If you have a limited data-plan, using apps that autoplay/preload huge amount of data is irresponsible.

And you are assuming that all Facebook users have the knowledge, means and expertise to determine which are their "apps that autoplay/preload huge amount of data" or even know their data problems are caused by "apps that autoplay/preload huge amount of data" in the first place.

The average users of Facebook include grandmothers, hollywood idols, truckers, senators - people who may not be technologically inclined.

Come on, be fair.

If you read TFA:-

A default feature in Facebook’s mobile app that automatically launches videos in users’ newsfeeds has been blamed for devouring mobile phone users’ data and driving up their cellphone bills.

Nothing to do with browsers.

In this case, I believe that it was a deliberate change forced on their users because it will directly benefit Facebook. Auto-play artificially increases the click-thru rate (or whatever method they are using to measure user interaction with ads these days). Facebook can then show these inflated numbers to advertisers to justify their premium rates.

"Hey, you pay more to place video ads on Facebook but its worth it because most (all) of the viewers will see it/click on it!"

This again drives home that to Facebook, we are not its customers, we are it's product.

There is no specific law against it, just like there is no law specifically against throwing bowling balls at passing bicyclists. But there are general laws against endangering or harming other people, or intentionally destroying other people's property.

If the drone is flying in my backyard without permission, isn't it trespassing on my premises? Am I therefore not allowed to defend the sanctity and privacy of my home by shooting it out of the sky with extreme prejudice? For all I know, it could be carrying a camera... or a bomb... or a firearm (unlikely I'll grant you, but sadly in today's climate not impossible).

Or to use a clearer example, if I observe that the drone is in danger of crashing into my 4-year-old son and I shoot it out of the sky, I am confident that it would not be held a crime.

My point being that the legal position of drones is far from clear.

I keep getting a naggy feeling that these anonymous posts with over-the-top claims are some kind of coded communication.

Think about it - in today's times when all communication is tapped, saved, processed and filtered by supercomputers, what better way to convey coded information or pass instructions than to post in the open, on public boards, buried in posts adopting the same manner and tone as thousands of other crack-pot posts?

And if the secret is in danger of being let loose, to immediately flood the forum with derisive posts decrying the "conspiracy" -after all, nobody likes looking stupid or gullible.

Or maybe I need more sleep.

My opinion is likely to be rather unpopular in these parts, but in the interests of fairness, it needs to be said. I hope those who disagree with me will do me the courtesy of explaining why instead of blindly following the herd.

I disagree that police ought to carry always-on cameras. Police officers are humans too, like you and I and all of us have things we would prefer not to be recorded on video for posterity. Small but embarassing things like digging your nose, loosening your belt after a good meal, private calls with family members, complaining to friends about the boss, sharing scandalous gossip or dirty jokes... the list goes on. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy and carrying a badge should not strip you of these human foibles.

There is a very big difference between the private matters of private citizens and the actions of government employees in the conduct of their public roles. For that reason, always-on police cameras seem quite reasonable, so long as they can be switched off or set aside as soon as the officer goes off duty and resumes being a private citizen.

You appear to be arguing that government employees ought to be monitored to ensure proper conduct of their public roles. Using the same argument, we should then demand that all government employees carry a camera- after all, I want to make sure that the officer who rejected my visa application did so with just cause; ditto the DMMV lady who refused my driver's licence. Doubly so for public officials and politicians of all stripes- after all, the laws they pass or block have the potential to affect the lives of millions. My point being that, if you rely on this ground as justification, it should be applied broadly to all government employees, not just police officers.

From the public's point of view- do we really want to build a more intrusive society than the one we have at present? Bear in mind, the cameras will be recording from the police officer's viewpoint- i.e. the cameras will be recording us. If every officer is a walking CCTV, how much privacy will the public really have? Too much of public space is already being recorded as it is.

My final thought is that all these demands for cameras-on-cops is hysteria and overreaction from the public. There will always be misbehaving police officers and adding cameras on their shoulders will not change that. We should be wary that the proposed solution may be worse than disease, taking the example of how the Patriot Act was born out of a overreaction towards the 911 incident.

So where is the "evidence" you claim to have? Your "evidence" seems to have originated from your gut. There is a lot less porn on the internet than you think

The dubious provenance of statistics about porn are well-known inside the tech industry.

"We are aware that a number of statistics are being used in relation to online safety and have concerns over their accuracy," said Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of ISPA, which represents net supply firms. Anyone quoting stats should check their veracity, he said.

"It is vital that any decisions in relation to online safety, like any other policy area, are based on evidence rather than myths and assertions," he added.

People who can't give up IE might end up having to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8.1 with Classic Shell.

Or, they could just stick with the browser and OS that they currently own.

I suspect that most people who can't give up IE fall into 2 broad categories, namely those who need it for work to access some legacy corporate website and those who use IE for convenience because it came with their OS by default.

Neither of these categories need the best and the brightest, and are thus likely to stick with the status quo (i.e. whatever works) unless forced to change. And when forced to change, they are probably going to rely on others to sort it out for them, whether it is their corporate IT department or their computer literate friends/family. In any case, expending cash on a new user unfriendly OS just to keep a browser's functionality is likely a less popular option than upgrading to one of the many free modern browsers available.

