The reason it's not trains (or other forms of rail) is for two reasons:
1. Need to buy huge tracks of land in roughly straight lines.
2. Up front cost to actually build a rail system.

America is horribly bad when it comes to modern rail, because it's been effectively dead for decades outside of a handful of Amtrak commercial runs and industrial tracks. So any effort to really make use of rail is going to need to build new rail. Even short runs of light rail track these days costs billions and can take decades to build. You also have some really big players like GE which build most of the locomotive engines in use today and a single locomotive engine costs millions of dollars to build. In comparison one self-driving car only costs hundreds of thousands at most.

Actually with Aereo they make a point of renting you a 'specific' antenna, not some random antenna (unless you cancel your service and then activate it again)...

Having read both majority and dissenting opinions even the other dissenting justices feel this was not anywhere near 'narrow and specific' and that was the primary reason they refused to accept the majority opinion. If 3 of 9 Justices don't even think it's all that narrow or specific why the hell should we?

Social Media advertising when it works well is often the users _wanting_ to partake in the brand they favor. Their was a really good recent documentary on the social media advertising world, both regarding products and people. For products most are already established brands that want to milk their following for potential expansion to the friends of the people who partake. For people it's all basically getting someone known to showcase people who are not yet known. 'Expanding circles' and all that.

The first works especially well for large brands... Movies, soft drinks, shoes, etc. The second works well for things like actors, singers, and others needing or wanting to be a celebrity. The second is also the reason for some of the 'youtube millionaires' and I don't exactly mean money, but some have gotten rather good amounts of money for becoming popular online.

In the 'old days' you had senior employees who mentored new employees when they were hired. They didn't need 'training departments'. Heck I did this plenty when I was working as a network admin and in some sense I had this in turn when I became a network admin, because I had another 'higher placed' person look after me at first (though not an IT person, that mentoring was more about how to ride the political currents of the job).

Even that though regularly gets tossed out the window. To many companies look at 'mentoring time' as an unnecessary waste of time. I still provide tips and advice to new people even though my managers these days don't appreciate the time I take to do that. Or the time I take to show someone how to do something correctly when what they did either didn't work correctly or what they are doing will not go over well for one reason or another.

I'm pretty sure he meant that software should be a copyright issue, not a patent issue because the hardware is patented already and the software requires that to run. Hence someone should realistically not be able to patent software on top of patented hardware since those bits of software already existed in hardware. Instead they can only be copyrighted.

These things are different and cover different areas and serve different purposes.

That very much depends on who is running the union. And a proper union should be run by it's member workers, not some fat cat who is brought in from who knows where to run it. Sadly far to many american unions went capitalist and started to be run by people who didn't care about the workers and instead only cared about the money. Properly run unions are effective counters to abuse by corporations and business owners and are not corrupt rent seeking agencies that make it hard to fire people who do no work.

Well you need to be a bit careful there... 'Delivery' can be a pretty broad word unless you narrow it and that can be kind of hard even.

For instance over the air tv reception is 'delivery', but most of those provide some content of their own (usually 'news') that they don't purchase through an affiliate program. If we went by your wording they would suddenly have to shutter any home brew content and act as dumb pipes to whatever affiliate company they are paired to... It could even kill some tv advertising as I know several local tv stations that provide 'consulting' or 'editing' services in regards to local tv ads. That could be perceived as 'providing content' that they then deliver.

Even if we exclude this to only refer to 'the internet' we could still run into an issue like some smaller broadband ISPs that offer local TV broadcasts, internet, phone, and conventional cable. So an aspect of the same company does provide 'content' which is then relayed over their 'delivery method'. Some of those places have no other source for local 'news' because they can be relatively small communities.

Personally as a sci-fi writer I like Ceres much better then Mars. It has a rocky core, but it's mostly solid water (aka Ice) having more water as mass then the entire Oceans of Earth. It has low gravity so transportation is effectively cheap, while not being actually 'zero-G' and so should help with some of the medical risks of pure zero-G stays. It even has signs of a very limited atmosphere of evaporated water. It's also situated in the 'asteroid belt' just past Mars.

If we do go to Mars we may want to steer some large ice asteroids from the belt down onto it. Though 'Mars Purists' may have some issues with these grand scale forms of terraforming to add more water and other needed materials to the planet. This is something we can only really do because no one lives on mars yet.

For anyone not smart enough to run things like adblock, yes.

I have to say the whole point of the 'VEVO' part of youtube was started because of a push by the big labels to 'have our own section of youtube for music video' and not so much because Youtube/Google wanted to segregate music videos from other content on the site. Or at least what information I've heard about suggests this is the case. Google made it subscription based for a variety of reasons, some of which included the big labels wanting to reduce ads on their music pages (or at least control what ads appear). To do this Youtube/Google needs some way to make money off of hosting the Content for the companies in question.

Now the only change here is that Youtube/Google is saying they don't want advertising supported music videos in the other section while all the other 90% of music videos are within VEVO. Which I think makes a lot of sense to them since 'we have this cool place that hosts 90% of our music video content, these other videos seems vastly out of place outside of it'. It may even also include the emphasis that this could reduce music video takedowns against 'normal' users by the large labels.

Is it kind of shitty to the lesser 10% that didn't want to switch? Sure. However this is hardly the 'crime against humanity' some people are making it out to be.

If you think all of Japan is composed of cities like Tokyo you'd also be equally wrong. There are lots of mountain areas and forested regions with small towns and even one off living spaces in the middle of nowhere. Korea being bigger in contiguous land area is even more so this way.

I think they will is what we lack and not the population density. Companies have every reason to make the absolute maximum money they can everywhere and everything else is secondary. In fact capitalism tells them this is all that matters completely.

lol, I wish that was the issues of being poor in the US...

If by 'any citizen' you mean 'anyone who can either pay the thousands of dollars to have a lawyer help them do the paperwork' or the 'anyone who can takes months figuring out the forms on their own'. Then yes.

Which by the way is the same thing as the 'any citizen' when it comes to bankruptcy. I lost my job at one put in my life and couldn't pay my bills any longer. So the sane thing would be to apply for bankruptcy status, but it's not like it's just a form you can fill out. Instead it's a series of court documents that need to be made and a legal process you go through. When I wanted to do it I found the absolute cheapest I could get a bankruptcy done for was about $1000 USD. I couldn't even pay hundreds of dollars in bills a month, where in the world am I going to get $1000 USD? So yes, it's something 'any citizen' can do... It's something 'Any citizen with sufficient access to the means of production' can do.....

Communism is not socialism and capitalism is not a 'cure' to either. Your examples of Communism had little to do with actual communism (common ownership of the means of production) and more to do with wacky crack pots doing strange things when given power in their countries.