I'll take "People who have sold goods or services for Bitcoin" for 100 please Alex...

Erm...THAAD provides a first-strike capability by destabilising Mutual Assured Destruction. If the US have the ability to destroy incoming nukes from Russia/China then they can perform a nuclear strike at any time without fear of retribution.

Unless the parent was being deliberately obtuse and I'm a victim of some weird second-cousin of Poe's Law...

So where's my gritty Quantum Leap reboot? Priorities people!

To my mind one of the biggest issues that needs to be sorted out for widespread adoption of "creative" or "decision-making" robots is liability. If a human screws up, fails to deliver or (worse) gets someone hurt or killed then we have a handy meatsack that can be thrown in jail or sued into poverty. When robots aren't safely behind perspex but are actively interacting with people as drivers, waiters or financial advisers, this becomes muddy quickly.

Once this is sorted out, I expect robots to start replacing human labour very quickly indeed.

I think a lot of B&M stores have realised that informed shoppers use them as a place to check out products before they buy them online from retailers who have significantly less overheads and therefore lower prices.

As such the B&M stores need to appeal to people who either;
        a) Need something *NOW*
        b) Are morons

In both cases, cheap crap fits the bill nicely.

You want to do *brain* research on ./ users? Have you really thought this through?

I think that if you report damage to the car you can do it through the app (including pictures and maybe videos) rather than have to mail them in separately.

Also they like watching you driving...

I suppose technically it was driven in three different decades, but yeah I think there's a degree of maths fail going on here.

Presumably a static generator could be made significantly more efficient than a small vehicle-mounted ICE so why not prop up the growing "Supercharger" infrastructure with some generator-backed systems at existing gas stations? The fuel is already on-site and I'd expect that an enterprising company could knock out diesel-powered fast charge units for a decent price.

Secondly if customers are put off the idea of an EV by range issues then perhaps there is an opportunity for Chevy (or VW or whoever) to partner with car clubs or rental companies to provide subsidized rentals (say 4 per year with a 1500-mile per trip limit) to EV customers.

Seems like what we need are some practical solutions to get over the initial adoption hurdles (cost, range, charging) to the point where purchase volume can help to drive real innovation and investment in infrastructure.

Pure-EV solutions might not be for everyone now (and may never be for that matter) but I'm sure there are pragmatic ways to get us up from the current 1%.

To my mind things like subsidies for EVs are exactly the type of thing that governments should be doing to drive adoption. While the "tax fossil fuels until the market produces an alternative" idea has some merit (sort of) it doesn't take into account the fact that the poorest people, and the people most likely to take a job a long way from their home, are the people who would be hit hardest and earliest. Just as Electric Vehicles aren't the right solution for every driver, Free Market Economics aren't the right solution for every problem.

One big issue in London is that because of increasing house prices (20%+ year-on-year is pretty common) foreign investors are buying large numbers of properties to the point where they are not even advertised for sale in the UK. They then leave them vacant, relying on the prices rises for their ROI. This avoids all the complexity of finding and managing tenants. Developers know they can sell high-end luxury apartments so they build them. People buy them but no-one lives there so there is no downward effect on prices.

A different but related issue is the lack of decent hotels and the subsequent insane pricing of Central London hotel rooms has led to a booming "apartment hire" industry where huge volumes of housing stock are purchased by corporates for intermittent use. These count towards the number of new homes built so the Government can use these figures to talk about how they're empowered house builders and encouraging growth and all that, but the actual volume of usable housing stock doesn't change.

This means that there are huge sections of Central London which are unaffordable for people who work in or near those areas. The average house price in Greater London is likely to hit £600,000 ($940,000) this year while the median salary is about £35,000 or $55,000.

Despite all the talk about free markets and the choices of people to live elsewhere and whatnot, I'm pretty sure that the above is evidence of a dysfunctional and distorted market.

+1 for Gandi here.

The fact they support 2FA using Google Authenticator (and my Yubikey Neo) is a big win for me.

Switched to them from Tera-Byte who are bloody awful.

Clearly this Submission must die, but if someone wants to resubmit with less mistakes then be my guest!!

Also "first" and so on and so forth...

Although I'm sure many of the listed scientific luminaries were fully sincere in their faith, it's worth noting that it's only very recently that Atheism as a concept, let alone a life choice, came about. It would never have occurred to a number of these scientists that non-belief was even an option.

It is through their work however that our knowledge of the universe has grown to a degree where belief in a deity IS strictly optional and the number of serious scientists who profess faith in a Creator has diminished accordingly.

This seems to me a very apt time for the age-old Slashdot comment "the plural of anecdote is not data". Sounds like you've done great, provided you're not full of shit (and I have no reason to believe you are). But there are many, many people on benefits, in Burger King or in a call-center who had the same idea. Some of them are probably brighter, more motivated, better-looking and (God forbid) less full of themselves than you are.

No-one is saying that you can't leave school at 7 and make a success of your life, no-one is saying that you can't be a complete, well-rounded person without a college degree and I hope very much no-one is saying that going to college somehow makes you a "better" person.

I think the point is that education is the great leveler. Not everyone has a goal at 15, not everyone has a passion. Not everyone has unfettered access to computers and the internet. Some kids are looking after sick parents or siblings or working to supplement the family income or whatever. Going to college places a person in an environment where learning (and self-learning, believe it or not) is encouraged. It gives everyone the same access to technology, resources, books, information. It can be an inspirational experience if treated with the respect it deserves.

It's also the best way right now for people to pretty much guarantee themselves a lifetime of earnings above the median. This doesn't hold so true if you get a bachelor degree in creating cardboard cutouts of famous dogs or something, but if you choose the right degree at the right institution it gives you a leg up.

Congratulations on your successes...I make a steady living in IT and I reckon I could make a lot more if I setup by myself, but I'm a coward and as such my degree is a safety net. I've leveraged it into a good career which affords a lifestyle that would be the envy of probably 95% of the world's population.

This was always the likely outcome. If I'd quit school early I could well have far more material wealth and a far better lifestyle but I could also be the guy who cleans one of your many, many swimming pools. I think the probability is skewed well towards the latter of those two option.s

Has anyone the missing verb from that sentence?