I support population growth, why don't you? This world can support 1 Trillion. Take a drive across the US sometime. If you really think it is even 10% filled up, it isn't.

Space: Most western like Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, have one city with a couple dozen sky scrapers. We don't even have Skyscraper apartment buildings yet. We can drive hours between cities in some areas.

Water: Water is not something the world is short on. We are just reaching a point where desalinization is now becoming necessary to get water from the ocean. It is not even common yet. We haven't even started piping desalinated water further inland that the cities it is desalinated in.

Food: People talk about feeding everyone. Not a problem for a long time. The government is still paying farmers to NOT grow food. When they start paying people to stop working in the city and start growing food, then we can worry about food shortages. When we start reaching a point where we need to find ways to grow food in the desert, then we can worry about food shortages. We haven't even made an effort to reclaim Sahara or Gobi deserts or most other deserts. But we have started learning to grow food upwards on Sky scrapers, though we know how to do it, it is really rare. Also we we have exhausted those avenues and also have exhausted our ability to start building massive green houses in Northern Canada and Alaska, we can move to growing editable Sea weed in the oceans. I think there is a little of bit of room on the oceans.

We are still traveling on roads. When we've reclaimed the deserts, and have no more space, we can put the roads underneath us in tunnels, like New York's subways, and reclame millions of miles of land, world-wide.

Are we exhausting our resources to mine for our needs in space yet?

Not to mention that in 100 years, barring a Global catasrophic even that puts us back into the dark ages, we will likely be trading with the 'New world'. Only the new world is no longer the American Hemispheres, it is Mars. We are living in domes and mining air from Mars's oceans. Or maybe we terraformed it by crashing a moon-sized meteor of frozen water on it that we propelled from the Asteroid belt.

Every time I hear that the earth is full, I laugh at people complete idiocy.

The only difference to the Global Cooling hype and the current Global Warming hype is one has the internet to spread it rapidly, the other did not.

And yes, there was a big deal about global cooling, hence the sci-fi books in the late 70's and early 80's about global cooling.

- So a wife that wants to send a strip tease video to her loving husband who is away should send it without encryption so that anybody can see and so that it shows up on some porn site someday? Or live strip tease during a face to face chat session, that shouldn't be encrypted?
- So the tax lawyer shouldn't encrypt communication end to end when sharing sensitive tax data?
- So the defense attorney shouldn't encrypt communication end to end when communicating with a client?
- So a startup shouldn't encrypt communication about their proprietary software and should just let corporate espionage happen?
- A broker/financial adviser shouldn't use end-to-end encryption when passing data to and from his clients?
- What about HIPPA? Shouldn't medical records be transferred with end-to-end encryption?

I am pretty sure that I could go on finding use cases for real people to use end-to-end encryption, but the above is plenty.

The bikers complaining about the $15 are probably the same ones that complained about the bike lanes.

I ride my bike to work often enough. Utah doesn't have this law but makes efforts to create bike lanes.

If I had to pay $15 a year to bike on streets or sidewalks to get to work, and I knew that that money was keeping my bike lanes safe and going to improving bike paths, I would gladly pay that tax.

This is one example of where capitalism needs government help. We would never get bike lanes based on capitalism. The government must step in to manage bicycle lanes and paths.

The normal glasses I wear now for either my vision correction or as sunglasses have the tech with no added size or shape or noticeable by anyone else change to the lenses. Basically smart glasses that look like our normal glasses.

Augmented reality will be awesome . . . but remember how Palm Pilot was around for a fifteen years and just never made it huge (never reached everyone's hands) and then Apple killed Palm with the release of the iPhone in '07?

Google Glass will likely be like Palm. It will sit around for a decade or more before other break-thrus in the industry will allow someone to make it so every pair of glasses or sunglasses sold will be smart glasses.

I like windows 10.

I'm republican, I guess.

