This article makes no sense to me. Yes - you get 60 minutes in an hour. That doesn't change. You get 100 cents in the dollar. You also get 100 bitcents in a bitcoin... From the article "When you make a capital expenditure or a buy an equity, you are obviously taking a risk. With stocks, you are buying future streams of income. Same with that new factory. But the risk is increased exponentially if you don’t know what you will be paid back with. Is it a 100 cent dollar, a 20 cent, or a 115 cent dollar?". Let me ask, if I, in Australia purchase US$1,000 with my Australian money costing me A$970, and then three months later sell my US$1,000, will I get A$970? Unlikely. Perhaps I'll get A$950 or A$1,050. No-one knows. It's called Forex Trading. It's still money... Bitcoins float in comparison to other currencies exactly the same way.

What I think is interesting (and I'm not a scientist in any way) is that this has shown serial killers no to be killers 'just because', but due to a 'simultaneous firing of large number of neurons in the brain' which is 'similar to epileptic seizures'. People punish serial killers while trying to help epileptics by finding ways to control the underlying issue. While I am not trying to get into a debate on punishment vs. rehabilitation, I think that if it is possible to show what has been shown then it would make sense that the next step would be to try to understand how these simultaneous firings could be reduced/controlled. This *could* have the result of removing the need of the serial killer to kill in the first place.

I think people have missed a vital point with respect to the confiscation of the mobile phone. It was not the mall security guard who said he could confiscate the phone, but rather it was the *police officer* stating that under the Terrorism Act he could confiscate the phone.

This is actually quite timely for me as I am currently studying Cyber Ethics at uni. While I admit, I have only just begun to read into this area and haven't read TFA, the textbook that I am reading starts by asking the question 'Why Cyber Ethics and not just Ethics'. I believe the answer to this would also apply in the case of this post.

“A typical problem in Computer Ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about how computer technology should be used. Computers provide us with new capabilities and these in turn give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct in these situations exist or existing policies seem inadequate.” (MOOR, James, 1985)

Moor suggests that “Computers are logically malleable in that they can be shaped and molded to do any activity that can be characterized in terms of inputs, outputs and connecting logical operations. Because logic applies everywhere, the potential applications of computer technology appear limitless. The computer is the nearest thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computers are largely the limits of our own creativity.”

MOOR, James. 1985. What is Computer Ethics?, p.266.

Ok, so I'm well aware that unless done correctly this would have security concerns, but... Could this type of technology be used to build a wireless mesh network, allowing people to access the Internet via wi-fi where ever they were so long as there were multiple Wi-Fi Direct appliances that could be chained together to connect to the data?

I should have put the link to the Google page in the body. The 'Transparency Report' can be found here: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/

The examination system in the US might be different from that of the UK or Australia where I have taken degree level exams, so excuse me if I have got this incorrect in relation to the thread.

In my experience, I have been allowed a non-programmable calculator and a *paper* translation dictionary. There was no limitations on who could bring a paper translation dictionary to the exam, so there was no unfair advantage to someone who chose to bring one.

I have seen some students with disabilities being able to use a desktop computer to write out answers rather than using paper and pen, however in these cases the computer was provided by the institution and was not network enabled.

If the exam was open book, as is the case in this thread, then I was allowed to bring any paper documentation that I liked but was not allowed to have anything in electronic format.

I have never been allowed any form of electrical device - ipod, mobile phone, laptop in an exam room other than a non-programmable calculator (if a calculator was allowed).

I don't believe this has hindered me in my studies, and I see no reason why the above should not be standard practice.

For those over the age of 12, using "gay" as a generic derogatory is pretty fucking childish and insulting.

Feel free to mod me as flamebait, but I seem to be missing the point. Would that not be the intention?