That's one way to look at it, but if there are already cameras everywhere then who cares if there are a few more? It won't take away any more of your privacy, since you already don't have any.

The other way to look at it is that we currently live in a society where surveillance is asymmetric. We're filmed by police, the NSA and corporations, but try walking up to a cop and filming him and see how successful you are.

A world where everyone is wearing privately-owned Glass might level the playing field a little bit.

Not sure what you mean by that. The IP in WhatsApp is the execution of the idea...

Also a car has many tens of ECUs, which are connected by a CAN bus that runs on the order of 100 kbit/s. This means that it takes many hours just to send all of the firmware updates to each ECU over CAN bus.

A lot of those points could be made about the iPod. Can you imagine yourself listening to one at the dinner table? At dinner with a date at a restaurant?

There's nothing stopping people from taking off their Glass when it is socially inappropriate to wear it.

I like how you narrowed in on the form factor and operating system, and assumed that no other details are important enough that they could be used to differentiate. You know, little details like how Amazon has this whole business of streaming digital content, how it has the huge financial resources to produce content and market the device. Stuff that Ouya doesn't have.

But no....maybe you're right - it's a console and it runs an operating based on Android. So therefore it's going to be exactly the same.

A lot of people have pointed out the fact that getting rid of the shuttle buses will increase traffic. But another thing that strikes me as odd is that they accuse this guy of developing an apartment building in Berkeley. Don't they understand that this would increase housing supply, and bring the cost of housing down? They're basically sending a message to developers not to build any new buildings, which is a really dumb idea if they want to halt gentrification.

So then let's try to bring that back, rather than flying under the radar with adblockers that trick adservers into thinking that they're working. Even if the advertisers are serving malware, two wrongs don't make a right.

I think the ethics of ad blocking is similar to software copyright infringement; it undermines the business model of the company that is offering content. For this reason I don't run an ad blocker.

If you're against proprietary software licenses you shouldn't go and install an unlicensed copy of Windows, you should go download a Linux distribution. Just by using Linux you make yourself counted and you help create a sustainable ecosystem of free software. If no one was willing to pirate Windows, a lot more people would be using Linux on the desktop today.

Similarly if you're against the ad model you should go seek out and contribute to sites that aren't built on an advertising business model (e.g. Wikipedia).

The argument that ad networks serving malware justifies using an ad blocker is to me a bit like saying "Target can't secure their customers' credit cards, so I'm ethically justified in using fake credit cards there".

Disclaimer: I work for and own shares in a company that makes most of its money from advertising revenue.

I take issue with this. Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook and AWS were not available 10 years ago, and these days I regularly use all of them from my desktop PC at home or at work, and all of them let me do things that I couldn't do before.

There's a lot of noise being made about the Ellis Act evictions, and how they've "skyrocketed" recently with a 170% increase in evictions. For some perspective, the raw number of Ellis Act evictions last year was 116, in a city with a population of 825,863. It sucks to be evicted, but this isn't a crisis on the scale that some are making it out to be.

I'm also an Australian living in the US and I've also noticed that cities are inside-out. But I don't buy the "different cultures do things differently" reasoning, because after having experienced both first hand, I know that our cultures and values are just not all that different. Most Australians love living in the suburbs and in fact the "Great Australian Dream" is to own a suburban home (it's not just a big part of it, the two are actually synonymous). Because of this the suburbs of cities like Sydney and Melbourne sprawl just like American cities of similar size. And like in the US, younger people (yes, including the hipsters) prefer the urban life too.

The difference is that due to government policies like more comprehensive healthcare, social security and public transport, the downtown areas aren't a cesspool of drugs. And if you remove the drugs, crime and homelessness, and set up some good schools and parks, what exactly is wrong with raising a family in a downtown highrise?

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of either blackberry or patent lawsuits but the typo keyboard is clearly a blatant copy of the blackberry one. For those who haven't seen it, take a look at both keyboards side by side before making up your mind. They've copied a lot more than just the qwerty layout.

https://businessincanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Screen-Shot-2014-01-03-at-2.26.22-PM.png

"In the abstract"?! In what world do you live in where standalone, server-side Java and Android apps are rare?

In the abstract, Java applets are a problem, sure. But by far most Java code runs on servers and on Android devices and there isn't as much of a problem with poor sandboxing in those environments.

That still sounds like it's not a big deal compared to what the government could do to you.

I can't find it either. The article in the second link contains a claim that they found the specific defect(s) that caused unintended acceleration, but I can't see anywhere where they actually mention what the defect is. In fact, in the court transcript itself the guy says he wasn't able to reproduce anything:

It really sounds to me like this "embedded software expert" came up with a whole bunch of possible things that could've gone wrong, but didn't actually find a bug.

In most places, when you buy something from a company in another state, the buyer is responsible for declaring and paying a "use tax". So I think a better question is: do you pay taxes for other people who were supposed to, but didn't?