You can't show content in a hologram that is deeper than the projector... It's physically impossible to do this. Now if you could show a different image to each eye, you could potentially trick the eye into focusing as if the content was really X-Y feet away. Stereoscopy has a hope of trying to solve this eventually. Holograms are never going to solve their depth problem.

Most of the 3D live action movies in the US have been 3D conversions. Look for "filmed in 3D" as an advertising tagline to know that it's actually a 3D movie and not a half-assed conversion (hint, there's not many... Tron, Avatar, and some of the stuff not yet out). All 3D animation is fine in 3D. Alice, Clash of the Titans, Green Hornet, Last Airbender, etc: all trash conversions.

As a user of Adobe Photoshop who switched to GIMP, Hooray! However, as a user of Lightwave who tried switching to Blender... Yuck, Blender sucks.

http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm The rates are not as high as people assume.

No, it seems that's always been done. It does seem like they're more likely to confirm the accusation in the denial now though...

"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery,"

Or in other words:

"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply [add a second tier of] content delivery,"

PC dictates we can't examine personality and mental differences by race because a bunch of racists in the early 20th century published a bunch of white-supremicist drivel under the banner of science. I personally wonder how in particular generations of slavery affected the african-american population.

Bull with it's balls cut off = cow

Spiders are bugs. They're not insects.

Here's what actually happened: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/35d6244c-d9fa-11df-bdd7-00144feabdc0.html

That seems like a reasonable and fair idea, however, I think you need to take at such a rate that you are actually encouraging better standards. Taxes that are too low just become a money siphon without properly discouraging improved behavior.

1) Don't allow imports from anyone who doesn't have a certain standard for environmental and labor laws.
2) Wow, that was easy.
3) By the way... We have less stuff now. But we have more wildlife. It was a tradeoff, but I'd support making it.

Not posting for the last word here, I actually hope you'll read and reply.

I like taxes. I think they provide important services. I think you've assumed I'm a laize-faire capitalist.

I think we're making different assumptions about the actual trades made. I'm assuming they bought stocks from this computer in a funny pattern that no human would react to. Because it was an algorithmic computer, it reacted in a way no human would. It seems like you're assuming they used sheer volume to inflate and deflate stock value in such a way that humans were also in danger of getting scammed.

The original article didn't specify, so we're just making up shit about what actually happened in our minds (unless you have seen other articles on this in which case I'd be genuinely interested to see them).

My feeling on computers in the stock market is that they're already class action market manipulating scammers. I think they provide little benefit except to siphon profit away from legitimate investors. I think as scammers they should not be protected from getting scammed themselves, especially, if it's s scam only the computers are falling for.

The difference between these stories is in one you are communicating by actually buying or selling, and in the other you're promising a fake buy and then reneging.

When you convince the computer that the stock is worth $5.00, you are not telling a lie. All you are doing is buying in a funny pattern. This computer then buys without doing proper research on the stock. This is pure speculation and it backfires here because someone realized the computer wasn't making an intelligent choice.

If you have a computer that buys and sells based purely on market patterns and other transactions, it is absolutely fair game to dupe the computer. Would you ever buy stock because it had gone up, and then sue someone who sold their shares thus lowering the price?

If you say "I lost my ring and I'll pay a $500 reward for it." and then your accomplice sells it to the mark for $80, and then you buy it for $500, good for you, that's not fraud. That's giving away $420 dollars.

What happened here was they started buying stock in such a way that the computer thought it must be worth something. They then sold it to the computer for what the computer thought it was worth. Again. And again. And again.

That is how the stock market works. It's all perceptions of value and frankly if a computer is not smart enough to evaluate that it's getting shilled by someone, that's too bad for the person who trusted the computer with their wallet.

Because they would get the most upset by potential 'misuse' of their tax money. You have a group that gets VERY upset by the idea of unemployment fraud. That mentality of "make unemployment hard to defraud" is what puts in more bureaucracy and inefficiency.