If there is a drug that will make you more productive to your employer, it will be embraced and encouraged.

If there's a drug that gives you pleasure, but doesn't bring a similar boost to a company's bottom line, it will get you sent to jail.

Let's not pretend that adderall in the workplace isn't just more capitalist social engineering. They'll exploit you any way they can.

So as it turns out... you do in fact fuck your wife?

Given that my 24 year-old daughter has my eyes and her mother's beauty and brains, yes, but just once and it was a long time ago.

You know, your rant would have a lot more meaning if it weren't based entirely on a flawed assumption: that Google is changing non-mobile search ranking based on mobile site quality. They're not. Google is only changing the ranking of results delivered to mobile devices. The goal is to give people searching on mobile devices results that will work better on their devices.

They do know, and they do want that. That's the whole point.

That's exactly what Google is doing. It's pretty clear in Google's announcement: "We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results" (emphasis mine). See for yourself http://googlewebmastercentral....

This is exactly the idea behind Lawrence Lessig's[*] brainchild: MAYDAY PAC. It's a PAC whose mission is to end all PACs (including itself). It raised some money and tried some things in the last election cycle, but didn't succeed. However, Lessig says they learned some lessons and are gearing up to try again.

Check it out at http://mayday.us./

[*] If you don't recognize that name it's because you haven't been paying attention to these issues. Among other things, Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons.

Right, just like generalizing and stereotyping games and gamers as a "Choose your own patriarchal adventure" doesn't deserve all the criticism and derision it got.

Sarkeesian was completely unknown and had zero impact on games or gaming until GamerGate started shitting on the floor in fury that someone would dare think critically of games. Screaming and threatening and smearing shit all over the walls, Now she's famous, is taking in foundation money and her ideas are widely discussed among people who are in a position to affect games and gaming.

I hope you're proud you goddamn morons. You've set gaming back by a generation because you have poor impulse control (most likely the result of a poor experience during potty training). Every goddamn body hates you. From the e-celeb drama, it appears you even hate each other. You have become a punchline to a bad joke. Every single "op" or "happening" has either fizzled or has further embarrassed you.

Once you're lumped in with MRAs, child porn, swatting people, white supremacy, online harassment and stalking, you've kind of painted yourself into a corner. A very smelly, unpleasant corner that people try to ignore, like when a passed out drunk craps himself on the subway.

Shit to not be scared of: killer asteroids, ebola, and oh yeah, and homicidal AIs.

While I agree with your post, I am old enough to remember when, a worldwide ubiquitous information network that could be used to track everyone's conversations, correspondence, whereabouts, patterns of consumption and financial habits" was also "shit not to be scared of".

And here we are.

I don't care that there are people trying to take a long view, as long as we don't take them too seriously. Let them dream, let them write down their dreams and it might be of use to someone, someday, even if only as entertainment.

I also fear stupid people with too much autonomy.

Or with firearms.

So, less than one Iraq War then?

Less than one month of the Iraq War.

For me, this is one of the biggest comforts of riding a train. I use it for short city to city trips.

Not just city to city, but city center to city center. I can't tell you how frustrated I get when I take a 1.5 hour flight that requires 1.5 hours to get to the departure airport and 1.5 hours to get from the arrival airport to downtown.

Plus, on a train I don't feel like I'm being jammed into a can with a bunch of smelly sardines. Headroom is such a pleasure on a 4 hour trip. And any trip up to 4-5 hours is just as fast or faster done on a train.

Full disclosure: I grew up in a railroad family. My grandfather was an engineer and fireman (that's what they called the guys who originally shoveled coal into the boilers on the steam trains and then kept the diesel engines running, later) for the Rock Island and my dad was a machinist for the R.R. I have a full set of china from the dining car of the Golden Rocket and I'm drinking out of a heavy china mug from the original Golden Chief. I dig the railroad. My wife and I took our honeymoon on the trans-Canadian railroad in a luxurious railway cabin, and when you've had sex in a gently rocking sleeping car, the "mile-high club" doesn't really seem all that impressive.

You implicitly assume that sites get most of their traffic from any search engine. Plenty of sites don't. Sites get traffic from paid advertising (on ad-supported sites, social networks, physical media, and so on). Sites get traffic because people already know what they need (public services with widely known addresses, for example). Intranet sites obviously don't rely on public search engines. And of course there's old-fashioned word of mouth advertising, and its new high-tech counterparts like hyperlinks on related sites and social media.

Of the commercial projects I currently work on -- and there are several, because I do freelance/consultancy work -- I don't think any gets the majority of its visitors from search engines, and in some cases if Google disappeared tomorrow you'd hardly notice on the bottom line.

Thank you for your correction. I'll post an apology for my English misuse on every light post in the area, from Seltjarnes to Mosfellsbær.

Your search engine might be. Apparently the most successful search engine in the world thinks its users want content with good/appropriate presentation more than content that isn't as well/appropriately presented. And they're probably right.

I'd be the first to agree that Google shouldn't get to dictate how the Web works and that sometimes Google or at least some its employees appear to be extremely arrogant in assuming they are every webmaster's #1 priority. The reality is that if you're running a site that doesn't depend primarily on Google for traffic, you can and should implement whatever works best for you and your visitors, regardless of what Google wants or says.

However, if you're relying on Google's service for most/all of your visitors to find your site at all, you have to play by their rules if you want the best treatment from them. This is the basic principle of SEO, and it's as old as search engines themselves.

Government: "You may not own slaves."
GLMDesigns: "See now the government has the power to tell you that you can't own slaves and they'll be even more corrupt! The more regulation the more corruption!"

It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.

Yeah, we seem to have passed the point where our intellectual property laws encourage artists and innovators and have moved into an age when IP does little but hurt cultural development and future generations.