They only put the black electrons in the prisons.

Yes, and virus designers already use this technique to defeat signature scanners in AV programs.

Just as incompetent as the old boss.

AOL must have single-handedly doubled the CO2 output of the earth during the 1980's and '90's.

The "you seem to be over-complicating" line shows you've never worked in publishing. Typesetting is more than picking fonts and dicking about with chapter headings. Try out specialized fonts for math faces, together with laying out formulas so they look good. Try re-kerning and manually breaking lines when they don't look right (which can happen with long words found in technical and/or programming text). Nice little sidebars and graphics to keep the user interested? That doesn't get inserted by the author. Publishers do a lot to make the books you read better. Look at some of the atrocious self-published dreck (usually offered for very low prices on Amazon) to see what crap you get when a publisher isn't involved.

TL;DR version - authors aren't editors, designers, book production specialists, salesmen, or marketers. Publishers provide all of these things to them and usually do a pretty good job. They are worth what they charge.

Maybe. The exception that proves the rule?

Because the studios don't want another online sales channel to undercut their physical DVD sales (because their profit is higher on the latter). Because Netflix wouldn't make enough money from this service to offset the legal hassle that would come if they didn't play by the studios rules. Netflix is already being slightly bent over by its peers for network access - it doesn't need another hassle. Finally, if you press on some marginal activity like this, the studios might stop working with you altogether.

Is this enough, or need I go on?

The school district is thinking that expulsion and suspension do more harm than good when students are left unsupervised, so they are switching to more in school retention. The trailers are going to be used for that.

Ahhh... Getting them ready for the industrial-prison complex early, huh?

I love it when atheists say that Jesus is fictional.

Yes, it's probably more accurate to say that Jesus is mythical - there was a man named Jesus who lived in the mid-east around the beginning of the Common Era and had a bunch of followers. And people who came after him did quite a literary number on him, attributing to him miracles, divinity, and other graces. In a way, it's just like Arthur - who also had a bunch of followers and who's legend was similarly embellished, although not quite to the same level.

So, yes, Jesus is quite mythical.

... it would be hard to make its APIs much worse.

Note that over-protection is exaggeration of a positive trait. Try exaggerating a negative attribute in that situation and watch the firestorm erupt. The sitcom "Bad Teacher" can get away with it because the female lead there isn't a mother (just a teacher), but just try doing it with an actual mother character. The intergenerational comedy "Mom" can get away with it because the "bad mother" in this case only has adult children. But exaggerating a real negative attribute that moms can have (addiction, irresponsibility, etc.) and incorporating it into a sitcom? Man, you have got to have balls of steel and flameproof underwear to propose that. When I see a sitcom with the feel of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia", but starring a dysfunctional mom, a semi-functional dad, and non-grown children, that's when I know the barrier is broken.

Cutting to the chase, having kids is fine as long as you're willing to make the sacrifices necessary to raise and support them. So is not having kids. So is waiting to have kids. So is adopting. So is marrying someone who has already had kids and becoming a (hopefully non-evil) stepparent.

What surprises me is the number of people here who feel that they have some right to criticize others' choices on this particular issue (although the choice of taking unruly kids onto planes and into theaters probably is OK to criticize). What surprises me more is the defensiveness that some people have around their choices, even to the point where folks are seeing posts on different choices as attacks on their choices. Just because someone makes a different choice than you, it doesn't invalidate your decision. Yes, I know that you who don't have kids like to gloat about your freedom. I'm glad you have it, but no one likes an smug asshole. I know you who have kids like to tout your responsibility and the joys you get from parenting and your oh-so-excellent child-rearing skills. I'm glad you have those, but, again, no one likes a smug asshole. So just lighten the fuck up, OK?

I had kids. I have friends who didn't. I respect their choices, they respect mine. There are advantages and disadvantages to each choice. That's the way life is. Now STFU and enjoy the life you've chosen and let others enjoy theirs.

Why does this discussion remind me of a vi/emacs war?

Sorry. While I love technology, my not-so-humble opinion is that we're nowhere near the level of reliability needed for a car that's completely free of manual control.

The Google car has done something like 700,000 miles and crashed twice. Both times this occurred, it was under control of the human occupant.

I drive to work every morning and the number of times I see people not paying attention is extraordinary. Women doing their makeup, people texting, trying to argue with their children etc.

Honestly, in my view, removing the steering wheel is a safety feature.

Just like any other construct - when it makes the code more clean, clear, correct, and/or optimized. These are tradeoffs.

For instance, let's say you have a function having a deeply nested conditional:

if (!a) {
    if (!b) {
        if (!c) {
...

} } }

This code might be more simply understood as:

if (a) goto done;
if (b) goto done;
if (c) goto done;
...
done:
...

Not to mention televising it as a reality TV show - let the producers pick fifteen contestants, whittling them down to five as they're trained. Then comes the moment of truth! The five secretly vote for someone other than themselves. The votes are counted and the person with the most votes is given a gun with a blank, while everyone else has a bullet in their gun. The execution is carried out. Afterwards, the person with the blank is revealed and has to go home. The remaining four split a $5M prize and get to be paraded as NRA heroes for the rest of their media life.

Money making (because the ratings would be off the charts) and tasteful!