*Valuation. I fail to digest how an IPO valuation at $100bn could even be CONCEIVABLE

Where the hell did they get a $100bn valuable? I call BS.

That is such a bullshit excuse of a theory. If a person sincerely chooses their career path based on other people she associates with that industry, rather than her own goals and desires, she deserves where she ends up. I took drama in highschool regardless of the stigma associated with it and the "weird" types I met in the course, because I was interested in the program and what I could gain from it. If someone sits down, deeply thinks about their values and what they want to do with their lives, their decision is their own. Chauvinism is a problem in any industry, and to say it has any more impact on the tech industry is disingenuous. If there's any social reason why women don't do tech, it's because GEEKS are unappealing. Not MEN.

Countering a sexist selection bias with an opposite sexist selection bias is still a sexist selection bias.

Male chauvinism in the context you describe is not limited or any more rampant in the tech industry. IWhat you're saying is applicable to any field in which men and women interact. And perhaps even opposite in similarly female-centric industries. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with encouraging women to participate in technical fields. Balance is naturally ideal in any situation. The problem of sexism becomes real at some point, however, in trying to "encourage" female participation. The issue of why females choose not to pursue technical careers has no bearing on how we go about encouraging their participation. Female-only scholarships raise a very valid concern of sexism. There is a disproportionate ratio of females to males in the healthcare support field. Would it be sexist to provide a male-only scholarship for this field?

Men don't have female privelage.

I had a weird mixed reaction to this, before I remembered what "electric car" actually means. Open-source electric cars are a great idea. However, if this were to be extended to autonomous cars I would begin to get worried. Allowing people the ability to modify the software controlling their autonomous vehicle seems to me an inherently bad idea.

Basically it's a "throw money at the pipes" competitive advantage

At first glance, this seems like a good idea for the consumer, but for smaller, independent and boot-strapped developers (from whom most of the innovative products come) this is basically a nail in the coffin. The only reason the Internet is as innovative as it is now is because any Joe Schmoe with a great idea, some time on his hands and a deep willingness to learn can get his software into hands of millions of people and literally disrupt industries.

Allowing a company to pay for their users' data usage seems like a great idea for consumers, at least in terms of immediate monetary value. Google or Pandora can pay for my data usage and I can consume all I want.

The real problem is that this allows large, well-funded (and probably stagnant) software companies to completely crush smaller, less well-funded companies who have innovative or disruptive ideas. Who's to say You and I don't have a great idea together and want to compete with Pandora? Oh that's right, they have millions in investment capital and we only have time and development skills.

This is the same argument as allowing certain websites to pay extra for faster Internet speeds. Sounds like a great idea on paper, especially for consumers in the short-term, but in the long-term it will harm the entire industry in general by stifling creative innovators.

In the end, whoever has the most money wins.

I'd be willing to bet lots of governments would love to use this opportunity just to examine the WiFi data.

I have to say this mentality probably precipitated a lot of great software. I'm sure there is a massive demand for *good* open source accounting software. And when you really get down to brass tacks, it's really a matter of doing what open source always does - mimicking the leading proprietary software!

If the OP formed a LLC it would be relatively simple to file his own taxes. In Massachusetts, at least, there is a pass-through taxation option on Limited Liability Companies which means you aren't taxed on the entity level - you're taxed once on your personal income (you and every other member).

Actually, there are several websites out there that exist for exactly this purpose - they're extremely great resources for the fledgling startup with no disposable cash for expensive legal services. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty doing some editing and don't mind really diving into the research to make sure you're up to par in your locality, then websites like www.docstoc.com are hugely helpful.

If Bing! can demonstrate prior art and public use of the trademark, they could potentially have some clout in court provided they have sufficiently deep pockets to sustain a few rounds of legal wrestling with Microsoft. If a business or trademark name is "deceptively or intentionally similar" to an established entity, it is technically in violation by definition.