http://www.directindustry.com/...

Who's going to pay any attention to a duffel bag with a spy camera hidden in it? There are far cheaper and easier ways to do the exact same things you are talking about. Why go to all the trouble?

Threatening to punch anyone they see wearing them in the face isn't bullying; is that what you are trying to say?

Plenty of people wanted Google Glass, but they were threatened and bullied by the Luddites, so they stayed silent.

I think you meant to say you absolutely support other people doing what they want politically if it's legal, such as disagreeing with Luckey, or boycotting his product, or raising money for Clinton in response. Because taking any other position would be against American values _and_ hypocritical, right?

And yes, he's perfectly within his rights to say what he said, and i'm within my rights to point out the contradiction, and other people are within their rights to respond to me with disagreements, and etc. Saying that one person gets to have their say and everyone else needs to shut up about it after that is not how political discourse works.

So they booted him off because he was costing them a ton of money and wasn't paying anything. (I guess they were providing him service as a charity?)

But does that mean that they'll kick their paying customers off as well if the costs of defending them against attacks exceed the revenue they're getting from that specific customer? If so that would mean you could put Akamai out of business just by targeting one customer at a time, moving on to a new one as each one was evicted from the service.

Money enough to buy an open platform phone, like Android.

The problem is weather or not we NEED unlimited data. The problem is that we don't want to pay out the ass, at extortionate rates, if we happen to go over our allowance. I don't want to worry about a surprise $100 on my bill because my phone decided to download the latest OS update.

That's not what he's talking about, and you know it.

I believe the real solution would be to invest the billions in AI. Which is also a problem that already has a lot of people working on it, but as you say, less so than the amount already being poured into medical research.

Just figure out how to create AI and raise it in such a manner that it views humans as somewhat dumb but amusing pets. Then stand back and let it cross reference all the existing medical knowledge and figure out how to save us. And it could probably solve a lot of other non-medical problems at the same time.

(The downside is that it may also decide to spay or neuter most/all of us to keep the population in check, but if i get a significantly longer and healthier lifespan in a wealthier and more peaceful world i think i can deal.)

So a single story from one user who doesn't seem particularly computer savvy is now definitive proof? I know you all hate Microsoft, but come on guys, be reasonable.

...you mean aside from having to pay a fine to the IRS for breaking the law in what was probably an attempt to bribe an attorney general?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:

http://www.pajiba.com/politics...

These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.

I spend my commute time listening to audiobooks. In fact my commute has become my primary method of consuming novels and i rarely find time to read printed or ebooks outside of that. So even if i wanted to spend my commute doing something else while an AI drove i'd end up having to reschedule some other non-driving time to make up for the "reading" i wasn't getting done during the same period.

That said though, i don't think the same really applies to people who haven't already found some productive use for their commute time. The article seems vague and hand-wavey at best (as well as full of grammatical errors.) Just because 30-50% claim now they'd be too worried to do something else while the AI drove doesn't mean they'd feel the same way after owning or using such a car for several days or weeks. People are often far more willing to adapt to things than they would predict. And even if that number were valid the other 50-70% would still be getting more free time, so the generalized statement would still be false.

I think both of you are over-attributing this to "voting for them because they're X" when it's more "voting for them because they're not Y".

I don't particularly like Clinton. I don't think she's a crook or a serial murderer or any of the other crazy conspiracy theories, I just think she's a bit more conservative than i'd really like. But there's no way i'm going to help throw the election to Trump by voting for anyone other than the person who is most likely to defeat Trump.

Until we get rid of the first past the post voting system voting either R or D says a lot more about who you _don't_ want to be president. (And voting for a third party says either that you (possibly mistakenly) believe your vote has 0% chance of making a difference or you really don't care who gets elected.)

I've got the same combination on my luggage! ...er, i mean that's the exact same assumption i make about either/or questions as a person with very little knowledge of statistics who knows nothing about the underlying factors!