Those documents belong to us, they should be redacted when filed so that we can see them.

Pretty stupid logic. You're suggesting that the government spend $1.4 million redacting these documents, and hundreds of millions annually redacting all documents that could possibly be requested, in case they are requested, rather than spending the money when someone actually asks for it. You could make a case for arguing the government should be expected to pay the cost of redacting documents that the public are entitled to request, but that's a different issue.

Since when do we use unknown/uncommon words in headlines ?

You not knowing it isn't the definition of 'uncommon'. It's a pretty widely used term in general; on a tech news site like /. it's constantly in use.

The consensus view on Slashdot seems to be that vaccines are good and that taxes are bad. But, to me, at least, such views seem inconsistent.

Then that's your shortcoming, and you should think things through a few steps further. I shouldn't really be shocked though, the correlation between half-arsed incorrect arguments and opposition to vaccination is staggeringly high.

The cost of treating a serious outbreak, disruption to the economy etc are considerable. The costs of supporting those left disabled by disease are considerable. The cost of treating people in hospital with severe cases is considerable. The money spent developing vaccines by government is negligible compared to the costs to government of their being no vaccination.

Hyperlinks, learn not to be a dickhead.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something very strange happening with allergies. I've just hit 30 and when I was a kid nut allergies were virtually unheard of, nothing was done by society to control the risks, nut free food plants didn't exist (or were at best vanishingly rare). Now ~20 years later nut warning information is everywhere, nut free plants are common, schools and other institutes have policies and processes in place, airlines have nut allergy policies etc.

Either nut allergies are a lot more common, or its become a lot more common to think you have an allergy.

So are you suggesting there is no line?

Should the state stay uninvolved if a parent sexually interferes with their child, or does that interference not count as drawing a line? How about allowing the beating of children badly enough to break bones when they misbehave, or does saying they can't do that not count as drawing a line? Refusing to feed their children must be ok by your logic, otherwise it'd be the state telling parents what to feed their children which you explicitly use as an example of bad state interference.

The issue with vaccinations and freedom is that it isn't about what is best for that individual child, it is about what is best for society and children as a whole. I'm fine with parents having the choice not to vaccinate their children, as long as schools/scout groups/theme parks/sports stadiums etc can all require proof of vaccination or a medical exemption, and that public venues that allow un-vaccinated children in and don't warn people about that can be sued for the damage caused.

Do companies pay enough gas tax to pay for the proportion of road use they generate?

Do they pay enough for the enforcement of patent laws, trademark laws, for the military that protects their assets, etc etc.

Even if you take the naive position that only things directly consumed by a company matter (thus not healthcare, education etc) it's a pointless pedants argument. If that all had to be funded by taxes on workers then wages/sales taxes and various of other things would increase instead. They'll end up spending whatever they save in tax on costs instead.

if the profits were made in tax free countries, so be it.

A viewpoint that requires a special kind of stupidity in those who don't appreciate it is purely theoretical. Companies aren't making billions in tax free countries, they are making billions in countries with taxes and using loopholes to legally avoid paying the vast majority with the help of a select group of countries. Getting every country to stop supporting this kind of action is impossible, so America is changing the laws to make it pointless instead.

If you can find one example of an American company that is currently paying less than 19% tax on it's average foreign profits without using a convoluted trick like double Irish I'd be amazed, so feel free to share.

Fact is while there are plenty of innocent reasons to want to fly a drone, there are virtually no innocent reasons to *need* to fly a drone

There's no 'need' to consume alcohol, play team sport, have foods with added sugar, own a car, or have the internet either. It's idiotic to look at laws restricting things on the basis that there is no 'need' for the thing they restrict.

It's pretty common for GPS drones to include no fly areas like airports and military bases. Obviously that's primarily in place to stop someone accidently causing a plane crash, as anyone intentionally trying to do so would find it trivial to get round the restriction. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't want to fly my drone into those areas, and if I did for some very niche reason then I could intentionally subvert it. Blocking out hundreds of square KMs of land because a drone was found near an important persons house is utterly retarded.

Leigh Lewis, superintendent of the Triad district, told me that if a student refuses to cooperate, the district could presumably press criminal charges.

The school district aren't saying that the law gives them the power to compel students to give them their passwords. It also doesn't suggest that refusing to give the password is breaking the law. The school can ask, just as I could walk up to someone in the street and say they need to give me £5 or I will report them to the police for "being a moron", but as long as I don't threaten them, stray into harassment territory or impersonate a police officer (or other protected role).

That doesn't mean that the schools don't deserve to be chastised for sending out threatening, intentionally technical and misleading letters though.

That isn't automatically a massive issue. Apple came into the smartphone market (shock horror for some that they didn't actually create it) after MS and some others. Google themselves came into the market after Apple. Apple continues to sell devices even though they were considerably behind Google on some functionality (and I'm sure the reverse is true).

If Samsung can ensure that Android apps run perfectly well on Tizen, including Google apps like maps etc, then they're 80%+ to offering a mobile OS I'd move to if the handset was one I wanted.

If you need to be obsessed with something to remember something this notable then you've got memorisation issues. Just because hamburger was a dick responding to you, doesn't mean that the SSC wasn't big enough that it's reasonable to expect people to remember it.

Scores of women have now be raped by Uber drivers, who don't need to show any credentials, but just pretend to be someone providing a ride.

Citation needed. Beyond which I'm sure Taxis are no different. You're likely trolling, but if you're not then just look at the number of places where some of the most common scams include false/unregulated taxis.

A bigger question here is should part-time, low-paid freelancers like uber drivers be allowed to force out full-time taxi drivers by eating into their business?

It's a small, but I tend to think it important, difference but you really should look at the premise as "whether we should restrict people some from being allowed to offer the service in order to protect medallion owners and taxi drivers?". You don't need to do anything to allow something, so the question should by default be whether we should be doing anything.

As to protecting taxi drivers. Firstly I'm not entirely sure that it is Taxi drivers suffering the most, that would be medallion owners, who have shown they only care about protecting their profits not customers. Secondly, progress requires that some roles become less attractive or even cease to exist. Lamp lighters, stable hands, farm workers etc were all massive sources of employment prior to technology making them largely obsolete. Taxi driver is just one of many jobs slowly following the same path. Personally I think autonomous vehicles will almost entirely kill the field within a decade anyway, so Uber is the least of their issues.