I understand if there were some trademark issue, that they _removed_ yt.com/lush, and replaced it with 301 to yt.com/matthewlush . Replacing the page with something else completely will only harm those who try to access the old link. If the company wants anything, they can get yt.com/lushcosmetics or whatever, but they shouldn't misrepresent their content. Users who have the old link expect the old content, that's what URIs are for.

Breaking links is a bad thing (TM), and google has the knowledge to know that you shouldn't break the web. Not for something this lame, at least.

You would need unions to succeed in that kind of change.
Good luck promoting that idea.

Fraud is not the main thing here.
Uber is paying cab riders bonuses that make riding without passengers profitable. So, they ride without passengers and collect bonuses. Their using fake ids or other illegal is just incidental. Uber itself is probably operating illegally, and nobody cares about that.

Modularity.
This is their current situation. Stuff comes in different sized packages, and placement is not perfect.
Of course they could get improvements, even for human workers, if stuff came pre-checked, correctly classified and stuff. The thing is that's not their current status. The idea is to get rid of the picking human, without changing anything other than the human.
Self driving cars would be easy with the strategy you propose, just build intelligent roads, wired roads with wireless navigation, no people. Close to what a train is. It makes it a lot easier, but it just can't replace all driving, unless you change the whole infrastructure at once.

I don't think he says it's not his fault, even if he were trying to do that.
Employees lawsuits might have been what forced them to close, but those lawsuits are his fault also, so no blame was transferred.

I used it in 2007 (VS 2005) and hated it. I hated it even more than I hated it when I programmed for Visual Basic 6, last century, though.

Severely underfeatured text editor, ugly looking, and subject to random lockups.

Of course, at some point they might even end up releasing something usable, but why keep trying? There are lots of IDEs out there, with a better track record.

I've been getting spam about that for years now!

This is news for nerds.
It's a pattern detection strategy that relies on generating waves with input data, interweaving them physically, and using arrays of antennas to detect patterns.
That's from the first couple of paragraphs.
I don't know a lot of physics, but I am a nerd, and I like this kind of thing, so I can learn about cool stuff.
If you don't care about it, you can look at other stories that talk about tesla and bill gates and whatever else. Posting is not mandatory.

I don't want the web to support encryption against users by third parties.
Once that is readily available, and accepted by users (read: today), the freedom of users is endangered.
You can read a deeper analysis of the consequences of such a situation http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
When I first read that, it seemed a bit stupid that people would let their freedom go so easily, but now it's closer to real. The implications of DRM are way beyond video, the problem is that once DRM is standard and everywhere, restricting the flow of information becomes a lot more convenient.
The web was, for a few years, like the internet itself, it routed around censorship. Right now, everything is heading the other way. It's just sad, looks like we are going to keep loosing freedom.

The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM. Making it available is one more step in that direction.

DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider. That's a restriction, not a capability.

Per capita might not be fair.

Cities are not useful only for their inhabitants, they serve a function for the whole economy. Since resources are concentrated, value can be created more efficiently, economies of scale, and whatnot.

Another way of seeing it, is how much waste for NYC generate per dollar. It has a GDP over 1400 billion dollars.
This means that, if you were to get rid of NYC, because it's too wasteful, you would need around 4 or 5 large cities to replace the value it creates.

Probably, resource-wise, and waste-wise, nyc is not that inefficient, when you take into account, in your efficiency equation, that its value is much larger than hosting several million people.

You are talking Economy 101. I took that kind of course.

In practice, it's more complicated.
Telecom is not a free market, it naturally tends to a monopoly, or duopoly, because of the large barriers to entry, and government regulation.
There's no real competition, and no monetary incentive to keep offering good service once you are at the top.

Again, there might be competition in some pockets, like high density urban spots, but it's harder to have competition as density is lower.

To try and simulate competition through government intervention (forcing to share infrastructure, things like that) seems a bit backwards. It costs money, and only brings indirect results, if any.

Again, my question was, why do we trust the government to build roads, but not internet infrastructure?

(Of course there's the issue of full government control over the infrastructure, spying, filtering and stuff, but now everybody knows that private companies won't safeguard you from a hostile government, they will even provide APIs for your data )

Where I live (south america), it's a monopoly for the state owned telecom.

I pay 26 dollars, and get 30/2, fiber. Phone service is 10 extra.
Most people in urban areas have fiber, also.

Market forces can help you only so much. In other small countries, multinationals own markets, and they set prices at their will.

Telecom is strategic infrastructure, and there's a lot of money, if the state can be trusted to build and maintain roads, why not internet?

Luckily, Uruguay's financial markets no longer rely heavily on dirty Argentinian money. There is still a lot of that money around here, but not as much as it used to be, so less financial risk for us.
Anyway, a major financial meltdown in Argentina would most definitely affect us, and that's why I care.

The one in Plaza Independencia?
They have a neon sign for bicoin safe deposit boxes, but they don't look that secure, I think you can even see them from the street.
Also, their windows are lined with weird posters, like 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

I'm betting that''s just some guy, slightly nuts, with a bit of money to rent a place, not a real business.