...for people to legally get content, and you'll become ludicrously rich. In the 90s, everyone was using Napster and Limewire and whatever else to download all of their music, because the other option was going out and buying CDs, which was not easy or convenient, and often not particularly affordable.

Now everyone downloads their music from the Internet legally, primarily via iTunes or Amazon. Why would I want to deal with the hassle of a file-sharing site, where I might download mislabeled files, files containing viruses, or even just files that were ripped with crappy settings so that the sound quality is poor, when instead I can pay a reasonable fee and instantly download a high-quality music file to the device of my choice? Easy, affordable, convenient. All of this nonsense about stopping piracy and using "kill switches" are just the dying cries of industry executives who don't realize the world has changed whether they like it or not.

Typical. Some riffraff shows up in the neighborhood and instantly everyone panics and moves to the suburbs.

Anyone have the number for those SpaceX guys? I'm thinking of going early to avoid the rush.

...to use the audio version instead of the text version for those damn things. I bet the audio version doesn't have words that show up with weird non-alphanumeric characters or completely inked-out text in them, like a nontrivial percentage of the recaptchas I see seem to have.

The early 2000s, actually. But my problem wasn't with the comfort or feel; that was never a problem. It was more that I missed the protective aspects of my glasses, and also I had trouble with distance focusing after I'd been looking at a computer screen for a while. (Which made driving home from work a dicey proposition.)

Really it comes down to the fact that I actually enjoy my glasses and have no desire to get rid of them, which is also why I haven't gone for LASIK. But it sounds like Google will have options for us anachronistic types who like our lenses, so I'm content with that.

I had a co-worker who always listened to NPR through her headphones at work. I have no idea how she ever got anything done.

Like most people I know, I tend to listen to instrumental music (classical, bluegrass, whatever) when working or studying. Silence would probably be better but unfortunately I've never had a working environment where silence was an option. I'd like to find whoever came up with the concept of an open office plan, lock him inside an elevator, and then blast top 40 music at him 24/7, for his sins.

It's impossible to write a completely neutral article, in my opinion. There's limited space in a newspaper (or for a blog article, or for a TV news spot, or whatever) so you have to choose what to say, and how to say it.

Say that two people both write an article about a piece of civil rights legislation being passed by Congress. Both people can write an article that is completely factual and accurate, and yet the two articles will likely have significant differences. Different people might be quoted. Different descriptive phrases will be used. One writer might focus on the lengthy debate that preceded the legislation's passage. The other might choose to focus on the legislation's effects. And so on, and so forth. And without even intending to do so, one writer might come up with an article that seems more sympathetic to the Democrats, and the other might seem more sympathetic to the Republicans.

This is unavoidable; but what is avoidable is writing an article that slants one way or the other on purpose. If you analyze a particular news organization's articles in the way that the researchers in the article did, and you find that the majority of bias is going in one direction, I think that's a problem. It's not possible to avoid all bias, but it is possible to attempt to write articles that are as factual and neutral as possible, and I believe that if you do that, you're not going to skew too far to one side or the other.

I also think that as a more practical matter, having an editorial staff that reviews and corrects articles before sending them out is critical, because then you've got two sets of eyes, minimum, on all of your material. But as news budgets are being slashed everywhere, particularly for newspapers, editorial oversight is going by the wayside. Most publications don't even appear to employ proofreaders these days.

Where did I suggest violating anyone's rights? Someone tweets that they're going to blow up the airport. Some law-enforcement official is detailed to go have a quick chat with this person and make sure it's a joke. Nobody needs to be arrested, nobody needs to be convicted of a crime, nobody needs to lose their job. I think that's an entirely reasonable use of law-enforcement resources and not representative of insane paranoia. Insane paranoia is what actually happened.

I'm a freelance book indexer. I can only imagine how business would soar if I instructed potential clients to contact me via my G+ account instead of sending me an email as they would to every other freelancer in the entire country. "No, no, it'll be super easy," I'll tell them. "I'm a one-stop shop. Just contact me to let me know what your address is, and I'll put you in my G+ circles, and it will be exactly like having an email conversation, except with many more steps to go through before we can actually transact any business."

I'm perfectly okay with having different methods of contact for different purposes. I primarily converse with friends via social media. I conduct business via email. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If you make a stupid joke in public about killing the president, blowing up an airport, etc., I think you can reasonably expect to have some polite men in black suits show up at your door to ask you some very serious questions. Maybe you might even have to go with them for a while to answer some questions in a secure location.

But I don't think it is reasonable to expect that you will be arrested, charged with a crime, and lose your job over what is clearly and obviously a joke to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. It was a stupid joke, and a very badly-thought-out one, and I have no problem with someone facing reasonable consequences for doing something like that. But what happened to this guy has gone way beyond reasonable.

Yes, but the article was specifically about saving money by turning your computer off when you're not using it. Sure, a high-end gaming system is going to draw more power even when idle than a crappy underpowered and outdated system (like my mom's) but I don't think the difference is going to be significant enough to make the claim that this is something that will specifically help PC gamers. Everyone can save money by turning the machine off when not in use, whether you're a gamer or not. (Although for my money -- pun intended -- the savings isn't enough to justify the annoyance in having to boot the machine every time I sit down to use it. I do put mine into sleep mode, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.)

I disagree. It tells you that the automated system will not instantly fail and cause the cars to drive into other cars/off the road/etc. Is that an acceptable substitute for long-term data involving thousands more miles and many more vehicles? No, but it will possibly allow for that data to now be collected, since they've demonstrated that the automated convoy isn't an instant death trap.

Is it a PR stunt? Obviously. But PR stunts can be useful. And if this particular one gets us closer to the sci-fi dream I've had ever since I was a kid of having a car automatically drive me to my destination while I read a book and relax in luxury, then I'm all for it.

for the FaceHouse. Automatically "checks you in" when you walk through the front door. Updates your Timeline with a graph of your daily shower times, for easy comparison with your friends. Knows exactly what you stock your fridge and pantry with so that it can appropriately target fridge-front ads at your specific buying habits. Senses when you've been sitting at your computer for over two hours playing a game and calls the Facebook-sponsored pizza place for you to have a pizza delivered. (As specified in the Snack Delivery settings section of your Preferences. Default reset to Maximum Delivery Mode as of March; users can of course change it back if they manage to see this notice, find the settings dialog, and then check the appropriate boxes three separate times so that Facebook knows they're really sure.)

And of course everyone will want a FaceHouse. I mean, why wouldn't you? Do you have something to hide?