I agree that the patch is silly. However, the use of "they" or "them" in the singular, gender neutral sense has a very old history in the English language, more than a century at least.

From the Joyent guy:

This is about replacing "he" with "they" somewhere. Noordhuis' single response in the comments section to this change was "Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that.", and a flamewar that is as stupid as it is predictable ensues. Joyent then jumps to the conclusion not just that rejecting a trivial change like this constitutes an insistence on principle that pronouns should be gendered, but that such insistence springs from the notion that masculinity is inextricably linked to software. And this is a sacking offense? MikeRT called it right when he used the term "SJW tools". To me, this would at most be cause to remind the employee of whatever Diversity policies the company has in place.

Yes!: http://www.bestbv.nl/article/s...

So far the evidence seems to weigh in favour of us being top dog in our immediate surroundings (earth, the solar system at least, perhaps nearby interstellar space as well). It is possible that superintelligent stuff exists near us, invisible to us, but very unlikely that this intelligence would leave no trace or mark that we can perceive yet not fit in our simple theories of physics and nature (indicating existence of another intelligence). And as far as the universe is concerned, we may well be near the top of the intelligence spectrum; superintelligence may be extremely rare or even impossible.

Gods or superintelligent beings, I'll believe in them when I see them, or at least when we see something inexplicable, clearly artificial or some phenomenon far outside our models that would require superintelligence to pull off.

Pretty much anything having to do with Dutch euthanasia laws or cannabis use.

Since they "are still in early stages", how would you want them to differentiate themselves? I can think of a few things that can set it apart from a site like Wikinews which is based on vanilla Mediawiki:
- Multiple, personal, compound filters (subject, region, country, town, breaking, highest ranked)
- Rich feeds (mail, RSS)
- A personalized front page based on your filters with some "suggested reading" thrown in
- Article ranking based on moderation and reputation (of both source site and submitter)
- Comment section (we need our flamewars)
- A mobile app (yes, you can go with a mobile theme, but some newspapers and news aggregators have apps that actually make finding and reading stuff a lot easier)

Pretty much this. The only place where I could see such a catch-all work is to ensure that mandates given to government agencies are interpreted as narrow (or as explicitly) as possible. And even there, the same danger exists i.e. constant challenges of that mandate could cripple essential and legitimate government functions.

He with nothing to hide should not have to fear for his privacy.

I'm not okay with the local Stasi installing bugs in my house. By the same token, I am not okay with them listening in on private conversations held over the phone or on the Internet. Even if it means a couple of terrorists go uncaught. Because what surveillance buys you is at best temporary security: a few high profile busts, and wrongdoers will find ways to evade that surveillance, which isn't all that hard.

You can write with a lump of coal, but it doesn't come with a spelling checker...

France has plenty nukes, China is building them and has ramped up development of a new eactor type based on Thorium, and India plans to bring a Thorium-fueled prototype online in 2016, banking on powering a good deal of their country with such reactors in a few decades time.

Taxis are way too expensive for frequent use over longer distances. Rental cars aren't, but they are a pain: you have to go pick them up (and without a car, how are you going to get to the depot) and return them afterwards. Self-driving cars are a game-changer in this market: you could order one on a moment's notice, and have it park itself at your house 15 minutes later. It'll return itself when you're done. And it'll be even better if the company charges by the hour or distance driven.

Besides, people will probably still own cars, just not as many of them. Why drive an SUV or sedan to work every day if it's mostly just yourself in the vehicle? Why own a pickup if you're only using it occasionally to haul stuff? Do you really need 2 cars between you and your spouse if only one of you drives to work every day? If I could easily rent any of those vehicles when the need arises, I might ditch all my cars and get a small EV for my daily commute. But most likely I'd still want to own that car, for practical and economical reasons.

Would have been fun to let the robots shout that out every now and then. Perhaps also a random "Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?".

What does Rand or her followers have to do with this?

I'm no fan of tinfoil apparel, but there are indeed a couple of very fishy things about this case, all pointing to an organised effort to get Assange extradited or otherwise transported to the US. With that said, the court is right in letting the detention order stand from a procedural viewpoint (as far as I can tell, they haven't looked at the case itself, merely at the procedures)

Morally perfect? If they are losing sleep over what fossil fuels and oil companies are doing to the world of future generations, they should stop using oil based products, not sue the school for holding oil stock.

The success of Google and Facebook, as well as the enthusiasm of some for surveillance ("hey, I've got nothing to hide") show us that people don't give a toss about privacy. We care a little bit for security where our credit cards and naked selfies are concerned, and there may be a smallish market for secure, encrypted products and services, but that's doesn't mean corporate interests are aligned with our own when it comes to security. Quite the contrary, in a market where the prevailing business model is to hook as many eyeballs as possible with free stuff, and make money by selling their data.

Telling us to rely on corporations to shield us from an invasive government is like the fox convincing the chicken that it can rely on the wolf for protection. One way or another, you're going to get eaten.