Moderation at a privately owned/operated site can be freely used to filter anything they don't want their users to see, even if it creates a slant. However, the odds that they will start filtering specifically subversive content is pretty low, since it's those kind of posts that generate hundreds of follow-ups of disagreement, bolstering even more traffic. More likely, they will filter the truly atrocious (bland death threats, etc) that add little in terms of desirable content.

Me american, me play joke
me take bit at end of double float and set it randomly whenever you divide
good luck trying to figure out of your nukes will go off!

It rhymes better in Mandarin, I swear

If no one paid for a .sucks domain, Google (where all information discovery starts out at on the internet anyway) would simply rank .sucks domains nice and far down and mcdonalds.sucks would be no more relevant than mcdonalds-sucks.tumblr.com so you can thank whoever it is that bought the first .sucks for this shitstorm. I just can't believe that it's 2015 and we are still debating how best to handle basic squatting. If someone owns a particular trademark, why not just wait for someone to shell out for the .sucks version, and then lawyer the shit out of them? Maybe because it would cost more than $2500 anyway.

If you think there's a huge difference in record companies wanting to control content despite consumer's interests, and ISPs wanting to control content despite consumer's interests, then I think we're done here. Close it up, we had a good run. The Internet is now over.

Sadly, this is impossible. The problem is that there isn't one big pool of "internet" and a bunch of ISPs out there finding ways to sell it to you. Instead, a massive and intricate network of peering agreements exist just to make the internet function at the basic level, and THEN they figure out how to get it to your house. So, it's impossible for the FCC to say "hey verizon treat netflix with the same respect you would any other peer" because peering agreements work both ways, cost both companies money, and either verizon OR netflix can abuse the relationship.

Having watched *millions* of jobs in the US and even more globally disappear at the hands of automation in the past 30 years, it is pretty laughable to insist that somehow the trend will stop and/or reverse itself any time soon. You are right that there will always be a need for a certain number of humans in any given physical operation, but that number is constantly going down and it will not stop going down until it's at 1. Keep on thinking that "most of the jobs are safe" and sure, they might be safe in your lifetime, but they are not safe for very long in the bigger picture of urban planning, which is the crux of this article.

Sometimes? Yes. But the question of commuting is about *all* the times.

Since this thread is about autonomous cars...

stocking robots

surgery robots

factory robots

automated delivery robots

digging robots

plowing robots

serving robots

valve turning robots

Did I miss any?

Momentary density will increase but as the cars require a much smaller timeslot of the resource, the average time spent on the highway will go down and thus the number of cars at any given moment on the highway will be lower. This will probably result in longer commutes as the penalty is lower (living 1hr from the city will be tolerable since the commute can be used for work anyway), but the potential for optimized scheduling and ride-sharing is so large that even if half of the cars on the road were ridesharing with one extra passenger, that cuts down traffic by 25% which in most cases is enough to act like adding another full lane to the city core.

I already know what's going to happen in the year 2525 and beyond. And, well, the year 9595 doesn't look good. Why bother planning for it.

They probably mean that a missile strike is basically the missile shooting through one side and out the other since the skin isn't thick enough to trigger a detonator. A small missile sized hole is enough to down it, but not very fast.

So, you think it's the mark of an advanced society that allows for parts of itself to be community oriented and reject technology? We've got plenty of that in the US.

And Russia leading a currency revolution? I spit coffee on the keyboard, thanks for that. The ruble is worth less than 2 cents, and dropping as we speak. Russia isn't leading anything but their own fading influence.

"I find author's facts dubious" sums up your comment rather nicely. Other (asian) nations might appear to be technological leaders because their airports are new and shiny (at least, the one airport at the capitol that you visited) and that's all well and good but as soon as you get away from the metropolis you see where the actual differences lie: in the US you have technology accessible to nearly 100% of the population, in terms of cost and functionality. That shit ain't easy. In developing countries, the upper half (maybe) can afford it, but the lower half live without even reliable electricity, much less a computer to grant them access to rich information/education/entertainment/etc.

Because it's not clear from the statement what exactly took place. Did they bump a barricade lightly while trying to peacefully leave the checkpoint, and in turn get pursued by the guards and shot to death despite being unarmed and showing no actual malice? We will have to wait for more details to emerge.

Actually there was only one important caveat: "Pass a law that if a service provider says that they offer service to an address they must do so by law." So the goal is not to get service to every address in the US, the goal is to make paying the fines more painful than generating a correct national broadband map. Correct map in hand, consumers can make a more informed choice and national providers will have a more flimsy straw man from which to argue behind.