considering having a search result exist on Google is essentially a free advertisement for your site...

That's a distinction with tons of teeth. It's not just microtransactions - everything about Zynga-style "games" is designed to make you play more while heavily incentivizing you to pay, while normal games provide a challenge. Zynga games don't contain nearly any challenges since that discourages players, they're button-pressing for the sake of button pressing. That's one reason why King is taking over Zynga's former spot as that upcoming new free game giant - they're providing games that are legitimately challenging, and adding the incentives for players to pay. Part of the reason for that is that the games they pick to add these psychological influences to already have a high degree of randomization that they use to their advantage, and they did mash up the formula on them by adding modified game modes, but that's going on a tangent. Back to your point about the way levels are designed, that's also part of the strategy to get people to pay - you can't see the forest for the (intentionally singular) tree.

TinyTower and DreamHeights are very different than Theme Hotel and SimTower. Two of these "games" (aka psychological manipulators) are designed to get you to buy inapp purchases, the other two are actual games. I do see your point with them though, since in each pair, one is a copy of the other AFAIK (I've never seen DreamHeights). Just don't group them.

It looks like you could join, even as a startup. The form is available online. My concern is actually how it handles transfers within the network - they're unencumbered by the license granting provisions, which seems to indicate that if this becomes widespread, it could become a tool used against startups later on, or be useless against patent trolls if they're too accepting of new companies. It doesn't seem like it's bad for startups now, given the ease of joining.

You missed my point, and provided an example that does not prove the AC's point even if your reading was correct. Rephrased, I was saying "anyone who has ever defined 'first world' in either of these two widely-accepted ways does not call the US a third world country", not "anyone who has ever used the term 'first world' would consider the US to be one" as you seem to have read it. Beyond that, even if your reading was correct, the other definitions you use all still place the US as a first world country.

You don't need to stop if they're on the curb, but you're entirely liable if they do enter the crosswalk while you approach. You said it yourself - "If a pedestrian is in a crosswalk *for whatever reason*, you must stop and let them finish". Effectively, pedestrians always have the right of way.

While it probably wouldn't catch on in the vast majority of places, I could see a few smaller/newer companies doing that. It'd look pretty damn cool too having all sorts of colors through a cube farm, and make it feel much less like it's actually a cube farm, both for the workers and visitors.

Anyone who has ever defined the term "first world" as either "NATO-aligned countries" or "countries with post-industrial economies". The only people who call the US a "third world country" are people who are using incorrect terminology to describe the issues the US faces.