International Business Corporations are ridiculously common. You don't have to be rich, many people with average income have those.

I would be surprised if that's true. How common are IBCs among people making, say, $50k (the median U.S. household income)? How about even $80k, or $120k? My guess is that they're negligible until you get to more like $500k+, though I'd be interested in some numbers either way.

Most amendments to existing law already are written as diffs in the first place, stuff like "subsection 23(b) of U.S. blah blah is hereby repealed, and in its place the following language is inserted".

This initiative has been going on for a while. Is the issue that not enough agencies are getting their data out fast enough, or comprehensively enough?

I'm also a little bit skeptical of relying on a random private company, GitHub, to be the canonical data host. What's wrong with hosting it on data.gov? Or if it's going to be hosted in the private sector, how about with a public-interest organization like the Internet Archive?

Any proposed mechanism of intelligence should be discounted unless it behaves the same way as a brain.

This doesn't make any sense unless you have a purely tautological definition in mind.

If you start uploading videos to YouTube with nothing but frames of QR codes, you're pretty likely to have your account closed and the videos deleted.

It would be more robust if you made the video look like something that could plausibly be on YouTube as a "normal" video, even if it's something really boring. Probably especially if it's something really boring. Record one of your pets and use the low-order bits of the video and/or audio to steganographically include some data.

That's closer to how it works when trying to recognize people you don't know well, though. Police sketch-artists sometimes make a few different versions of a sketch, e.g. one with and one without a hat, one with short and one with long hair, etc., because it's not necessarily easy for people to recognize one as the other if it's a stranger.

But that isn't what they demonstrated here: they demonstrated the ability to 3d-print a rudimentary one-time device.

Remember when Mazda tried to make having an mp3 player actually the headline feature of a limited-edition car?

I think it's pretty unlikely that, having had one go at it, the Supreme Court is going to take another look at the Constitutionality of the law overall, especially once it starts being implemented. They had their shot and made a 5-4 decision, and unless someone flips, that will probably stick.

I could see more specific parts being litigated though, e.g. there's currently some kind of controversy over the scope of what federal exchanges can do, which are supposed to be available to people in states where the states themselves have chosen not to set up state exchanges.

Assuming the GOP doesn't manage to repeal Obamacare (which it doesn't seem likely they'll be able to), preexisting conditions will no longer be excludable starting 8 months from now.

The Slashdot vote was pretty clear!

You're technically not supposed to use the name genericized like that; the proper phrasing is "BRAND-NAME PRINTER TONER® brand printer toner".

It's actually not a crime to print a gun (or otherwise manufacture one for personal use), which is why this guy did so openly and was not arrested.

It's perhaps a commentary on the state of craftworking skills in the U.S. that making a rudimentary, one-shot gun is now considered too high-skilled for a regular person to do. The level of skill and equipment needed is basically at the level of a 1950s high-school metalworking class.

That seems pretty unlikely.

Is Pat Buchanan in jail? Is even Fred Phelps in jail?