Look, the bottom line is: I don't care who you are, or what you do, or how smart, responsible, and moral you may be in every other aspect of your life - voting Trump for President is a inherently irrational act. You cannot defend it rationally or logically. It is so irrational, irresponsible and fucked up that you need to be hospitalized and kept miles away from polling places. If a GOP had to occupy the White House, I would have grudgingly accepted almost any other candidate that ran in 2016. They couldn't have fucked things up 1/10 as much as Trump did. Trump voters and supporters are entirely out of touch with reality. I can respect your voting for a reasonable conservative Republican - I have zero respect for your voting for an immature, idiotic, narcissistic, amoral, bullying madman.

You know, I have had two FB accounts for years, neither of which have a speck of real information on them, and I've never been told to use my real name. In fact, I personally only know one person who has received such a demand. I think the whole thing is just "security theater" - announce the policy, but only really challenge a random few on the issue. Just enough for users to think they're on top of things, but they don't have the time-consuming task of actually challenging and verifying millions of accounts.

I don't blame the kid for the absolutely over-the-top reaction by the supposedly smarter adults. But, frankly, if I were Muslim and named Ahmed Mohamed and living in Texas, I'm not sure I would consider constructing anything involving wires, battery and timer and bringing it to school. Sure, in a perfect world he SHOULD have been able to without incident, but 14 is old enough to understand the social climate and the danger of unnecessarily scaring the ignorant yahoos.

I might add another annoyance not mentioned yet. Whenever I use one of the more obscure search functions (such as "inurl"), every few pages I am forced to do a captcha because, in their words, they are detecting "suspicious" activity. I guess knowing what you are doing automatically tags you as up to no good.

Problem is, Google and Bing are set up to produce optimum results for the 98% of users that have little to no idea of how to frame a search query; have only fair-to-middling spelling, grammar; and are looking for topics for which the first page or two, at most, of results will get them where they want to go. They are not designed for serious, scholarly, in-depth, obscure, complex or nitpicking search queries. Like many things in life, they are dumbed down to serve the masses.

Most people use 5 gb/mo.? Really? Hell, I do just basic web browsing, no gaming, no streaming movies (just the odd YouTube vid now and then) and I still chew up a good 20-25 gb. Somebody just checking e-mail, Facebook and a few blogs and news sites several times a day probably tops 5 gb before the month is up.

I have almost never viewed any major site's overhaul as an improvement. It usually ends up just complicating (or even rendering impossible) the things I use it for. Invariably, there was nothing "wrong" with the site's functionality as it was that needed "fixing," but they decided to mess with it anyway. Maybe I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but when something works fine as it is, I'm a firm advocate for leaving well enough alone.

It was not quite hyperbole when JFK jokingly addressed a group of Nobel winners at the White House: "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Man, he accomplished so much, yet still found time to regularly impregnate the help!

I've always said copyright is for the birds... (Well, someone had to say it!)

Perfect solution -- I mean, it's not like they could borrow a car, or have one registered in someone else's name. Oh, wait...

Not to mention a 2-dimensional image (depth of field is important when driving) that is of a considerably reduced size compared to reality.

Many drivers will likely start to rely solely on the camera image, instead of using it as an adjunct to a brief walkaround check and the normal "real life" turn-your-head field of view. It may save some lives, but I fear other preventable backup accidents will happen due to overreliance on the camera. In general, I feel that a lot of safety technology, including things like airbags and ABS, lull some drivers into a false sense of security that leads them to be more careless, inattentive, or even reckless. These devices are all well-intentioned, and undoubtedly have saved some lives, but are counterproductive if the most critical part of the vehicle -- the driver -- relies on them to the exclusion of good old-fashioned common sense and care.

cognitive, adj. \käg-n-tiv\ : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering).

Lessee...thinking, reasoning, remembering. Strikes one, two, and three. Fox News aficianados don't think or reason -- they are sponges soaking up their pundits' mots du jour and regurgitating them. There's about as much cognitive activity involved their as there is in a trained parrot.

Dissonance, plenty. "Cognitive." not so much.

How 'bout ripping out the driver and replacing him/her with someone who will pay attention to THE ROAD and not video, chitchat, texting or surfing the Web? That would be a worthwhile modification.

Please, folks, stop this incessant and increasingly ridiculous "multi-tasking" behind the wheel. 99% of those who say they can do it safely, can't. They just think they can (primarily because their definition of "safe" is "I haven't had an accident.....yet"). Save the rest of that shit for when you get to your destination. If you can't live without being connected to the hive for the length of your commute, stay home.

Its more like asking the publishers of the phone book to determine whether any individuals or businesses listed are engaged in illegal activity. Or asking the cab company to do the same for every address they are asked to deliver a passenger to.

There's no perfect analogy, but in every example, applying the same "logic" to a physical world parallel results in something ludicrous and impractical, and definitely something that a third party shouldn't be expected to do for free, or really at all.

But they are much harder to find, and might require, I don't know, some effort? Going after the low-hanging fruit is always preferable: it pads your conviction rate; takes less time, money and detective work; and looks great to the "think of the children crowd" at election time (for D.A.s and prosecutors) or budget time (for law enforcement agencies).