I think I've arrived at a human translation: Some company wants to raise money to make a Sci-Fi show that can only be purchased via some BitCoin knockoff. However, this same distribution mechanism has failed spectacularly for musicians in the past.

Because Google has only one car?

Read your own bloody link in the future.

It's $350k in income per year, not in net worth. There is a massive difference between the two. A house counts for the latter and not the former.

According to this article you need around $8 million in net worth to be part of the 1%:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/4880064...

So no, a house doesn't cut it.

None of those cases indicate the startup in question was actually successful. Being sold for 10 million when you owe investors 20 million isn't success. Presumably the common stock was worth nothing because the sale was basically a liquidation. The investors signed off on it in exchange for getting whatever money did come in but they didn't make any money on the deal since the worth of the company minus investments was in fact negative.

Just because a startup doesn't go bankrupt doesn't mean it was successful.

There are already guidelines and incentives (not really rules, per se) that were supposed to be designed to encourage ISPs to provide broadband in un-profitable areas. The idea being that it is not profitable to lay out lines to rural areas, so the government would kick in millions of dollars in incentives to help pay for this infrastructure layout. And the ISPs did absolutely everything in their power to collect the incentives, while doing as little as possible to actually serve these areas.

The way the incentives were originally laid out, "under-served areas" were defined by county, and ISPs got incentives based on bringing broadband coverage to these counties. I live in Ohio, and Time Warner, for example, set up a service area in a small area at the four-corner intersection of four counties. The area consisted of a few dozen homes and businesses. Then they declared that these four "under-served areas" encompassing over 1200 square miles (less than one square mile of which was actually served) now had access to broadband coverage. Time Warner collected their build-out incentives and moved on, and many of those areas are still not covered to this day.

It's shenanigans like this that make people hate cable companies with a burning passion, and as much as I'm not in favor of government intervention, cable companies had their chances to prove themselves good actors in the free market. They ate the carrots already, it's high-time for the stick.

Copyright ownership does not mean something cannot be distributed or given away or copied, how would anyone publish anything then? Copyright ownership is merely legal control over how something is copied and distributed and the owner get's to define how people can and cannot copy their work. For example, the copyright owner of a book would allows a printer to create copies of their copyrighted content in each book that they print. There's limits on the control with things like fair use and the first sale doctrine.

A licence is merely a legal statement defining exactly how a given piece of copyrighted work can be copied. As the copyright owner, and only as the owner ultimately, you can licence the work in any way you want. The license may be fairly complex such is the case with the GPL however it does not need to be such as with the MIT license. A work with no copyright owner is in the public domain and can be distributed and copied and modified with no limits.

Licences differ from public domain in that the copyright owner can use the legal system to claim copyright infringement on those who break the licence. A work in the public domain has no copyright owner and as a result no one can take you to court over it or enforce any licence on the work (in theory, in practice money trumps everything).

At around $50+/hour of driving taxis aren't exactly cheap. Existing car shares are around a forth of the price so quiet clearly the whole "human driver" part is rather expensive.

First of all, cost is a big driver of user behavior. As a result anything which makes something cheaper will likely change user behavior. I suspect that a big part of the cost of existing car sharing programs is the logistics of keeping a lot of cars near where people live. If you could instead keep most in cheap industrial areas and move around to meet demand on their own then you'd save a lot of cost. That in turn can be passed onto customers.

Convenience is another big driver, if you make something more convenient then people are more likely to use it. A self-driving car would remove most of the differences in convenience between owning a car and something like ZipCar. The car would be at your door so no need to walk to the closest car sharing location. The car can return itself so you can actually make one way trips. They'll also be a lower chance of no cars being available since they can come to you from further away rather than being limited to just the nearby locations.

"If the userbase is really fixed then Mozilla should try to maximize their revenue by letting Yahoo! and Google bid for the rights."

They do exactly this. Yahoo's bid was comparable in terms of money, and "better" in terms of Mozilla's mission. For example, Yahoo agreed to respect the Do Not Track setting -- something Google will never do. Because tracking is Google's business.

Since Yahoo is the underdog in search, Mozilla has more leverage to get them to modify things ( evidently a 35-page "things you should change" document was also agreed to). Google's bid is always "Here's $_______ , take it or leave it, we keep our own counsel about how the web should work"

The spike in crime directly correlates with abortion. It also correlates with the rise and fall of vinyl records. Clearly vinyl records contributed to high crime rates.

Unfortunately, there is no profit motive for mental health treatment. It's either government funded, very occasionally funded by religious and other charitable organizations, or unfunded. Underfunded mental health systems lead demonstrably to higher crime rates.

I think the odds of this statement being true are approximately 3720-to-1.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that some vague, yet menacing government agency has compromised the code and the developers are unwilling to see what they worked for burned to the ground. I mean, 15 years ago, this would have sounded like the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic, but with all that's come out about the U.S. government recently, I think it's perfectly rational. Given the level of security TrueCrypt has the potential to provide, and the level of oversight the U.S. Government wants over both foreigners and citizens alike, I would honestly be surprised if TrueCrypt wasn't compromised long ago.

Maybe the goals of this vague, yet menacing government agency are pure and wholesome. After all, TrueCrypt would absolutely benefit those organizations trying to keep their activities secret from authority. But we'll never know because of the veil of secrecy behind it.

Why does that matter? If the price is too high then don't use Uber. If you don't like variability in price then don't use Uber. It's not a monopoly.

This, or inventing javascript. Ick.