Well, that would be Suicide Linux, obviously.

I used to have lazy eye, but after having to deal with Ubisoft DRM it now twitches uncontrollably.

The fact that you can type anything you like into that inanimate magic light box sitting in front of you that uncritically accepts whatever you say makes it easier than ever for people to be dicks on a massive scale. You've highlighted the lesson every kid needs to be taught before they touch an internet-connected device:

If you threaten to rape someone on the internet, you threaten to rape them in real life.
Because if you say it on the internet, you're saying it in real life.
Because the internet is real life.

It's not this semi-non-existent alternative reality that "doesn't count."

The technology's great - something that I feel was inevitable, yet still a tremendous breakthrough.

That being said, does no one proofread anymore?

Following amputation, surgeons had to wait three months for the limbs to heel before they could be fitted with the new prosthetic.

So Amazon just patented 3-D printing... ON A TRUCK? What other existing technologies can we add "on a truck" to to create a novel invention?

They are tracking (or rather, were previously) cell phones without fingerprints. The point of this initiative is to verify that the identify registered to the cell phone actually belongs to the person using the cell phone. IE, terrorists have been using cell phones registered to other people (or fake identities), and fingerprinting all cell phone users hopefully will make that more difficult or at least provide an avenue for investigation.

That's why I only program in Brainfuck - all wheat, no chaff. There's a 100% correspondence between lexemes and critical functionality.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - it doesn't matter if you use explosive gases or electromagnets to propel your bullets. Maybe you want a self-propelled missile?

We really need the mythbusters to tackle the quesion of RPGs in zero gravity.

On aggregate, I'm a very ethical person.

And why can't they? If the FCC changes the definition of broadband so the cable companies can't call it "broadband", then renaming it "Extra super good internet" is exactly the sort of thing they'll do. They'll just use some non-technical marketing language to describe it.

I don't see how it would have that effect without price controls. Since there's no standardized technical definition for "broadband" as it relates internet connection speeds, it's a meaningless term. The problem is that the way the FCC is using the term to measure ISP deployment progress is based on a moving target. From TFA:

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 said that advanced telecommunications capability must “enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” Wheeler’s proposed annual report says the 4/1 definition adopted in 2010 “is inadequate for evaluating whether broadband capable of supporting today’s high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video is being deployed to all Americans in a timely way.”

Well, of course it's inadequate, because those things have become more demanding of bandwidth, because as more people have higher-speed internet access, sites and services take advantage of this fact and offer products that require it. Netflix video streaming started in what, 2007? HD videos on YouTube didn't roll out until 2009. I don't think playing word games by redefining terms will help anything.

If you want to make federal dollars dependent on a deployment/upgrade schedule, then make a schedule. Say "99% of users must have access at minimum down/up speeds of X/Y in 5/10/15/20 years", doubling the X & Y every 5 years (or whatever). Don't say "well yesterday 4 Mbps was broadband, but today Netflix offers 2160p 3D video, so we're going redefine our standard to whatever Netflix's top offering requires." (Yes, I know that's not exactly what they're doing, but it's close).

I'm no shill of the providers here - I think the effective monopolies have resulted in a great deal of harm to consumer choice and product quality - but this particular proposed action of the FCC strikes me as silly. Reclassifying them as common carriers and Congress banning anti-competitive laws that prohibit municipal broadband would go a great deal further toward fixing the problem IMHO. If you want internet to be a utility, treat it like a utility. If you want it to benefit from free market forces, make sure customers have real choices among competing products.

1) I would imagine this train would be quite loud.
2) How strong will the track have to be? Is there a chance it could bend?
3) So many primary roads are in a terrible state of disrepair, with cracks and potholes.
4) How will this program benefit those of us who lack a college education or proper hygiene?
5) Was Elon Musk sent here by the devil?
6) The ring came off my pudding can!

What about the placebo effect? Eating dark chocolate makes me happy, and if I believe it's good for me, isn't it likely to have some health benefits due to this?

Plus, if I do all the things that they say will make me live longer - avoid sugar, avoid fat, get off the couch, drink my own piss - what's the point? Living longer won't be worth it if I can't do any of the things worth living for.

At least scientists have shown (possibly NSFW) that looking at breasts is good for your heart.

At Toyota, we believe that when good ideas are shared, great things can happen

So I take it they're not going to open their patents on gas pedal design?

American astronauts will not return to the moon, not to mention go to Mars, in the foreseeable future.

...if we rely completely on NASA-managed, government-funded space exploration, that is. I don't think it's fair to limit our vision to the public option, important though it may be.

I foresee a future of space exploration funded by the super-rich, because it's cool and they can, but also organizations with a speculative interest. I'm thinking of asteroid mining - robotic at first, but if an asteroid is captured and brought near earth, manned operations will probably take place at some point.

Looking back at the earlier days of Earth exploration, specifically "new world" and Antarctic, there were no guarantees of success or even survival; and while Columbus was state-funded, the mission was of a primarily commercial interest. Shackleton's and Scott's, however, were primarily for exploration - scientific curiosity. As long as we have people like Elon Musk, there's a chance for manned exploration. Even a high-risk manned mission to Mars would have plenty of willing volunteers, as long as there was a chance of safe return (I do think it would at least have to be planned to be round-trip).

And the award for Best Employee of the 20th Century goes to...

This inanimate wooden pallet!