Education is extremely important. Colleges are nothing more than a place to be educated. However, Colleges have huge problems:

1. Too dependent on lecture. Lecture is one of the least effective methods of education.
2. Extremely expensive.
With today's technology a 3 credit hour class could be taught effectively with a visual, auditory, active learning experience created one time with very low cost, making learning basically free.
3. Free speech is enforced, unless the religious participate in free speech, then free speech is stifled. Free speech doesn't exclude religious speech. Other than a few zealots who are anti-science (they are entitled to their points of view) both science and religion have a place and both should be taught. For example, evolution is an unproven theory. We teach it despite not have proof of it.
4. Rape culture. Beer pong, fraternities, etc.
5. Slow teaching, similar to #1, but the human brain can learn a lot fast. We have the technology. With better educational methods, we could learn as much in 1 year as we do in 4 years of college.
6. Nearly complete departure from apprenticeships, one of the more effective and speedy forms of training. Thank goodness electricians are still apprenticeships. Could you imagine how bad colleges would bungle that skill?

The good of colleges:
1. Bringing those who wish to learn together.
2. Sharing knowledge with others.
3. Sharing opinions with others.
4. Thesis and the search for new undiscovered knowledge.
5. Sports - learn to accept winning and losing

If you are calling Bill Gates elite, than no, you won't get there. But if you are calling a millionaire elite, then yes, it will.

Yes, it will, if you continue to invest. It compounds. 8% of 100 leaves you with 108%, right? Yes. But that isn't the only factor. Set $100 to go into the account per paycheck, (two paychecks per month) and don't live outside your means, and you will have $2400 you put in in a given year. The first 100 of that will get you $8. The second $100 gets you 23/24ths of $8 by the end of the year and so on.

Don't tell me most people can't afford $100 a paycheck because I see them paying more than that on unnecessary items (Cable TV, new Cell-Phones with costly plans, eating out, etc.). Most people are stupid. Instead of building their nest egg they are spending it on frivolous things.

The next year, you get a 3% raise. You increase your 100 a paycheck to $103. The following year you increase by another 3% and so on.

From age 18 to 65. That is 47 years. Do the math, compound the interest and you will see how much you have by saving and investing when you turn 65.
http://www.thecalculatorsite.c...

You will have $1,824,827.31. But it should be noted that if you don't touch the base and only use your interest, you can retire on making $150K a year. Sure, in 65 years, that will be like $30K a year now.

If you make an additional contribution each year, say $1000, from a bonus or a tax return, you will have even more, 2.7 million or so and living on 220K a year. So when they die, they still have 2.7 million. Plus a paid off house which with inflation is probably worth 30 years * 220k, or 6.6 million.

Now imagine a family with three kids. They split the 2.7 million (2 million after taxes) and the house (another 4 million after taxes) and on death each kid gets $2 million when their parents die. Of course those kids are almost 65 now and have their own nest eggs themselves, and they get to add 2 million to that.

Yes, this is really happening today.

Cracking your back and neck isn't anecdotal. It is almost as common as eating. Almost everyone, nearly 100% of human beings, crack their own backs or necks back into place. A huge percentage do it daily.

Sometimes we can't adjust our bones ourselves, however. A person's bones aren't aligned for whatever reason. Maybe we pulled them out lifting something. We got in a car accident. We fell and landed weird.

Putting the bones back in place is not bullshit. If a bone breaks, we put it back into place. If we don't it heals in the wrong place and is misshapen for life. The muscles and tendons around this can also be altered for life.

Sometimes bones get out of place without breaking, usually at a joint. Because the bones are out of place, joints can rub, muscles can get tight, tendons can be stretched, causing pain. If left in the wrong place, muscles and joints can heal in the wrong place and be altered.

Now, stating that: "Claiming that putting the bones back in place can cure cancer is bullshit" is something I can agree with. However, I will concede that overall health of a person contributes to a person's risk of cancer and having bones in proper position is part of overall health. But any additional correlation should be treated as a fraudulent claim.

Look, python is a hybrid of a scripting language and a programming language. It is a scripting language first. No scripting language has ever become highly used and stayed highly used except one. Javascript.

Why? Not because it is an awesome scripting language. JavaScript is about the worst language out there. Javascript is only popular because it happens to have a monopoly. There is no other option for coding in the browser today. Even TypeScript compiles to JavaScript.

However, that is about to change. With WebAssembly, JavaScript will no longer have a monopoly and you will see TypeScript compile to WebAssembly instead of JavaScript, then you will see Java and C# and other languages soon be able to compile to JavaScript. Even Silverlight could make a return by compiling to WebAssembly. By I digress, this isn't about JavaScript.

