It was also, incontrovertibly, a terrorist act. Does the the intent of that particular bit of civil disobedience out weigh the illegality of the act? If so, at what point to we draw the line between legitimate civil disobedience and outright terrorism? In that vein, what exactly, does this particular CVS have to do with race relations and the actions of the local Police? Is there some collusion between the Police and CVS that is causing Baltimore police to unfairly target specific racial groups?

Since the likely answer is "No", what then is the political benefit of looting CVS, given that we've already established that CVS had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that lead to the death of Mr. Gray.

I'm all for sticking it to the man, but the Men that run CVS are almost certainly not the same ones that have engendered an environment where Police abuse alleged perpetrators with impunity. Barring any involvement by the management of CVS in the culture of the local police, I can't see any logical reason why looting their stores is anything but opportunistic criminality that is trying to wield current events as a shield against obvious wrong doing.

Because the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against "Native Americans" never happened.

Wrong or right, there were atrocities committed by the American government against Native peoples. Perhaps those acts were supported by a majority of the population. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You silly, misguided plebe. Those brave Corporate execs are the Job Creators that give your miserable existence and modicum of meaning. The malfeasance of the banking industry created some jobs, and therefore was right. The calculus is simple, Jobs Created > Public Harm. That's all Real Americans care about anyway, none of this prattle about Rights or Justice or any other Liberal twaddle.

The best part about the so-called Rapture is that it isn't even biblical. It's just wishful thinking on the part of a particular strain of Baptist Christianity who thought it'd be awfully nice of God to let his most true followers (i.e., them) to skip out on all that nasty business of the Tribulation and Satan running amok. Guess those faithful transcribers of God's inerrant word, A.K.A, the Bible, just forgot to add that part in or something. I'm sure it was an oversight.

That doesn't make any sense. Trolls eat billy goats and unwary travelers crossing bridges. I'd say billy goats is a fair term for troll feeders. Don't be a billy goat kids, friends don't let friends feed trolls!

You can buy a replacement board, it takes like 5 minutes to pry the case open, remove a few screws, pull out a couple of ribbon cables and slap the new charging/headphone board in. I've had to do it twice now, on a pair of Nexus 7 2012's I got for my daughters. Of course, there's a good chance the replacement boards are getting the same problem...

Because talking about making software that emulates "ancient" hardware is exactly the same as reimplementing, as closely as possible, an entire portion of a game which is still being sold. Not to mention redistributing said reimplementation.

Fail troll is fail.

Autonmous features are already finding in their way into high end models, as we speak. Here's a self driving Mercedes. They're also advertising features such as automatic stopping of the vehicle if some obstruction appears in the road. Many mid to high end brands also advertise self-parking features, which would envolve many of the same "smarts" as needed for the car to drive itself. I'm no sage, I don't know how long it's going to take for autonomous cars to be mainstream. But given that these features are already appearing in high-end vehicles, it's only a matter of time before your crummy Ford Fiesta can do the same thing. And it's only a relatively small step from there to fully autonomous vehicles.

I would agree, however, that the legislature is going to drag their feet about legalizing these sorts of autonomous cars. I honestly don't know if my daughters are going to need to learn to drive or not, but a part of me can't help but feel like they probably wont. We may not be experiencing the technological singularity, but you've got to admit that the pace of technological development is moving faster and faster. It's folly to predict exactly what the future holds. That being said, I have little doubt that whatever forms the new technology takes, the desire for the modern security state to retain, or gain, control over unprecedented aspects of human existence will not be easily stopped.

Well I can assure you neither of those are true, but if Google and Tesla are to be believed self driving cars are much nearer to reality than not.

These automatic driving features are already being rolled out by premium brands like Mercedes or BMW. I saw a commercial last night about a Mercedes that could stop itself if necessary. That's not to mention the self-parking features being added to the high-end models. Some of those features probably even find their way to the mid-range brands like Buick.

The self-driving car isn't going to be a "totalistic" phenomena, we're going to see more and more autonomous features added into "regular" cars, until at some point they become more autonomous than not. Perhaps you can press a button to take manual control, but the autonomous car revolution is upon us and cannot be stopped.

Unless, of course, it's OEM's doing the siphoning. Surely they don't want cyber-criminals to get an edge on a protection racket they could themselves get evolved in. Let's charge premiums for CPU clock speed, maximum install-able RAM, etc. The possibilities are endless, and if the existing tablet/phone manufacturers are any indication, PC makers are lagging behind the extreme monetizing techniques available to a modern day PC maker.

Freedom is, in all aspects, "pining for the fjords." With regards to the manufactures of gadgets, it isn't in their interest to allow even the slightest bit of freedom. You can't install your own OS on the device you paid for, you can't install software that wasn't blessed by the prevailing curator of the local app store. We're moving towards a society in which you (as a consumer) don't own anything, it's leased or rented or provided "gratis", so long as you remain in accordance with whatever contractual terms they wish to impose. And before the Desktop centric crowd chimes in with "I own my box!", sure, you do now. But the current business practice is to retain ownership of everything and dole out access with as many restrictions as possible. It isn't that big of a leap to presume that sometime in the future you'll only be renting your motherboard, and may even have to pay extra to enable more memory access or "Premium CPU interconnects". Hell, you might be already! Have you read through the entirety of the terms of use provided with every component present in your machine? Do you really think Intel has your best interest at heart? These corporate scumbags can stuff end user agreements with whatever they want, knowing full well that practically no one is either going to read it, or have the financial means to fight it out in court.

Once the BIOS is locked down, why wouldn't manufacturers require extra payments for increased CPU throughput or maximum available RAM? Sure, your new mobo comes with slots for 64 GB, but it's only licensed for 16GB, any more requires an extra payment. These components are getting so sophisticated that bits and pieces of what used to be considered standard functionality, parts which were once hardwired, will be doled out as premium add-ons and DLC-like upgrades. There's nothing stopping them, it's only a matter of time before each and every aspect of the computing environment is held ransom by one company or another.

In the current environemtn of governments denying their spying activities, do you really think they'd be this bald-faced about enacting new powers for themselves? If the government really wanted to take control of the internet, they'd just fucking do it, FCC and procedure be damned. As far as I can tell the FCC is doing the right thing in spite of the fact that the tendency of modern governmental institutions is to seek more and more control over everything.

If the new rules were meant to be a governmental take over of the internet, either they'd just say "We're running this now. Fuck you" or you'd never even know it happened in the first place.

They're leaned on by the copyright cartels to believe that all torrent activity is engaged in copyright infringement. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you're seeding Ubuntu ISO's that they believe torrents are anything but pirate activity.

It isn't really the contracts that keep American's from switching cellular companies, its more that instead of GSM being the standard radio technology, as it is in Europe, is that there are several competing radio technologies in the US which keeps consumers tied to a particular provider. In the States we have T-Mobile and ATT&T using GSM, and Sprint and Verizion using CDMA2000. The fact that you can't take your Verizon phone over to ATT&T is part and parcel why cellular services are as locked in and non-competitive than they are in other areas.

Don't bother feeding the trolls. The new technologies arguable happened because of the regulations, not despite them. That doesn't mean, however, that just because the entrenched monopolies managed some innovations that they deserve to capitalize on them without reservation. So the telco's are doing the same thing in a new medium? Good for them, doesn't mean they deserve an automatic regulatory pass.