I don't see Gamma Ray Bursters, ergo, list is poppycock.

Yet if you gave readers the opportunity to turn on/off visible comments, I wonder which would win?

I'm almost certain most people would leave the comments, after all, you don't have to read them. Which then suggests that no, it really IS more about protecting themselves as the sole authority, because monologue is so much easier than dialogue.

Blame your fellow humans.
Believe me, companies would rather NOT have to spend more $ for expensive shell packaging, but its very challenging nature of opening significantly reduces pilferage and shoplifting.

"When you have a family, you'll understand the need for a simple NAS loaded with your media and simple to use screens for your family accessing it."
You mean, aside from my four kids in their late teens and twenties? :)

The funny thing is, with my 'early adopter' media server setup, yes, it's a little kludgy sometimes, but - at the risk of inflaming /.'s "how dare you suggest girls are less techy than boys" crew - even my girls (who couldn't give a crap about computers) know somewhat how/why this stuff works, such that they help fix their friends' systems when they're at their homes.

Then again, I'm the guy who bought them the components for a sweet desktop gaming rig specifically so we could build it together and they'd learn something about the process.

OK, while I'm certainly down with a "because we can" sort of answer, I'm trying to understand how/why this would be better than wifi?

Right now, my office is served by a wifi AP that covers essentially my whole home - multiple rooms, levels, etc. While I guess I can see limited security benefits to having something carried on visible light (ie able to be limited to a single room easily) it doesn't seem like for the bulk of wire-free communication circumstances that this would really be useful?

Personally, I just want my TV to be a monitor: display a video signal as clearly and cleanly as possible.(optimally: with the lowest possible power use too). Is that too much to ask?

I don't need voice commands, hyperlinking to IMDB, or social media letting my friends know WTF kind of pr0n I watch.

Just like their warning about "well the TV is listening for your commands, so private info you say may also be inadvertently recorded and passed to third parties" - the former is sort of logically true, with any speech-recognition thing, of course. It's the LATTER that's evil: you as a company wringing every fucking *penny* out of my user data ("Oh, I see styopa switched aware from channel 4 when this Pepsi commercial came on? Let's let Ch4 and Pepsi both know!") without a) letting me know, and b) sharing it with me, if I opt to let you do it.

I'm sensing that there HAS to be a market out there for 'clean' tech products, no?

"You guys, I have to sit in a roomful of hippies (and ex-hippies now in $1000 suits) to produce these Climate Change reports. Seriously, if you are going to tell me I have to advocate Nuclear Power in that setting, I'm going to start expensing the rental of a goddamn shark cage.

-Bill"

As long as we also discuss (and repair) the gender diversity "problem" in
- executions
- felony convictions and imprisonment
- punishment for all crimes from misdemeanors to felonies
- deaths in the workplace
- low wage menial physical labor jobs ... ...then I'm perfectly willing to discuss how we can get more women into cushy, well-paid tech occupations at the same time (as long as we spend equal efforts at both).

We're trying to fight sexism generally, aren't we?

If people are inspired to fear and not rage by what these people do, then they are benighted sheep that deserve to be preyed upon by wolves.

Being free citizens isn't supposed to be comfortable. It involves hard choices about serious issues. To pre-filter the information provided to citizens based on what *you* think they can handle is as patronizing as it is misguided.

As Twain once said something like, "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

Is it unpleasant? Yes. If you can't bear to watch it, don't watch it. But understand that it will take people who are willing to see it for what it is to really understand how hard we need to fight this.

I'd be willing to bet lots of money that farmers still have the option of buying older models with simpler, less fuel-efficient engines, less capabilities, etc.

You can have:
a) super high tech, comfortable, efficient, efficacious equipment, at the price of being a hostage to your vendor
b) old tech, uncomfortable, noisy, manually-controlled equipment that you can mess with all day long.

You get a OR b.

"I'm not worried about Fox doing ISIS's work for them. I'm worried about them influencing the militant "let's glass the whole middle east" segment of America."

Then if I lived in the middle east, I'd be working my ass off to stop the psycho radicals from reaching a level where they annoyed the superpower, no?

Animals need to be treated like animals. No, that's a disservice to animals. Even the most savage wild animal never set its prey on FIRE just to show other animals how tough it was.

I would only amend your point to say that for me anyway, trolling is all about the anticipated response, not the belief of the poster. Fwiw I *do* believe much of global warming is bullshit, but I'm cognizant that dropping it into conversation is guaranteed to generate a piranha-like churn that will solve nothing, resolve nothing, and change nobody's mind. Thus, mentioning it (regardless of what I believe) would be trolling.

I am in absolute admiration of your ability to perfectly, ridiculously satirize today's culture, while leaving me just the teensiest bit terrified that you're entirely serious.

As satire, that was nothin' but net.

Dear Twitter CEO:
If you don't understand the difference between trolling and cyberbullying, you already fail.

Trolling: "Global warming is bullshit"
Cyberbullying: "I'm going to chain you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth for decades and decades.*

*I recognize that I'm out of the norm by having a pretty high standard here limited to libel or actual threats, which ARE illegal already; I have very mixed feelings about the whole American societal thing about bullying in general today (of which "cyber" bullying is just an element). But that's tangential to my point here.