+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.

This might've been insightful if you'd removed "Americans". I'm in a canadian middle-income neighbourhood, and even here we have households who never put out a recycle bin. We have 3 programs here: rigid plastics & metal, paper & cardboard, and compost. It is paid for by taxes, and if it wasn't then many more would opt out. Even the bins are given out for free by the city. Thankfully most people realize that when our city's current dump fills up, it will cost far more to start shipping to the next available site, so diversion is a high priority.

The only non-recycling person I've ever spoken to about it said that she doesn't bother because sorting is too complex - so in my experience the kind of people who don't recycle are mainly just stupid, or have zero sense of community. And I only spoke to her because she had left a TV sitting on her curb for a month, it boggled her mind that such things can't be thrown out in the trash anymore.

Why do you need a newer Android? Perhaps you are part of the problem.

If I accessed a non-youtube URL and it redirected me to youtube, I would never use the original URL again because it is most likely some click-counting intermediary. YouTube is a well known and trusted video streaming site, while mylamedomain.com/youtubevideos is questionable unless you've already visited it.

YouTube was offering people branding by giving them simple URLs with their account name at the end, now they are taking away their offering from one individual and giving it to a company because money. It's scummy, it's selling out, and YouTube should know better than to treat their users this way.

You are technically correct, but only because corporations own those rights.

Seems pretty obvious too. Facebook is a social media platform with policies specifically stating they want people to use their real identities. Facebook is not a whistle-blowing platform. Isn't that what wiki-leaks is for?

If this war were just Irrelevant Faction A versus Irrelevant Faction B, I'm sure the government would not put much effort into it, and you'd be right - let them cull the herd. But letting ISIS ranks swell is very likely to increase losses to foreign allies which is bad for the US - especially when you eventually get US citizens decapitating people in jihadist videos.

You aren't trying very hard then, since TFA clearly states that Uber is adding special bonuses and subsidies to attract drivers. They are weathering smaller profits and some losses to gain market share because there were existing players in the market.

Seems like they need to add other metrics into their bonus system, like a minimum fare required to count towards the bonus.

No kidding. Not to mention any additional contact you have with the victim adds to your own risk of getting caught. People who pay out on ransomware are basically doubling down on their loss for the very very slim chance they will get anything back. Take this story, these idiots paid TWICE for the same ransom and still didn't their files back.