Exactly. (Responding to cancel out a mis-rating)

"Sign up for other services and you volunteer to participate in random experiments" is NOT ethical.

For it to be ethical it would have to be a very clear opt-in procedure, not something buried in a ToS somewhere.

Yes, but the description above indicates that they are trained not to take "no" for an answer.

It's not good business to irritate your customers, unless it doesn't matter because you have them locked into your service due to a virtual monopoly.

Looking to find and fill a genuine need for your customer = good.

Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.

Continuing to bother a customer when they tell you that they're not interested = terrible.

RTFA. It's not so much about workplace harassment as it is about harassment because of their work.

Unfortunately, the summary doesn't really make that clear.

She's not talking about comments like "nice ass" as much as she's talking about comments like "die, you fucking cunt!"

I actually understand his point. If Tesla just makes batteries for other companies, then they don't see Tesla as competition. If Tesla's also producing cars, then they are far less likely to do business with them regardless of how good their batteries are.

It's still a terrible idea. For the most part, the other car companies won't innovate unless they have competition. Tesla is far more likely to create real change by existing as a car company than they are by existing as a parts company.

This is an example of why listening to "investors" is a terrible idea. It's like listening to a gambler advise you on how to coach a sports team.

That would have been the headline in the 70s. This is why consumers don't generally drive innovation, and why judging the prospects of a new technology before its had time to overcome some of its early weaknesses is premature.

Welcome to April 1st. Your wish will be granted on April 2nd.

As soon as they can guarantee reliable cell service to everyone, they can be allowed to cease providing land line service to everyone.

Citation here: http://www.businessinsider.com...

Wal-Mart competes primarily on the illusion of price through loss leaders on a minority of items. The majority of their stock is actually the same or more expensive than many of their competitors. The company's actual strengths are logistics and marketing.

Whatever the validity, or lack thereof, of the rest of the post, I have to love the beauty of this self-fulfilling Catch 22 statement:

"As far as I can tell, ObamaCare has not a single defender outside the ranks of Obama's defenders and the Democratic Party."

Let me guess, how can you tell if someone is an "Obama defender?": they defend "ObamaCare!"

It's not just tech. TV journalism in general, and 60 Minutes in particular, gets it wrong all the time. 60 Minutes is notorious for going into every story knowing what their conclusion is going to be from the beginning and then framing and editing every second of their coverage to support that pre-determined conclusion.

This isn't something new. Before I got into the tech industry I worked in insurance for a major US retailer back in the 90s. While there, 60 Minutes did an "expose" on the dangers of shopping carts. Lots of discussion of people and children hurt around shopping carts, but not one word about now 99%+ of those accidents are a result of people stupidly using carts in ways they weren't intended to be used. Pointing that out would have gone against the narrative they were trying to construct about how inherently dangerous shopping carts were.

The truly amazing thing to me is that so many people can see journalists routinely get things wrong about subjects those people are personally knowledgeable on, yet still trust those same journalists on any other topic they cover.

The one time I don't have mod points...

This was similar to my experience. I bought about an album a month before Napster, while Napster was around I bought at least an album a week, and after it went away I dropped back to about two albums a year. I'm now back to buying the equivalent of about an album every other month through iTunes.

So, a decade later and I'm still spending a lot less money with them than I was when Napster was around. Multiply that by everyone else who acted in similar ways, and it's not so hard to determine the real reason for their declining income.