I concur, but I'd also argue that certain gadgets also suppress ones danger instinct, which is highly relevant in the cases presented by the article. The stranded drivers all sensed they were making the wrong move leading up to their incidents, but they failed to act on it because they allowed the gadget pre-empted or overrode their instincts. These weren't necessarily unintelligent people, they simply trusted the technology more than their instincts which lead to a series of poor choices.

As much as I'd love to crack jokes about Darwinism in these cases, I can look back on my life and find several instances where my reliance on a product/gadget/technology got me into trouble. I imagine most people could find similar moments somewhere in their past. The difference is that those mistakes weren't as serious, didn't get publicized and they likely didn't occur in Death Valley.

You are comparing two very different scenarios in regards to data (re)use. Google News certainly compiles the data of others, but it very clearly provides attribution to the source link. For the most part, the same is true with Google Books - Google is obviously not the original source, but is acting as a catalogger or aggregator. Few users would confuse the original source of the data available at News and Books as Google. There is certainly debate over the legality and ethics of both of those sites, don't get me wrong, but attribution is everything when one is making claims of copying/plagiarism.

Microsoft allegedly copied results wholesale without any attribution to the source from which they took them. What they are supposedly doing is on par with a student copying and pasting a few lines from a text book into an essay and passing it off as their own work. It simply isn't the same as what Google is doing with News and Books.

This reminds me of when automakers moved to Torx screws from Phillips screws. It was a conspiracy, people had to buy tools, the automakers were just trying to keep you from working on your own car, etc. It turns out that Torx is superior to Phillips for bit/socket durability and assembly line efficiency. There was no conspiracy, it was just better for certain applications.

I suspect we will find out that the pentalobular socket has some advantage over a Phillips or even a Torx for smaller applications. Simply looking at the "penta", it seems to maximize surface contact between the bit/socket while maintaing the durability of the socket. The smaller Phillips and Torx screws are rather easy to damage and I suspect the pentalobular screw is measurably more durable for smaller applications. Just like Torx, I suspect the pentalobular will become the defacto standard for small screw head applications if it is proven to be superior to Torx and Phillips.

"Netbooks failed to deliver on the hype" to deliver to the death blow to the PC != "Netbook failure"

But thanks for playing the "quote out of context" game.

A bubble is likely, but tablets are also a complementary market to the PC. Tablets might have an impact on PC/laptop sales, but they aren't going to spell the death of the platform anymore than Netbooks did.

And like the mighty tablet, Netbooks were predicted to deliver the death blow for PC's by pretty much every tech blog/zine. They ended up having a slight negative impact on PC sales, and then were banished to the land of the unhip the moment usable, inexpensive tablets hit the market. Netbooks failed to deliver on the hype because they were complementary technology, not replacement technology. Tablets are much the same.

Yes, it is still in the seasonal flu shot, but the article being discussed is regarding MMR and autism. According to the link you so helpfully provide, MMR (and the vast majority of pediatric vaccinations) are completely free of thimerosal. This suggests that a child's exposure to thimerosal today is substantially less than what it was 20 years ago. In my opinon and based on my reading of the available research, this greatly diminishes the likelihood that thimerosal has anything to do with the development of autism.

I'm certain the anti-vaccination crowd shuns the flu shot, but as far as I know there is no over-hyped, falsified research touting a link between seasonal flu shots and autism. So sure, it's there... but not nearly as relevant.

Even if thimerosal were mercury, it has no relevant place in the anti-vaccine argument since there was no correlating decline in autism cases when it was removed from children's vaccines. Autism diagnoses have continued to rise in the wake of the questionable thimerosal ban and the rising numbers of the unvaccinated, which all but confirms that thimerosal was nothing more than a needless distraction.

Anti-vaxxers still bring out the ghost of thimerosal because having an opportunity to name drop "mercury" makes them appear to be more serious and educated than they actually are. The first step in reintroducing rationality and logic to an anti-vaxxer is to nip that particular argument in the bud.

I completely agree with you and I like the salt analogy, but I wouldn't even give them that much leeway.

Again, that still wouldn't be censorship, it would be business. Sears already does exactly what you are describing with the DVD's they carry in stores. They have corporate guidelines on which movies they will sell based on various criteria set at the corporate level, which are inevitably influenced by a moral component.

What you are saying is that Sears be required to sell hardcore porn if it's profitible, even if it collides with their business principles. That is f**king frightening.

So by your rather broad interpretation of that definition, pretty much every major retailer on the face of the planet is actively involved in "censorship." Sears, for example, never carried gay-rape fantasy novels in the first place, so they are by far the worst censorship offender!

Holy shit, I didn't realize how serious it was! We'd better call the ACLU and let them know about this liberty-crushing censorship that is allowing Sears and Amazon to somehow police our morals and examine our materials for objectionable matter, even for people who don't shop there!

On the other hand, we could act like rational adults and accept that private entities have the right to make their own decisions. In that case, one could simply procure the alleged questionable items elsewhere without any difficulty.

I'm just baffled that Slashdot users would still have such a difficult time distinguishing censorship from private business action. It cheapens the very seriousness of the term "censorship" to use it in such an improper, and frivolous way.

There is absolutely nothing worthy of the term "censorship" anywhere in this story. Amazon does not control what I can see/read/say any more than my local small engine repair shop does. It's a private entity with every right to choose what they sell. If one is unhappy with their selection or practices they can simply buy elsehwere. Shocking concept, isn't it?