I think the major issue that scares some people is the ability of a person who is otherwise ineligible to own a firearm to manufacture one at home using a 3D printer. While it's also possible to do this with other home equipment, proper operation of a lathe, press, and other shop tools usually used to manufacture firearms requires a level of skill that a 3D printer does not. Of course, the cost of purchasing a 3D printer plus materials goes way beyond the cost of an ineligible person getting a gun on the black market. The only benefit that I can see is relative anonymity in acquiring a gun in this new manner.

I figured that something like recent events would happen, which is one of the reasons that I downloaded the plans when they first hit the web. I'm eligible to (and in fact do) own guns, and I trust the courts to protect this. But it never hurts to have an out.

Wasn't Aureal starting in on this kind of thing before Creative bought them and killed the product? I seem to recall their sound chips doing some things to calculate real-time echos and other changes to the sound based on materials and room geometry.

I guess it's good that it can be done on the GPU; it might make for one less chipset to go into a system especially given the move toward DisplayPort.

The OUI can be used for part of the address, but doesn't have to be. Microsoft by default does not use it when generating the IPv6 address as of Vista and instead generates a random address to make it harder to track a device across connections.

I don't know where you got the idea that a serial number was used at all.

I'm right there with you. As one of the security people involved with implementing BYOD (though somewhat peripherally) at my last job, I opted to keep the Blackberry issued to me rather than attach my phone to the enterprise network even though I had admin access to the system. Many people thought I was nuts, but I draw a fairly clear line between work and personal life. Knowing what can be monitored, I opted to maintain that line.

I think that might be one of the things people don't realize, even if they read what the company should be supplying. The mobile device security industry is changing rapidly with hooks going much deeper than they used to. One product that we looked at (but didn't implement) allowed not only monitoring of call logs but copied all text and MMS messages to or from the device up to the server for archiving, something I viewed as far too invasive for BYOD. Even if it was deleted immediately from the device, the software grabbed it and copied it up (or archived it for copying if data wasn't available). But with companies clambering over each other for features, I'm sure it wasn't long before others added it to their own lists.

That depends on the test you're trying to take. Some tests are only available through one of the providers.

Expensive isn't the word for it. Changing the battery technology would require months of re-engineering work and months more of certification, possibly grounding the plane for a year, and that doesn't factor in the performance loss from the extra weight. The result could cripple Boeing, possibly fatally, to implement a solution that probably is not required.

They performed a great deal of testing on the new architecture including setting off a propane explosion. The containment system held and vented properly. The FAA is satisfied with the solution, and they're the ones who are going to get blamed if it fails catastrophically. It's good enough for me. You're welcome to check the planes in use on your flights and avoid the 787.

Poor or sloppy tradecraft is the reason that more don't pull it off. Odds are that we'll learn that these guys made some mistakes that should have been discovered earlier. Perfect tradecraft almost never happens. It's the reason that so many are found so early. They reach out to the wrong people who turn out to be either informants, undercover law enforcement, or just criminals who still harbor a sense of patriotism. They buy unusual items and act suspiciously while doing so, like buying black powder (legal) while trying to hide their faces (also legal, but likely to set the clerk to wondering). They wire the bomb incorrectly. Far more are caught than manage to pull something off, in large part because they try to do something outside of their abilities. That may be the difference here: the brothers may have known their capabilities were limited and so didn't try to kill hundreds, settling for spreading fear while killing a few and injuring many.

The presence of an election does not remove the circumstances of a dictatorship. Dictators often "win" elections with 75% or more of the vote (IIRC, Saddam Hussein won his last election with 99% of the vote). The presence of free and clear elections makes for a democracy. That country's government was not.

While I don't argue that what's happening at Gitmo is a serious problem, I often wonder how many people who label the US a dictatorship have actually lived under one.

Forgive me if you are one, but I've read that people who have lived in real dictatorships scoff at the accusations of dictatorship in the US. These are people who have come from places where speaking out against the regime results in prison time if not outright execution or disappearance; where entire families of criminals--sometimes crossing generations--are punished for one person's wrongdoing; where trials are conducted in closed court and often without the benefit of a defense attorney; where the military takes a position equal to or higher than the civilian government; and/or where a cult of personality that dwarfs the Obama followers ensures that the people not only obey but worship the current leader, sometimes under formal links to the national deity.

There are certainly issues with the US (and a lot of Western countries), but most of them are a long way from being true dictatorships.

For the most part, they don't do things half-way, especially if a significant capital outlay is required. The money required to get the roll-out started was significant, so they weren't going to do something slip-shod.

I won't be surprised if this ends up getting spun off into a separate ISP company with the majority ownership maintained by Google itself and a handful of Google principals (Larry, Sergei, etc.) to keep the vision going.

What I'm hoping for are some other upstart competitiors to Google Fiber.

Google has said several times that this is exactly what they're trying to foster. Google gets an advantage from deploying fiber aside from the privacy issues that most people consider. They get loyalty. When one of their features is to "[r]ecord up to eight programs simultaneously, just because you can," it engenders a loyalty that the others can't touch.

From what they've said, I expect they don't really want to be in the ISP business, but as their core business depends in large part on growing bandwidth, they felt they had to do something to push the boundary. I would gladly pay $300 (or even more) for gigabit service. I moved to my current location specifically for FiOS availability and pay $105/month for 150/65 service. I am considering moving from Dallas to Austin in the near term mostly because I like the community, but also now in large part due to Google Fiber coming to the area. Everybody (Austin, Google, and me) wins then.

Paying attention to something doesn't necessarily mean looking at it. When I want to figure out what the traffic guy is saying, I have to pay attention to it even if I'm not staring at the radio. I don't pull over to the side of the road to do it. Likewise, I can converse with a passenger, paying attention to what is being said without staring at them.

Actually, judges usually don't ignore the intent of the law. I've read many decisions at all levels, and where there is an assertion of vagueness or ambiguity, the courts almost always look to debate, statute prefaces, and even public statements to determine what was expected. Lower courts do this because higher courts do, and judges don't like to get overturned on that point.

You must be a lot of fun on road trips. By your words, there should be no talking with passengers, no radio, nothing at all.

You can actually get people killed that way because something to engage the brain to some degree aside from driving, people tend to zone out or fall asleep. There's been some research on this and it's been found that zero distractions from the road turns out to be as dangerous as driving while using a cell phone or being mildly drunk. Those minor distractions keep the brain engaged, particularly on road segments that don't change much.

Not always intentionally incorrect, either. Sometimes they're just prepping two possible stories with different headlines and differing by only a paragraph or two.