I was unable to read your post because it didn't contain any pictures to look at or a monkey I could punch.

Clear justification for net neutrality and taking content & services away from them entirely. Yes, they will still stick us with the bill. But we can limit our involvement and simplify the discussion to BW/$. Bundling makes the conversation confusing and gets too many "interested third parties" creating misleading noise.

I'm not going to disagree with most things. I'm curious what issues you are having with Family Sharing. After a few updates (noteably 8.1) I found it actually works like I expected, and my son can request apps and I can approve them on my own device. Usually. That's more or less what I wanted from the feature.

I have a few issues in decreasing severity:
- It wasn't clear when it rolled out that you don't HAVE to give your 6yo his own Apple ID (or your 13yo), and once done can't be undone. It's quite clear now though. So back then, I set one up, and live in fear of all the communication tools he has access to that i can't restrict. I'm somewhat conservative in that I don't think a 6yo should have open access to all persons, and I should be able to shut that off.
- Sometimes permission requests get dropped, or don't get to my iPhone. Bug. Much less frequent lately, but still lurking.
- Annoyingly asks for the youngin's password too many times

I suspect that merging IDs will never happen, but the reason I would want that is exactly family sharing.

I don't, that means there will be wasted memory that i could otherwise be using. I'd rather free up space for an upgrade if I want it, than have excess space I can't use.

What "we" as consumers really want is less $ per GB for the upgrade iDevices, but that would require someone other than Apple producing decent hardware, when the trend is Chinese shitshops producing junk.

I didn't complain but I found some of the pictures it unearthed to be painful reminders, the early part of the year was lousy for me individually which evolved to be generally fantastic. Nevertheless, I think it's legit to complain and remind them that we upload pictures for a number of reasons, and the emotions attached to them change a lot over a year. Complaining in the form of feedback is perfectly acceptable. It's the incessant lawsuits and mass media editorials that wear on our nerves.

I think the reasonable solution is to make this an optional feature that they advertise for instead of just dump on your page. Even allow you to choose the photos to show and save for posterity.

Yet "high-tech" started long before that, and was already very gender biased. The article specifically said "email", which was quite common in the 80s on college campuses and high tech industries, I know because I had to maintain some legacy scripts, rules for which were set up in the 80s and nobody really understood anymore in 2000.

The article is correct on some facts, but is entirely lost in narrative.

I thought it was serious until I read that students showed up at Stanford in 1994 barely knowing what email was. Then I realized it's satire. I mean, you can't seriously propose that the tech revolution started in 1994, right? Even Intel, Apple and Microsoft are latecomers to teh tech revolution, which was already very gender biased in the late 70s. When did "high tech" begin? I'm not sure, maybe WWII, maybe the industrial revolution, or maybe as late as teh semiconductor. All of these were well before Stanford class of '94 graduates were BORN. Even I knew what email was long before 1994, I even had email of my own.

This isn't intended to be a geriatric post where I try to claim I'm an OG, most things high-tech were invented before I was born. C existed, Unix was a thing. The only thing the mid-90s meant to high-tech was the birth of the popular internet, which many of us remember being the death of the useful internet.

It's true they can't interfere with other communications intentionally, or through some byproduct of their transmitter that doesn't fit within spec. However if they are sending data over all the available channels on their wifi links, that is "legal" as long as they have plausible deniability and feel comfortable defending it in court.

No one can stop them from building a faraday cage around their hotel, but they absolutely should not be allowed to jam anything (via intentionally emitting interfering signals)...that can only ever do bad things.

More or less. If you build a faraday cage around your house, that's legal. If you build a jammer, that is illegal.

It seems like jammers are bad because you can't control the range of their effectiveness. On the other hand faraday cages tend to block more frequencies than you'd like, ex. you probably also would block cell reception.

Actually, join a group where you spend a lot of time having face-to-face conversations

Is this to help us feel better about death by giving us a terrible reminder that there are fates worse than death?

Are parents going to allow their kids to see this movie know a lone gun nut might kill them?

Or more accurately let them go see The Hobbit 3, or other big blockbusters that might show in the same theater and would otherwise draw in a lot of money.

And China. China probably wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, but wouldn't like us dropping troops next door or risking Dear Lunatic lighting off a nuke to make a point.

There's no way Sony would be liable for an act of war or terrorist attack due to their decision to air a movie. We can't even hold them responsible for the financial loss and emotional damages that most of their movies already cause, and that is absolutely through their own negligence!

I wonder too, considering by some accounts it's just a really bad movie (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/opinion/stanley-interview-threats/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 , warning, it's CNN and it's an editorial, take with a shot of tequila and a salt shaker). The only known way of making people see a really bad movie is to have Michael Bay do the special effects, or make some controversy around it. Michael Bay is no doubt working on Transformers N: Plan Gigli from Outer Space

I don't think NK has the capability of making good on telegraphed threats, nor would they like the response.