That doesn't surprise me. It seems there's no upper limit for scary stories about people running insecure software. Maybe they might be more motivated when people keep turning their lightbulbs on and off.

The internet of things is a little bit of a pervasive security nightmare. I feel like in a few years we're going to be back in a state similar to the early days of the internet with regard to IoT. If people are slow to patch web servers and mobile apps imagine how slow they will be to patch lightbulbs, cameras, door locks etc.

They might be more a problem with consumer grade 'out-of-the-box' type products where ease-of-use is a massive priority, I imagine that use of IoT in corporate or industrial setting might be better. My company's head of technology frequently talks about IoT with massive enthusiasm and optimism, but that just scares me.

Although I had both expected and hoped the cost to be lower, in my mind it's not entirely unfounded or outrageous. A high end television or smart phone will cost you similarly. It does mean that for a while VR will be beyond the reach of many average consumers, especially those who don't already own a capable gaming PC.

Personally I'm excited to just sit down and play some games, but the loftier goals leveraging VR for social applications are likely to be something that will take a few years and component price drops to be achievable.

I am lucky enough to be in Krakow for work this week. It's a beautiful city and some of my colleagues over here are taking me out for beer tonight. I wish I could stay a little longer.

https://instagram.com/p/9B8SmYgVxJ/

Wait there's (or was) a snail in space? Maybe we could add it to the animals in space wikipedia page.

I'll admit to twisting the phrasing bit to fit the analogy. What wanted to tie into was: participating in a freedom should 'keep people out' of the freedoms they are attempting to participate in, such as marriage or access to healthcare. There are a couple of 'impasses' where it gets conflicted, the government can't compel you to do anything in regards to private association or property, but for businesses or public services I think their is an obligation to certain behavior and to certain codes of conduct

I believe there is a basic or 'golden' rule when it comes down to rights. You are entitled to your rights up until the point where they infringe on others. Any religious rights must be weighed against other's rights to to be free from discrimination or persecution. I can't practise or exercise any religious beliefs that might cause anyone else to be denied of their rights.

If I were bus driver would it be reasonable to to deny black people access to the bus I drive because integration is against my religious beliefs? This scenario is functionally no different than a photographer discriminating against people because of their beliefs.

I can't speak for the US but in the UK it would be illegal to force someone as part of their job to do something against their beliefs (not just religious, this could apply to vegetarianism for example). The notable exception to this is when what you are being asked to do would be reasonably expected of a person in your job.

In your analogy. You can play the game of basketball you want. No one can deny you from playing or setting the rules you agree. But you can't play all the time. Sometimes you need to let someone else use the court.

After mousing over the payment provider link to Stripe (and having a peek at the page source), I felt confident in using it myself but that might not work for everyone. Just my feelings.

I noticed that Stripe is Hubski's payment provider. Do you think people would be more willing to use the payment form if it used Stripe's embedded checkout form, rather than it's current custom form?

It's primarily a phycological affair but when I look at the current barebones payment form it definitely evokes a slightly awkward feeling that might put some people off.

I can go have a look tomorrow and see what I can find.

I'm not qualified to speak to the science behind this drive but I can mention something about the mathematics it (supposedly) violates. The conservation of momentum is a mathematical model, and one that so far everything appears to follow, much like Euclidean geometry, which held right up until we discovered relativity. However unlike Euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics, which the conservation of momentum is implied within, momentum is still conserved (in a generalised, linear sense) in quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Which means one of two things must be the case, either the model no longer applies in this instance, or this does not actually have a closed system the most theorists would assume (this is touched with "it could have something to do with the technology manipulating subatomic particles which constantly pop in and out of existence in empty space." but that is when I'm afraid I must defer to someone with a better understanding of subatomic particles than me)