A bubble is likely, but tablets are also a complementary market to the PC. Tablets might have an impact on PC/laptop sales, but they aren't going to spell the death of the platform anymore than Netbooks did.

And like the mighty tablet, Netbooks were predicted to deliver the death blow for PC's by pretty much every tech blog/zine. They ended up having a slight negative impact on PC sales, and then were banished to the land of the unhip the moment usable, inexpensive tablets hit the market. Netbooks failed to deliver on the hype because they were complementary technology, not replacement technology. Tablets are much the same.

Yes, it is still in the seasonal flu shot, but the article being discussed is regarding MMR and autism. According to the link you so helpfully provide, MMR (and the vast majority of pediatric vaccinations) are completely free of thimerosal. This suggests that a child's exposure to thimerosal today is substantially less than what it was 20 years ago. In my opinon and based on my reading of the available research, this greatly diminishes the likelihood that thimerosal has anything to do with the development of autism.

I'm certain the anti-vaccination crowd shuns the flu shot, but as far as I know there is no over-hyped, falsified research touting a link between seasonal flu shots and autism. So sure, it's there... but not nearly as relevant.

Even if thimerosal were mercury, it has no relevant place in the anti-vaccine argument since there was no correlating decline in autism cases when it was removed from children's vaccines. Autism diagnoses have continued to rise in the wake of the questionable thimerosal ban and the rising numbers of the unvaccinated, which all but confirms that thimerosal was nothing more than a needless distraction.

Anti-vaxxers still bring out the ghost of thimerosal because having an opportunity to name drop "mercury" makes them appear to be more serious and educated than they actually are. The first step in reintroducing rationality and logic to an anti-vaxxer is to nip that particular argument in the bud.

I completely agree with you and I like the salt analogy, but I wouldn't even give them that much leeway.

Again, that still wouldn't be censorship, it would be business. Sears already does exactly what you are describing with the DVD's they carry in stores. They have corporate guidelines on which movies they will sell based on various criteria set at the corporate level, which are inevitably influenced by a moral component.

What you are saying is that Sears be required to sell hardcore porn if it's profitible, even if it collides with their business principles. That is f**king frightening.

So by your rather broad interpretation of that definition, pretty much every major retailer on the face of the planet is actively involved in "censorship." Sears, for example, never carried gay-rape fantasy novels in the first place, so they are by far the worst censorship offender!

Holy shit, I didn't realize how serious it was! We'd better call the ACLU and let them know about this liberty-crushing censorship that is allowing Sears and Amazon to somehow police our morals and examine our materials for objectionable matter, even for people who don't shop there!

On the other hand, we could act like rational adults and accept that private entities have the right to make their own decisions. In that case, one could simply procure the alleged questionable items elsewhere without any difficulty.

I'm just baffled that Slashdot users would still have such a difficult time distinguishing censorship from private business action. It cheapens the very seriousness of the term "censorship" to use it in such an improper, and frivolous way.

There is absolutely nothing worthy of the term "censorship" anywhere in this story. Amazon does not control what I can see/read/say any more than my local small engine repair shop does. It's a private entity with every right to choose what they sell. If one is unhappy with their selection or practices they can simply buy elsehwere. Shocking concept, isn't it?

It's nice to know I wasn't alone. Wert canned the real writers and brought in a bunch of talentless interns. From a business standpoint that's AOK, but they tried to use established Jalopnik references that they didn't fully understand and came off looking like clowns. "Look at me, I'm driving a Volvamino and doing double nickels on the dime!"

And you are dead-on - the decline in the quality of commentariat was directly proportional to the quality of the writing. In this case, the shift in both was nearly instantaneous. The last straw for me was a series of kiss-ass "volley*" reviews that trampled the spirit of the site I originally enjoyed.

* Volley review = A review where every negative comment is balanced with a positive comment, as not to entirely offend the manufacturer who may or may not be providing you the car. Prior to the Wert era, Jalopnik had a trashed such reviews in other publications.

You are correct, that is another problem with the library/TPB comparison. The vast majority of libraries these days charge for use of their copier(s) and even if they didn't you're probably not going to copy an entire work as the investment in time to photocopy "War and Peace" would be more than the cost of buying the book outright. And then, the pages you've copied are nowhere near the quality of the source material nor is the product perfectly identical.

I still don't see a difference that magically turns theft into something morally commendable. Sure, software vendors, movie studios and record labels can be jerky and use off-putting DRM to piss off their potential customers, but that is their right as the author and manufacturer. If one doesn't like it, they can support a competing product, produce their own product or simply abstain from the market.

Do I agree with it? Not always. Would I fight far reaching restrictions? Most definitely. Am I going to steal a bunch of software/media because I've invented some moral high ground that rationalizes it based on my disagreements with behavior of the industry? No.

Your comparison of TPB to a library overlooks the fact that the library (each individual library system, actually) purchases/liscenses/contracts the content they lend. TPB finds someone else who has purchased/liscensed/contracted content and takes it without having contributed anything to the authors/owners who created it. They do this at a scale that dwarfs the content cycle of a single library system.

The assets of a library also come with limitations (return dates, access limitations, DRM, content expiration dates) which would require a user to purchase the content if they want unfettered, indefinite access to the content. A pirated version of software and other pirated content has no such limitations and there is significantly less incentive for a pirate to convert to a legitimate copy.

You can certainly rationalize and encourage theft by playing the "poor people should have expensive stuff too" card, but most librarians would cringe at your argument. I'm all for helping people out and for free access to information, but if you want to own something (and I'm sorry, but unless you are getting firmware for a pacemaker, software is a want) you buy it. If you can't afford it you don't buy it or you find an alternative you can afford. Amazing how that works, ain't it?