The article does talk about gifts not being taxable. The problem arises when you start giving rewards in exchange for those gifts. If you can run a Kickstarter in which people give you money and you don't give them anything back, then you're fine.
The summary talks about all the devices that you need to complete virtual reality. The fact that you need all those devices should make it clear: this isn't virtual reality, nor even a step toward it. It is immersive gaming, but until you are directly raising/lowering voltage on neurons, you aren't creating a virtual reality. You're just shaping this reality to create an optical illusion. Virtual reality means truly constructing a brand new reality for the mind to perceive, from the direction of gravity to the sensation of having eaten a satisfying meal or having additional (or fewer) arms and legs.
Sometimes when they modify the Matrix, you get a sense of deja vu.
And if they ever do approach the size of larger manufacturers, they probably will choose to build their own dealer network for their own good, rather than because it is legally required of them.
If the equipment on board can detect the laser strikes, can the planes have lasers on board that turn on and point back to the source? I'm pretty sure whoever is down there would look away pretty damn fast.
> he's a bleeding liar to suggest the two events were related.
No, he's not. I've been digging into this story a bit. This is what I believe to be true based on piecing together comments in several forums: AOL is self insured. They had acceptable risk levels. But they had events that blew away their risk assessments. They're having to reclassify their insurance, and that means higher cost for the system next year.
So, true, they didn't have to pay out for these two events. But they are going to have to pay more next year because these two events mean the computed risk of these events happening next year has been elevated.
I am not saying the above is factually true -- I am not a first source. I'm saying that's what appears to be the case based on many Internet posts. I welcome others doing their own digging for info that contradicts my hypothesis.
> high inflation (government inflation figures are just plain B.S.)
Citation needed. I know of no economic source, government or otherwise, that demonstrates this. Can you provide sources?
It is the stories for some of us. Slashdot offers a somewhat odd prioritization of news for the tech world -- an odd blend of electronic libertarianism, open source ideology and hacker creativity. I could find all the stories that slashdot posts elsewhere, but they don't get prioritized the same way. They fall below the radar unless you're really scanning deep.
So, yeah, slashdot is an aggregator. But it might as well be the only source for about a third of its stories because its the only source that promotes those stories high enough that I end up seeing them.
And the community comments are good, too.
They already deeded their house over to me -- they assigned it to me by saying this is the e-mail address associated with the account. If you ask "who is the rightful account holder", the answer as far as I can tell is whoever has the e-mail address.
No, this is a law that makes it legal to do something that was completely illegal before. Read the full article -- until the law was passed, it was totally illegal in the USA to sell shares in a new company by crowdsourcing. The new law makes it legal and directs the SEC to create rules under which it could happen. This is the rule the SEC is currently proposing.
So, far from fixing a non-existent problem, this law is fixing a problem that many of us in tech have said exists: that small companies cannot get their start up funds from crowdsourcing their IPOs.
I assume, armed with this new information, that you'll be cheering for President Obama taking action on this issue. I mean, there's a lot wrong with his administration, but at least blame him for things he's really screwed up, not for the stuff he's improved.
How is this evil? As far as I'm concerned, this is a great customer service. I can actually see e-mails that I want to read without having all sorts of metadata that I'm not interested in sharing with the entire world shared. Google becomes the one and only company whose behavior I have to monitor, instead of every business online that I work with. Monitoring one is a lot easier than monitoring all of them.
> With Google pre-fetching all of these, every GMAIL address id Verified for the Spammers.
Not necessarily. The article says Google is pre-fetching all incoming images. It could be doing that *regardless* of whether or not the e-mail address is valid. I'm willing to bet that Google engineers thought through all of these arguments and has implemented a system that actually achieves their goals of blocking that sort of information.
> Google doesn't fetch the image until you open the email.
Are we sure about that? I didn't see timing information in the article. Google could cache the images as soon as their server receives the message. In fact, the second article says that Google will automatically download all *incomming* messages. That suggests they're pulling them when the e-mail is sent, thus cloaking whether or not the user has read them. And since that's Google's goal, I'll wager that's exactly what they are doing.
If his job is to prevent terrorism, he's right... he can't do that without a substantial surveillance dragnet that tramples the 4th Amendment.
If his job is to investigate and prosecute terrorism after it occurs, he can do that and stay within the Constitution.
I think he would have to convince his bosses (both the administration and the American people) to be comfortable with a different mandate. Are we comfortable with that? I am -- but then, I'm one of those who believes the risk of a government with that level of surveillance abusing its powers seems to me like a worse environment than one in which another 9-11 occurs every 5 to 10 years.
There's a balance that needs to be struck. In my opinion, there's an imbalance right now.
Quoting from the end of the article:
> Foremost among them will be whether there is any mechanism that could have allowed life from
> this era, if it did evolve, to have survived as the universe cooled down. And if so, whether there
> might be evidence of it today.
Seems like it would be possible if a world was in free space during the warm period and then was captured by a sun as the background radiation cooled. Yeah, the handoff would have to be pretty precisely timed, but if there were millions of such worlds, one or two might have nicely transitioned. Does that sound plausible?