Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons

Like...? Glass technophobes always remind me of the reaction to Kodak cameras in the 1880's. A few choice quotes:

One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH."

The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."

I really don't get the vitriol. In 120 years people will laugh at the primitives from the early 2000's who reacted with shock and horror to Google glass. My biggest objection is that it's rude to glance at a notification when you're speaking to someone. But that's true of a phone, too.

prosecutors are investigating whether third-party processors that route payments for merchants through banks are ignoring signs of fraud to rake in fees from transactions.

There are legal ways to shutdown companies that are breaking the law. They involve judges and due process and an adversarial system, not extra-legal requests from the DOJ to the payment processors. An order to seize property or force a business closure can be appealed and overturned. What's their recourse here? Sue the payment provider? Sue the DOJ? Can't. No business, no money. This *is* horrible. If they are investigating, they should complete their investigation, and then ask a judge to do something, or have someone arrested.

...an expectation of privacy in public...
...privacy in public...
...public...

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but the amount of mental gymnastics required to accept that statement is beyond my poor abilities. Bravo on your logical elasticity.

No. It just shows that Americans are taking Obama's online petitions just as seriously as he does.

A nameless, faceless, identity that anyone can assume at any time, by definition, does not have a record

And yet it still manages to have a better one than the FBI.

It was the $cientology of its day.

You express your argument so confidently for someone who completely wrong. You are either completely ignorant of the history of one or the other or both.

Kind of my point. Publishers seem to be terrified of the popularity of ebooks, so they look to make them as unappealing as possible. Price of a product with no shipping, no inventory, and no materials cost is more expensive than the print ones? That stinks of market manipulation and tells me they really don't want ebooks to succeed. Meanwhile, many self-published authors are making bank on an often inferior product because they sell at a reasonable price. Seriously. Publishers need to give customers what they want at a fair price. I think they'd be surprised how much money they'd make.

The reason ebook only books sell better is because they are priced in line with the market for ebooks. The market is clear that the correct price for a bunch of bits that make an ebook is up to ~$4. The traditional publishers are trying to use their monopoly to enforce a dead tree price on a bunch of electrons, and they are being outsold by less rigid authors who want to make money, not maintain control.

What do you think separates us from 'them'? This killing was against the laws of the United States and as such was murder. The 5th amendment is what protects you, and any time the government disregards its own laws, you should be afraid.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

You lose all control over the material and some ugly things can happen.

Yeah. Disney might make a movie out of it.

Well, perhaps 'main character' is overstating it. He was in 11 of the 47 episodes, and always called her "Mistress".

You would have to have watched "The Sarah Jane Adventures". K-9 was a main character.

Thanks for the link! I knew that toffee couldn't be right.

I thought there was only one Matrix movie.

Here you go.