This is so true. I work for a Canadian agency and just 4 months ago we upgraded away from IE6 finally. To IE8. I am sure a significant portion of our traffic is from internal sources so our data would be skewed as well. As a developer I am one of the few with the local permissions to install another browser, but the other 99% of the agency are stuck with the ridiculous standard.

So by 2030 we'll be powering all the large skyscraper office-towers with just local solar panels? And all those electric vehicles plugging in at the office will get their power from the same solar panels? Even if the entire network is powered by solar panels, there's no way (today) that they can generate enough capacity within city centers to power those areas. They would need to lay panels in less dense areas and transport it to the city center. And since that would still require public infrastructure, the utilities would still be the ones managing it.

ugh, didn't notice bracket contents were stripped:

Exactly this. I eat the same meal for breakfast every day (bowl of Shreddies). I do enjoy it, but mostly because it is my morning ritual. Beyond that, I find eating is a chore. I vary my intake for dinners to ensure I'm getting a diverse set of nutrients (plus a vitamin supplement), but I find it all rather tasteless and it is just something I do to stay healthy. If I am already not enjoying eating a meal, it might as well be made more convenient by eating it as a slurry of nutrients in a convenient package.

FTFY. Different strokes for different folks, obviously.

To be fair, the early food-marketed versions of canola oil were arguably unhealthy and its sale was the result of people whose livelihoods depended on selling the product when it was no longer needed in vast quantities for machine oil (i.e after the war).

Today's versions actually are pretty healthy, but I bet the original product wasn't any more harmful than today's usual fare at MacDonald's. :P

By that logic is it ok to drive on public roads at 200MPH as long as nobody gets harmed? It's about risk, and her actions were perceived to expose the public to unnecessary risk of injury (speeding yes, device arguable), hence she was appropriately cited based on existing laws.

Is there a requirement for a corporate entity to engage in commerce, or otherwise lose their corporate personhood? It would be nice if the individuals involved lost that protection and could be sued/charged directly...

And what's wrong with that? He can use it, or he can sell it to a company that will use it. Either way he profits and the technology is used and society benefits. Maybe he could've made more money licensing it, but I don't see the societal benefit of maximizing this one person's profit when it enables other entities to do so much rent-seeking.

The government is discontinuing rural home postal delivery and moving to community boxes. This is no different than most Canadian cities have done for years already. They are doing this because the traditional mail volumes are so low that the service has become very expensive to provide. There is no doubt some will be inconvenienced, but it's not like they are discontinuing mail service entirely. I prefer a government that adapts to changes in society, rather than wasting money to keep "feel-good" services running.

That being said, I hate Harper as much as the next guy, but the postal decision makes sense.

I say take it to the farthest level. Let's say he was smoking and taking a phone call during the climax of the movie. Is it justified now? Still no, of course.

And I call bullshit on the shooter feeling physically threatened, which was reported in one article. A popped bag of microwave popcorn weighs about 65 grams, the potential for actual harm is laughable (unless you consider trans-fats). Even if he didn't know what hit him, I bet it sure as hell didn't hurt him. No - the only thing threatened was the shooter's ego. After being hit with the popcorn he became enraged and shot the guy. We'll see what comes to light.

I don't think it is actual application of the law that is the perceived issue. The fact that it exists and is widely known (though maybe not by its technical definitions) could conceivably lead people to use lethal force in a situation that they otherwise would not have, thinking that the Stand Your Ground law somehow applies and allows for the action. But, I am not an American nor do I know much about the law beyond what is in the media.

This article would be better suited as a comment on the older story. It adds very little to the discussion given that everybody already knows it wasn't for an actual traffic study. That is, unless the nutjobs are still trying to argue that it was a traffic study? (I didn't RTFA...)

Please enlighten me, because I don't understand the arguments against this.

Today Netflix pays some ISP to make their content available, and today I pay my ISP to be able to download content. The service being offered would allow Netflix to pay my ISP my side of that transaction where their content is concerned. From the information available, this is not rent-seeking or removing my ability to choose what I want to download with my available bandwidth, nor is it degrading the Netflix offerings because if Netflix doesn't use that service then everything is status quo. This doesn't seem like blackmailing content providers into paying premiums for normal service levels.

So if there is some compelling reason why Netflix should not have the option to pay my ISP for my bandwidth if they choose, please explain to me how this is different and worse than Netflix's current practice of providing OpenConnect to my ISP to lower my ISP's costs (which theoretically lowers my bandwidth costs)? Is it not the same thing in principle - giving money/resources to the ISP to increase the value of the service?

Why the hell does that have an Australian accent in my head?