I totally agree, that's why I've ignored this and the PS4 "launches". As far as I can tell it's really more of an effort to poll people about what they like than any kind if real launch.

Rather than one it seems like zero might have been a better choice.

You may want to re-think that... use the old rule of imagining what taunts third-graders can make of your name, now think of "Zero" again in that light.

One is way more Zen.

I see you posted AC to avoid rebuttal. Bad luck for you; I read AC posts sometimes.

You know that's 'in public' by all definitions except for yours right?,

Only an AC considers private restaurants public space... Sadly that gaffe was the intellectual highlight of your whole post.

You get that people can turn them off right?

You understand that there's no indicator if they have, right?

You know this how exactly?

Because that's how people are using them (ref: Scoble).

And assuming that something legitimately wrong happened, this is wrong how exactly?

It's not wrong. It's Wrong. And it points out that anywhere they go there is no more Private space - my original point. Do try to keep up even if it means you have to tell the driver of the short bus to accelerate a bit.

I'll let you have the last response so you can claim the throne of clowns as I know you are so itching to do.

I wasn't aware it was bad form morally to ask not to be taxed twice on the same revenue..

Indeed, the entity that seems to be crossing a moral line is the one asking Apple to pay tax a second time.

It's odd how Apple's tax evasion is somehow so awful, even though they pay an effective tax rate of 30% and $6 BILLION dollars, when other companies get away with paying zero without fuss.

You can't live in a tulip; you can live in a house. Some assets are more tangible than others.

The current fashion trend is for oversized glasses *even if you don't need glasses*

Of a handful of celebrities, yes. Not the widespread public. Again, niche market. Most people do not want the hassle of wearing glasses.

And even if it were targeting that market, it would be in a huge pair of glasses, not a sleek Half-Jordi.

The product has another huge flaw in that it does not mesh well with sunglasses, which are popular. But glasses only makes sense to wear all the time, and they aren't designed like sunglasses where you can easily store them away...

Why would they burn down your luxury mansion rather than just seize it and make it their own?

Pretty obviously because they can't legally seize it, easier just to set fire to it... at which point they can condemn and seize the property. You just are so naive...

Proof? Because the competing narrative - police very reasonably includes McAfee in the list of suspects, and he's a paranoid nut from all the bath salts he's been doing, and possibly guilty, so he escapes - is actually simpler.

It was before the fire. The fire is more complex in your version, less in the one where the police are framing McAffee and getting back at him any way they can.

Otherwsie you have to concoct some story about how he paid a guy to go set a fire on his own property, for some dubious end...

I'm not saying one story or the other is true. Just the fire makes it more likely his story is true than before.

P.S. Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you. Also I would suggest he has substantially greater experience with third world law enforcement than you do in your first world high horse.

Because houses occasionally catch fire even without any intervention from anyone

Unoccupied houses? You are the one skirting the realm of fantasy.

as opposed to simply doing its job and trying to round up a murder suspect

You'd know if he was actually a murder suspect as steps would be taken to extradite him.

why would they destroy their own property?

???? It's not police property.

Perhaps the phone could issue an alert if the movie you sat down to watch had a Rotten Tomatoes score below 30%...

Nobody is being forced to buy the most expensive insurance policies.

Catastrophic insurance policies, the only reasonable policy for a young person, are dead. The only plans that meet the criteria are larded up past any plans I ever had or needed.

"Assuming that they don't qualify for one of the numerous exemptions written into the law."

Code for "are not Democratic contributors or unions or any other Democratic groups that get exemptions". Yes we already know about the Democrat's use of government as a hammer to stamp out ideological opponents.

Had the GOP been voted in, it would have meant that nobody would have health insurance because the rates would continue to climb

It would have meant health care rates would have fallen after the GOP voted in the health care reforms they were asking for, like caps on malpractice and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.

I'll let you have the last response since all you do is yammer Democratic talking points; further discussion of the reality of he stormy waters into which we are sailing is pointless. I'll just watch over the next year as you and the rest of the people who don't understand the reality of what Obamacare was get the full dose you deserve, dealt at the hands of the IRS. Enjoy!

Voting for a Republican is going to make it all better huh.

No.

But it would have kept the IRS out of healthcare enforcement.

And it would have meant the entire population of the U.S. would not shortly be forced to buy the most expensive insurance policies (which is why all of the insurance companies backed Obamacare).

Never dealt with people bigger than yourself obviously.

So you are claiming that in the history of dealing with corrupt governments, people have not been killed and property not destroyed?

I'll let the reader decide which one of us is the idiot.

Google glass are likely to be successfully.

Says the AC with no ability to tie the prediction back to them...

You know that in five years you will come off like the Gates quote about 512k RAM.

How extraordinarily douchey. You are most likely recorded by hundreds of video cameras every day.

I agree that spraying someone with something that could blind them is not really acceptable - in fact it's more assault than "douchey".

However you have to remember these people are mostly recording NOT in public. Yes in public video cameras are everywhere. But then you got to a party at someone's house or a booth in a restaurant, now you are not nearly so much "in public" - but there are glasses users there. What if you are on a date with someone wearing them, do you not have a reason to expect your entire date would not be recorded?

That's the real problem, is that Glasses wearers extend the practical notion of what is "public" to anywhere they go. I mean, how long before the auto-recorded segments are subject to subpoena because something happened at a party?

So I wouldn't spraypaint people wearing them, but I don't think it's a good idea to wear them most places you would go.