> Because they believe that Google should be at the front line of essentially censoring the internet to only return things they feel are 'acceptable'.

Which, given that Google has voluntarily taken on this general role, is simply a debate over what the standards for "acceptability" are.

You can get RON-100 fuel for automotive engines that are lead free, why cant the same be done for Avgas?

Its at least a problem, given that this isn't the first FAA effort in this direction, and, per TFA, they've already tested 279 proposed "drop-in" replacement fuels without finding one that is completely acceptable.

No, they are not asking for workable new fuels, because there is no substitute for lead for the older engines.

Whether or not you are correct that "there is no substitute", they are, in fact, asking for workable new fuels. FTFA:

The Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today asked the world’s fuel producers to submit proposals for fuel options that would help the general aviation industry make a transition to an unleaded fuel. The FAA is committed to the development of a new unleaded fuel by 2018 that would minimize the impact of replacing 100 octane low-lead fuel for most of the general aviation fleet.

You also forgot to mention (though you likely know) that getting a STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) for an Unleaded Gasoline engine in the hundreds of models that are still using 100LL is going to take many millions of dollars and years of testing and paperwork to push through the certifying authority, which also happens to be the authority trying to force the issue.

Yeah, its a good thing that the FAA isn't talking about new engines at all, but instead calling on fuel producers to come up with replacement fuels that will work in current engines. Which is stated not only in TFA, which I can understand is a huge bother to read before complaining, but in the first sentence of the summary, as well.

So in 6 years, the FAA expects 167,000 aircraft owners to swap the engines in their aircraft for an unleaded engine?

No, and you can tell this from the first line in TFS: "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018."

They want fuel producers to offer options that will meet the need of aircraft that are currently dependent on leaded fuel to operate properly without lead.

And as a small single engine plane owner myself, I'll be damned if the government forces me to spend 30K on swapping out a new engine

I get that its a lot to ask you buy a new engine, or even to RTFA, but could you at least bother to read the first sentence of the summary before exploding with outrage next time?

After all, who's to say you didn't really intend https://intranet/ [intranet]?

Or, for that matter, mailto:intranet ?

Exactly. not every valid URL has a top level domain, and this can consistently confuse browsers who have the UI error of using an address bar for searches.

Only if they make the fundamental implementation error of not defaulting to resolving the address bar entry as an address first, and only if it is unresolvable as an address resorting to search.

Which, I would argue, is the only error involved, not the error of having a unified "what do yo want" bar that can be used either to provide an address or a search query.

I wonder what part of "national sales tax" you missed. Everyone gets to pay sales tax on internet purchases going forward.

While that's what you'd think from the words "national sales tax", it is completely wrong. "National sales tax" is an inaccurate label (just like the more popular "internet sales tax" for the same measure was.)

The actual measure at issue that has been dishonestly described as a "national sales tax" or "internet sales tax" is federal legislation specifying particular conditions under which states can require out-of-state merchants to collect sales and use tax on sales into the state. It is not, itself, a tax of any kind, and the taxes under it are neither national taxes, nor are they taxes specific to the internet.

Why assume the use case is gaming? This is just as applicable for home theater as well as gaming.

Yes, GP is just as relevant with "home theater" included in the one place gaming is mentioned; the basic point is there are plenty of use cases that aren't like the ones, including gaming, as -- as you note -- home theater, where refresh rate is key.

If you're constrained by space, then it's probably because you're in an office environment, meaning they're targeting the enterprise with this size and price-point.

I don't see this, except taking "office" in the broadest possible sense; I mean I could just see moving from a 24" to a 32" monitor for the desktop in the extra bedroom that serves as my home office/library/miscellaneous storage room, but a 50" display would be enormous.

For home users, the 50" screen at a lower price-point makes way more sense.

For living room- (equivalently, conference room-) style use, I'd say 50" is better. For desktop-style use, 32" is better. Both styles are found both in "office" settings and "home" settings.

What's the point of this? We won't have an effective way to properly drive these displays at a meaningful refresh rate.

Not every use case is gaming. There are plenty of uses where more resolution would be worth trading off refresh rate. Obviously, if you can have both together, that's better, but refresh rate isn't always the key feature.

Why spend $5,000 for a 32" when you can get a 50" 4k for under $1,500.

Well, presumably, because your use case isn't appropriate for a 50" display.

Zero tolerance policies were demanded by parents who wanted to address the symptom (bullying), not the problem (their child).

I doubt it -- every single "zero tolerance" policy I've seen on any subject (bullying included, but hardly uniquely) has been proposed by administrators largely as a way of minimizing their own responsibility for applying discretion appropriately to individual circumstances (and, particularly, of making it harder for them to be challenged for inappropriate punishments meted out for reasons, such as racial/ethnic discrimination, other than the officially stated one.) Sure, they are often motivated by parents demanding that something be done, and "zero tolerance" is often an impressive-sounding way of saying you are doing something, but the choice of that something is all about having a shield to hide behind, not actually being effective (or doing what people want, for that matter.)

And, in practice, the actual enforcement is often as arbitrary and poorly-exercising discretion as prior to zero-tolerance policies, but its harder for those arbitrarily punished to challenge the actions because instead of showing that the punishment was excessive in their particular case (which, under zero tolerance policies, it usually is not on its face), they need to actually be able to show that the supposedly-universal policy is inconsistently applied, which is much harder to do (because its hard to even get access to the evidence necessary to show this.)

If that's how Italy wants to play the game, then Facebook should just require that all Italian nationals provide government identification in order to use Facebook.

I'm sure the Italian government would like that. Facebook wouldn't, because Facebook wants to make it easy to use Facebook.

Yes, this may mean that many business simply won't be able to do business in Italy. Oh well. Italy can suffer for its own stupidity I suppose.

I'm not sure having increased friction to sign-up on Facebook is really "suffering" in any meaningful sense.

Well you won't be fine with it since the mail client has already been taken out

Has it been "taken out" or "not yet ported to the new Chromium-based system"? I mean, I would suspect that early releases of Chromium-based Opera Next are going to be missing features that are both in the current stable Opera and planned for inclusion in the stable release of Opera Next.