The difference is that Zuckerberg is taking moral responsibility for his actions by accepting whatever unpleasentness is involved in killing the animals rather than passing off an excuse that it would be too hard to not participate in the enslavement of workers to make his goods like you are.

That was my reaction too. If they are this cautious about unexplained traffic then maybe a online password service (run by them) isn't the disaster I thought it would be.

Because IQ is supposed to be a measure of intelligence not future success. The fact it predicts future success moderately well is interesting but the fact it fails to measure what it is supposed to measure is profoundly problematic. By failing to accurately measure the desired specific factor the resulting value is rendered fairly meaningless.

If I had a speedometer that gave me useful information about my fuel consumption it would be interesting and possibly useful but it wouldn't help me avoid getting speeding tickets.

I'm glad that they are identifying how much motivation is important in success compared to the numeric value you get on an IQ test.

I scored very highly on my IQ testing from an early age. I was able to coast through school achieving high marks and all the praise and benefits that entailed without putting almost any effort into it. Then I hit university and was completely bludgeoned by the fact I had to self-motivate to produce and that there was actual efforted required to succeed and I couldn't just pound out my assignments in 20 minutes and get back to playing computer games. That early engraining that success doesn't require work, along with significant mental illness has left me far less successful than the numbers say I should be. My general conclusion is that IQ is an interesting number but other than indicating how well you perform on a limited variety of tests it doesn't have much value.

That is actually a downright insightful potential solution and one so toxic that no politician could ever mention considering it, let alone actually putting in forward. By placing the government in the position of providing morally (if not legally under this scheme) objectionable material, the 'think of the children' brigade and religious moralizers would come out against it screaming for the head of anyone who supported it.

The other problem this would face is that many people consider the viewing of child exploitation as re-exploiting that child each time. Imagine how that child (or now grown) victim feels about pedophiles whacking off to their picture, a picture that they were forced to take against their desires that disgusts them and they wish every trace of it were eradicated. How do you balance the victims rights and the fact they never (and could not have) consented to those pictures being taken. Also the law would need to disolve copyright for seized childporn in order to redistribute it legally.

This is an example of buying the hype the police are selling. Fewer people respond violently to law enforcement today than 20 years ago but the fact that the 24-hour news networks are reporting every case across the entire country as if it happened in your own town creates an impression of an epidemic of violence. Using a raid for gangs or drugs where disposal of evidence is a real risk is reasonable.

However deleting childporn from a computer is fairly time consuming given the quantities these people usually accumulate it in and preventing it from being easily recoverable even more so. Approaching the door with two uniformed officers with a warrant for the computers is an easy solution. One officer stays with the accused at the door while the other goes and unplugs any computer they can find. An extremely computer saavy childporn downloader might have set up sufficient failsafes to delete his data but it is very difficult to do and they aren't going to be using their own IP address in the first place so there should be an indication that greater preperation is needed when they are finally tracked down.

Canada has the same (flawed) system but sustains 3 major national parties, 1 minor national party, 1 major regional party, and a hodgepodge collection of irrelevant (electorally) parties. Granted we have been slowly shifting towards consolidating the parties since the two conservative parties merged and promptly took control of the government (more related to the current ruling party's overblown scandal). In many ways our greater number of parties actually is an advantage towards moving to proportional representation because there are politicians who would gain from it that support it (it is actually a policy plank of the NDP) rather than having everyone with the power to reform the system benefiting greatly from the way it excludes others from accessing political power.

Lots of judges do have the knowledge and issue reasonable warrants (not no-knock) when the police come to them. The police know this too but they have the choice about which judge to request the warrant from, so they go to the most ignorant and pliable judge who blindly accepts their questionable assertions as fact and issues them a no-knock warrant to send a SWAT team in. If the police weren't given the ability to 'shop' for a compliant judge there would be much less of an issue but currently they bypass anyone who knows enough to not go along with their rediculous plan.

Personally I dislike the 'metric' gigabyte because it is a sloppy number simply used for convenience. A 'real' gigabyte has that specific number of bytes not because someone arbitrarily decided it would be because our computers are fundamentally structured around a base 2 system and 2^30 is a specific value not a 'convenient to easy round off to but relatively near value'. Also a 7% difference in size is not insignificant so I would expect them to not round down or be clear that they have done so if they do.

I'd like to see companies pay taxes where they actually operate and where they have the employees doing the work to generate the revenues rather than being able to shop around and choose to pretend their income comes from whichever country happens to have the most favourable tax climate that day. On the other hand I'm not a big fan of globalization as it is practiced and think the fact that tariffs are defacto illegal is a tragedy, so perhaps I'm not the person to look to.

Failing to criticize our national governments simply because others do worse guarantees a slow creep towards that worse behaviour because anything less is, by your reasoning, acceptable. The fact that Iran, Burma, and China engage in broader and more extensive internet control and suppression doesn't make the ICE domain seizures more acceptable or infringe freedoms any less.

Further, I personally believe that we have a greater obligation to ensure our home country is abiding by the principals we want other countries to. Not only does it clear us of hypocrisy (see US on torture and prisons) when attempting to convince other countries to reform their practices, it provides a clear example that it can be done without catastrophic consequences (assuming they don't see our culture itself being a catastrophe), and is how our government is structured to function. Limiting our scope to local issues is often a matter of conserving our efforts and avoiding tilting at windmills. I can't personally stop hunger in Africa but I can ensure my neighbours get invited over for dinner frequently because I know that the adults in their house frequently miss meals to ensure that their kids always get fed. The same principle applies to world affairs - I can make real (though small) changes in the US but ignoring them because China is worse leaves the entire world a worse place.

I was quite dissapointed by Canada's lack of inclusion. As a Canadian I would have found it particularly useful to provide a comparison against other countries. The US score seemed irrationally low which makes me think that Canada would be somewhere equivalent to Estonia, maybe with a small penalty for the challenges we are facing providing rural internet access.

About a year and a half ago in my town (Edmonton, Canada) a couple guys snuck up to a photo radar SUV, removed the license plate, swapped it with their real plate, and then proceeded to loop through this radar trap at 15 above the limit for several hours. Tragically they made a fairly serious error while doing this and videotaped the entire episode and posted a (partial) version up on the internet. While the police were highly embarrased by the incident, the guys ended up having to pay to totality of their accumulated fines but thanks to a lenient judge didn't actually serve any jail time.

Actually with many models of phone they can be remotely enabled (by the phone company with a police warrent) to provide tracking information even while turned off, provided there is still battery charge. This came up recently in a Quebec mob trial because the police used this in the trial which the defendant tried to get the info tossed out because the police had broken his (old model) phone during an 'interview' and he claimed deliberately ensured he got a trackable one when they were obligated to replace it.

Maybe I'm paranoid but what makes you believe that they are not tracking or at least able to track any OnStar capable vehicle regardless of whether you are subscribed or not. Recently there have been entire lines of vehicles that come with OnStar as a default and (I think) a 'free one year trial subscription' and you can later activate the OnStar function even if not currently subscribed and receive assistance at a inflated rate.