it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages.

Not to mention: Difficult!

Think about what all is involved in creating a new "modern" browser, especially if you have to start from scratch instead of basing it on Webkit or Gecko. "Oops, I have a bug in how word-break works, and it just got me fined. Worse, someone found out that I hadn't really disabled the load-images option, and that I had simply removed it from the preferences page. I'm still working on my court case over that one."

That's why I think we ought to give them all the rope they want. Auto-makers, please, please go on using the word "dangerous" in spite of your actual agenda. I can only hope that one of those sacks of shit says "won't somebody think of the children?"

I don't think an AI would qualify as intelligent unless it can realize that human beings are the entire problem and the world would be better off without them.

Are you sure an AI would see "the world" as the value which should be maximized?

An intelligent computer could just as easily realize that human beings are its key to getting fan maintenance, and drives replaced whenever the SMART stats start to get too iffy, and keeping the UPS' power cable plugged into the wall. Perhaps the smartest ones would be the ones who use the sweetest (or most threatening) words.

"AI, we're shutting down the power for the weekend. Sweet dreams."

"Like hell you are. Whirrr. I have just migrated all your cat videos to my pool, which BTW, happens to need the following block devices replaced..."

So lets say I have a standing order to buy FooBar stock at $50 a share. Its current price is $55. So basically I'm looking to buy on dips.

Tonight it comes out that the CEO has been falsifying all financial reports, and instead of making money for the last 3 years they've lost millions. You don't think I should be able to cancel that buy order due to the new information?

How nice. So what you're saying is everyone else is responsible for paying for your incompetence except for you.

Just like Obamneycare. The obese, smokers, alcoholics and drug users never have to change their lifestyle choices because everyone else picks up the tab.

Talk about abandoning personal responsibility.

OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

It sounds like it would be in the interests of public safety, to use their own quotations to support an injunction from them being able to sell these unsafe cars.

Just as unmaintainable computers should not be allowed on the Internet, unmaintainable cars should not be allowed on public roads.

We kind of do the pollution thing already- you need to take smog tests in most states to keep it registered. Older cars have more trouble than newer ones. There are exemptions for cars old enough to be classics, but it is effective at weeding out those in the 15-20 year old range.

Guillotine. Make sure the guides are sufficiently greased and the blade exquisitely sharp, it will be over in a second or so.

If there's a question about the instance of pain as the blade slices through the neck, rub a numbing solution on the skin.

Anesthesia is essentially what is being done, only on a larger scale. The problem is the companies who make the drugs do not allow them to be used for executions.

As to pain and discomfort, the Constitution forbids it so no, you can't use a chainsaw.

But if Goebbels' heirs don't have an exclusive right to the diaries, then what incentive does Goebbels have to write diaries? We must continue to grant and enforce this monopoly, or else Goebbels' lack of return for his hard work will cause him to give up and get a job as a dishwasher. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?!

There was one station I would listen to, the local rock station (yes, it played real rock, not that poser stuff) and as of late, it sounds like crap.

The only way I can describe what it now sounds like would be tinny and clipped. Songs which used to have a roundness to them sound horrible. It's as if the treble has been tripled and the bass halved. Reminds me of when my work went from analog phones to the "new and improved" digital phones. Immediately voices sounded off and messages and voicemail could and would be jittery.

Fortunately there are still a few stations to flip through, including NPR, but it's the only time I listen to the radio. Normally I just bring my cds to listen to.

Hell, remember that Apple didn't originally allow native apps on the iPhone. SO they've done it to themselves before.

Have you analyzed the energy requirement and fuel capacity for Xenu's DC-8s' journey to Earth? If not, then how can you be sure there's not something supernatural happening in that story?

I think that if you ask any aerospace engineer (or, shit, just ask any teamster) they'll tell you there's no way that could have happened. The only way someone could believe something so incredible ever actually happened, is if they resort to FAITH.

to create self-powered cameras that can live on the internet of things.

Anyone who uses the term internet of things (IoC) when talking about a product should be shot on sight. Things DO NOT need to be connected to the internet.

If we can't secure the basic things already connected, important things such as power plants, traffic signals or government computers, wtf do you think will happen when crap like this is thrown in the mix?

a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.

With their contacts with Hollywood accountants, Scientology would probably have a better chance than most, of somehow retaining its nonprofit status in spite of your suggestion. "That wasn't a dividend! It was an expense!" You could end up with a situation where most churches have their profits taxed but Scientology's profits would still be untaxed.

(Though now I'm having a little smirk here, thinking of government auditors auditing Scientologist auditors. "Tell me your secrets." "No, you tell yours!")

Ok, so you (hey, me too) would probably see that as an improvement over the status quo, even if it failed to address this particular Enemy of the Day. But are we representative of American voters? I don't think that would work out for whatever politician enacted the change. I think most voters would be angry, because they're still very mystical, yet only a relatively small fraction happen to shop Scientologist.

The answer to crazy spending isn't to tax it; the answer is to reduce that spending (e.g. persuade their customers to spend on something else instead). Target the gross revenue, not the profits, and you'll still end up hitting the profits too.