Or, you could take some responsibility for the bad choice you made. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to watch it. Your complaint is the equivalent of a child who wants to ban all use of fire after having burnt himself despite being warned of its dangers.

I also like the way you passed the buck to that mythical "somebody" who you say should have done something about the video. Why don't you do something about it yourself? Besides raging on the internet?

It's shocking how little you value your freedom of choice. Trading away your right to access information (note- I said access, you can always choose not to exercise that right by not clicking on the video) in return for the warm safety blanket of censorship protecting you from discomfort.

And best of all, because of your own personal discomfort, you feel that it is all right to enforce the same restrictive censorship on others who may not be as weak stomached as you, and to strip them of their freedom of choice.

Well now, I could probably make a cushy living transporting immigrants across the border for a hefty payoff, this is working, right?.

Please. Not all work for pay is legal, nor should it be.

Well you should care, because if you get into an accident, you're paying on your own. That's what the family of this poor girl hit by an Uber driver found out.

A key aspect of Uber's business model is that it claims it is not a transportation provider, it does not employ any of the drivers accepting rides on its platform, and it does not accept liability for their actions. The state Public Utilities Commission in September voted to require Uber to get a $1 million per incident commercial liability policy, but Uber — which argues the PUC has no jurisdiction to regulate a communications application — has appealed that ruling.

And frankly I see no justification for Uber not to get insurance coverage for their drivers.

I agree that the NYC regulatory system is rife with abuse, but the fault lies in the execution. All laws are prone to abuse if your have corrupt politicians in charge. You can't use the excuse that laws have the potential to be abused to not pass any laws or regulations.

I would argue instead that there should be some regulation, as least insofar as the public safety and health hazard aspects are concerned. Lets face it- all private enterprises are in the business to make money. One way of doing that is to reduce costs as low as possible, including paying for things like insurance, background checks on drivers etc. If there is no legal compulsion you can bet that they will cut these costs to the bone.

Have you worked in the MIC? I grew-up in it, served, and went on to do DoD contracting once I got out. Nothing crazy high level classification, run of the mill secret stuff and it has been obvious from the inside for a long, long time. Which is why I got out.

Which raises an interesting question- how do those people working for the NSA and other intel agencies reconcile their conscience with the work that they are doing? All these systems etc need operatives to run, to gather information, to decrypt and analyse etc. This kind of work I would imagine requires people with a more than average level of intelligence and education. Sure they must bear witness to the abuses being perpetrated on their own people. How do they sleep at night?

Even the Stasi operatives at the time when East Germany existed have the comfort of knowing that their cooperation was secured by state sanctioned penalties. These NSA people have no such excuse.

Basically, she enjoyed inflicting pain on other people by denying access to painkillers. All while living quite a cushy life herself.

That's pretty much a lie, and character assassination. There is no evidence anywhere that she "enjoyed inflicting pain on other people". The quotes attributed to her and the Slate article in particular (which is suspect, seeing that the article's author wrote a book "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" and obviously has a vested interest in drumming up sales and controversy) does not say this.

As for the part about "denying access to painkillers" - this is misleading. Context, my dear, context. As stated in her Wikipedia entry :-

the use of opioids in India for managing cancer pain remains—ten years after Mother Teresa's death—highly problematic for legal, regulatory, cultural, and other reasons (including supply interruptions, harsh punishments imposed for even minor infractions of the rules, and the fear of addiction by health workers). Despite the lack of sophisticated analgesic regimes, volunteers (including those with western medical qualifications and experience) reported that her Home for the Dying was a place of joy not sadness.

Apart from that, I do not understand why her failings seem to offend you so much. It seems almost personal.

As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement". When you charge for a place to stay you are now a hotel unless it is on a month to month basis then you have a roommate. If you are providing the same service as a hotel you are operating a hotel. It is not a "public safety" issue.

This summary is inaccurate - it is a "public safety" issue. In the Nigel Warren case where he rented out his room on Airbnb in NYC, the judge levied a fine of fine of $2,400 after ruling that they were operating an unlicensed hotel.

The law on which the decision was based, Bill S6873B-2009 states:-

JUSTIFICATION:

The Multiple Dwelling Law and local Building, Fire and Housing Maintenance Codes establish stricter fire safety standards for dwellings such as hotels that rent rooms on a day to day (transient) basis than the standards for dwellings intended for month to month (permanent) residence. There are substantial penalties for owners who use dwellings constructed for permanent occupancy (Class A) as illegal hotels. However, the economic incentive for this unlawful and dangerous practice has increased, while it is easier than ever to advertise illegal hotel rooms for rent to tourists over the internet ... It endangers both the legal and illegal occupants of the building because it does not comply with fire and safety codes for transient use.

I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.

This, so much. Unless he is a big name with a sweet record deal, the average musician doesn't really earn much from his record sales.

Every contract is different, but the average high-end royalty deal with a record company will pay musicians $1 for every $10 retail album sale. And it can be a lot worse than that; a low-end royalty deal only pays 30 cents per album sale -- amazingly small for a CD purchase, especially considering that bands may have to divide that among several members.

Some musicians have already adapted with the times to seek income alternatives. And apparently some if not most of these income streams are far more lucrative than royalties.