The article says the data will be combined with data from the EPA's stationary sensors, but I'm not sure how a one-time drive-by reading, taken at different times in different locations, could be useful compared to a long term data set.

The information comes up on the original web site that published the article. That web site, according to its robots.txt file, allows that page to be indexed by search engines. Either remove the data at the source, or properly identify it as being unindexable. This law is being applied to the wrong company.

This is what my wife and I do for our 10 month old. All of his stuff is in a large carry bag. Occasionally we have to add the stroller, but generally it is all taken out when we're at home. Of course, we only have one small car, and it would be a hindrance to leave things in it. I'd like to think we would do the same if we had a larger vehicle.

They also fail to hit on the idea that gas stations might just become smaller to remain profitable, and they also might spring up as add-ons to existing businesses. Most hardware stores in my area have small propane service outlets. Likely we would see similar things for gas, tacked onto the sides of businesses, or even in the corners of a parking lot.

He's lying every time he shows his hair in public.

A. A ha. A ha ha ha. A ha ha ha ha hahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha... ha ha... ha... what?

Tell me about it! My infant son has been to the doctor 4 times this year just to get his vaccination shots.

Or you could just install the older "Messaging" application and switch the default messaging app. I bought a new phone last week and it asked me when initializing to confirm Hangouts as the default messaging app. I didn't really know much about Hangouts - I tried it, it was terrible, so I quickly got the older "Messaging" app from the play store and updated the settings. Very easy to do. I assume you can still be attacked by getting a Hangout message, but I assume that requires more knowledge about your target than just their phone number.

+1. But they don't want to end Google. The internet is too open and some other start up would take their place. More likely they want control, via established legal mechanisms they can use to modify Google search results, which in some areas they are already achieving (DMCA, right to be forgotten, think of the children, etc).

That's either really lame or I don't get it. I suspect it's really lame.

Seems rather obvious now that they point it out!

Subject A: my bones grow too much!
Subject B: my bones don't grow enough!
Researchers: Hmm, I wonder if we can find out what causes A and apply it to B?

People paying for fancy cars is a tax on stupidity because I personally can't see the value of it. People paying to see a play is a tax on stupidity because I wouldn't enjoy it myself. Paying any money at all for a coffee is a tax on stupidity because I hate coffee. Everything you do for enjoyment that I wouldn't personally enjoy doing is a tax on stupidity.

If you don't get any enjoyment from it, don't do it. Other people enjoy it, which is obvious, so why be a prick about it? Very, very few people buy lottery tickets as a financial strategy, so the actual odds are irrelevant as long as it's run honestly and someone shows up in the news with a win occasionally. Personally I spend about $10 per month on lotto tickets. I enjoy it, it's fun for me, so fuck off with your judgmental generalization.

As someone else mentioned, it is conceivable that women have a much larger pool of ads being targeted to them than males, something this study should have been able to discern, but the article is all "NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE SEXISM!!". If women have an ad pool that is 10 times larger, such profiles would expect to see any specific ad significantly less often than men. There is nothing nefarious in that case, and it certainly seems plausible.

While I agree that certain ads probably shouldn't be allowed to be gender-biased due to societal concerns, such restrictions by themselves would not make these statistics even.

From her feed:

Sure, but even if industry supported devices 3 times as long as today, most likely they would still become unsupported prior to the product being physically unusable. If a company produces an internet-capable piece of hardware, are they on the hook to support it against all future attack vectors until the hardware rots?

Option b seems perfectly reasonable from a waste management perspective, especially when we are talking about personal phones (we want them, we certainly don't need them) - and to be fair I did miss the AC saying they wouldn't participate any longer, and I assume that means not buying newer phones. I certainly would be unwilling commit to that, which means I too am part of the problem.