The top programming language is Java. It won the Android App market. The next are C#, PHP, and C/C++ (not really in that order, just as a group). Python, Ruby, etc, isn't even in the ballpark. In Enterprise, the top two options Java and C#.

But Tiobe says python is getting huge? OK. Tiobe's algorithm is quite complex, but that doesn't mean it isn't extremely naive.

Java, C#, PHP, and others have very advanced documentation. Also, they have tools that help developers get word done with less Google searches. For example, Java and C# users Google search far less that devs for other languages. For example, the initial search might be on Google but from then on, the search is on MSDN or we are browsing the docs. Also Visual Studio's tools and add-ons allow for looking at a library, its methods, and what it does without a google search. Some VS tools will decompile dlls, so we don't even need to google what a library does, we just read it. Also, NuGet packages are searched for in Visual Studio.

Python only the other hand, is primary being used in academia, especially by students in their early college years. The early college years are the highest peak of google searching a language will get. That makes its supposed popularity extremely skewed. It only looks popular because it used by new students that have to Google search for every little step. Also, the tooling for python is sub par, which causes more google searches than Java or C#.

Also, WordPress alone leads to more PHP development than Python will ever see.

As soon as Academia moves on from it's current favorite language, and Academia always moves on, Python's inflated hype will be long forgotten.

I've never heard that before. Love it. I'm laughing so hard right now.

Are you kidding. Things are way cooler now!!!!!!!!!

Programming Languages: Way faster-to-code languages like C#, Java.
Programming Frameworks: So much more boilerplate code is already written for you so you can build bigger stuff.
Art: Photoshop, etc. Paint.Net, Gimp can create photorealistic images and they are free.
3d and Animation: Unity3d, Daz3d, Poser, Maya, etc.
Virtual Reality: Samsung Gear VR, Microsoft Hololens, Oculus Rift, etc.
The internet: Web, Cloud
Voice Assistants: Alexa, Google, Siri, Cortana
Virtual Machines/Environments: VMWare, Hyper-V, VirtualBox, Docker
Operating Systems: Windows/Linux (10,000 distros)/Mac&BSD
Mobile Market: Smart Phones/Tablets/Hybrids
Small computing: Rasberry PI and competitors.
Medical: Internal Medical Devices
Wearable: Phones as watches, finally! Glasses, which still need serious work and smaller physical footprint. So much more to come.
IoT: Smart Homes, and so much more.
Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Gaming Systems, blogs, forums, etc.

Need I go on.

The world of computing is so much more awesome than it was when my family got our first Adam computer in 1980-something that ran on casset tapes.

Look, movie makers have the right to put whatever they want into a movie.
Viewers have the right to only allow certain portions of a movie into their home.
Vid Angel is providing a service that joins those two features.
It allows personal choice censorship, as opposed to government mandated censorship.
It increases sales of content that some groups otherwise would not purchase.
The movie companies make great movies.

My preference is that Vid Angel shouldn't have to exist.

The DVD/Stream technology exists to provide a movie in such a way that each DVD/Stream could have a PG, PG-13, or R option, or even far more granular options. In fact, it is freaking easy to develop.

It is time for Movie companies to meet the demand themselves and start doing this.
If the Movie companies don't meet this demand, then they can shut-up and get out of the way of the companies who do.

Tim Cook steps up to the platform and announces: Great desktops are coming," he crosses his fingers behind his back and thinks, "They are called the Microsoft Surface Pro and clones of such. Oh, you meant great Mac desktops. Well . . . Apple's OS X can't even support touch input yet, so, uh, we are trying to decide whether to
1) move forward with IOS as our new desktop OS, in which case it will be six to ten years before our desktop/laptop OS reaches stability for applications as opposed to apps
Or
2) invest two to four years in implementing touch events into our OS X operating system, at which point phones and tablets can run full blown desktop OSes so we will be left to wonder why we have two operating systems, then release a great desktop;
Or
3) just focus on mobile and hope mobile kills the desktop/laptop.

Let's go with 3, but I better give lip service to Mac lovers for a few years.

He tells a few more lies. Then Tim Cook leaves the platform and wonders how long it will take before everyone realizes he is doing nothing for Apple and has been floundering since the death of Steve Jobs.

While reading the article, I thought. This first comment has to be the quote from Back 2 the Future. Then I scrolled down. Thank you for not letting me down!