Many businesses, especially software companies (my main experience) don't give employees any notice before firing them, downsizing, layoffs, etc. So what right do the have to expect notice when the employee is the one that ends it? Why don't they get a bad rep for the abrupt end of the relationship if that is a thing? It also depends on the company. Some companies want people to leave immediately as a general policy when they know for sure they are leaving.

That said I usually give at least two weeks notice when possible and there aren't extenuating circumstances. Sometimes they want that two weeks or more and sometimes they don't.

Teslas do not have a "self driving mode". They have a limited autopilot in no way meant to be a "self dirving mode". Are people making the mistake of acting it is supposed to do all the driving for them?

In the context of +AC we get a lot more work done in a lot more condensed brain power spaces in all weather but true design for natural cooling or heat dissipation is less valuable in that context. Not surprising. All powerful innovation changes the context and thus what is of relative value compared to what else. So?

Sure fiber on polls threatens other inferior internet solutions. That is why it is mandatory - it is a much better solution to internet access. That it threatens company's business models that offer inferior solutions is irrelevant. Either they offer equally as good solutions or they lose business to the better competitor. That is how a free market should work and how a meritocracy works.

That is not the point. Only and idiot would want every piece of content vetted before it could be published and want to experience the huge chill of ISPs and webapps and companies scared stiff of being sued for any and all claims against content as their responsibility. I can't believe there are people in slashdot of all places that don't get this.

You really really don't want this. It would END the internet as you know it if all content was the responsibility of every ISP and webapp that had any user supplied content. Calling for this is insane.

You are toxic. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't want to use them then don't use them. But beat them in the marketplace not by State harrassment.

Totally anti-progress, and anti-sharing economy protecting old fashioned business plans and State revenue streams. Take the assholes that did this apart.

Google needs to stomp these idiots flat. It should be trivially easy to do so with their war chest. In any event no sane judge would even hear a case of "infringement" that didn't involve a plaintiff who was in any way the infringer.

Forces in government are miffed with Apple. On a rogue basis or not they sent a message. Call me paranoid if you like.

I paid for all of my books, movies, TV shows. In the case of the latter I often paid a premium. I paid for a better medium that is more usable in the case of books. I should have all rights to those books that I have with paper books, not less. The streaming notion that we own nothing but pay owning prices anyway and our access even for ourselves can be removed at any time is not acceptable in the least.

Slashdot now does the work of the anti-freedom forces and establishment busybodies? This is FUD.

It is precisely these sort of records that can do us the most mischief - those that government enforcers and some kinds of other interested parties would be most likely to use against us. We must demand to especially see these records and others like them and to be allowed to correct or at least file protest on any that we find inaccurate. In some cases we need to sue against misuse of information voluntarily given in one context in another context in ways never justified against our own interests.

Why would a site dealing in illegal activities keep possibly real name identifying information and a history of all illegal transactions associated with each. If these be hackers they are damn stupid ones.

It would result in far less cars on the road. Why? Because many more people would not care to own one but only that one would take them where they wished pretty much when they wished. The rest of the time the car would suffer the needs of other would be passengers instead of being parked idle at an office complex or such and then driven home. It would result in the most efficient use of cars to do desired traveling. IT is doubtful much more travel than today would be desired. It even more doubtful that more cars would be on the road.