1. You can click on the domain and see the full url. It's not hidden completely, just have to click to see it.
2. URLs other than the domain name are an implementation detail. They mean nothing on their own, but only what the webserver behind that domain decides they mean. There's no url standard to adhere to. It's just chrome hiding unnecessary information and providing an easy to click search/url bar. While my initial reaction to seeing it was "WHAT?" after thinking about it a second I realized that I mostly ignore the url bar and just care about the domain most of the time. If I want to copy the link I can click on the domain and the whole url appears and is highlighted, or I do what I actually do and hit ctrl+L ctrl+C.
When I watch a tv show, I don't see all the details about what information is being passed to/from the cable provider and my box. Just the channel name. On the web, we don't see all the urls that are flying by with ajax, or iframes. We just see the main url which is usually not that helpful. This seems like a cleaner approach long term.
Which part of this sounds like Google being evil or or trying to control everything?
If there are only BSD like licenses, what is the incentive of any corporation to give back? The thinking will be "look here's this awesome tool that we can take, modify and use for ourselves. Let's do that" and giving back won't even be a part of the thought. Energy behind the free version will wane and Open source will disappear. The GPL like licenses helps us know that there WILL be current open source software out there because anyone who wants to use it as a starting point has to give back.
You could argue that some that work on BSD software DO give back, but I think the presence of the GPL has helped the culture form and I'm just not sure that without it's presence that the pattern would continue to long.
I could be wrong, and maybe I am, but I am glad for the GPL and fear the rise of BSD. Perhaps it's best to have both and allow them to co exist, but BSD only I'm afraid will slowly lead to only proprietary software. If someone could help me see the other side, I would certainly listen.
You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?
Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?
If buckyballs were the only dangerous thing for children, then yes I would whole heartedly agree with this! Let's ban them and save the children. The reality is, however, that there are many many things that are dangerous for children and it isn't feasible to tidy up the world so no child gets hurt. Do we rip all trees out of the ground because some kid might climb one in a public park and fall and hurt himself? Or perhaps a child was at a pool and couldn't swim so he drowned. The pools serve no purpose but pleasure, and since they kill kids, ban them all. It's just a question of how far do you go? Ultimately the safety of children rest with the parents.
Certainly there are times for things to be banned because they cause harm. Such as the baby doll a few years ago that was supposed to simulate eating and ended up munch on little girls' hair instead. A product that was marketed directly for kids and causes them harm is not good. But a product that is not marketed directly for kids, and only causes harm if eaten? Come on...
I realize I'm making the same argument that everyone else is making so perhaps I'm not really adding anything to the discussion, but I just can't be okay with that line of thinking, and I probably lean more towards government regulation than the one you are quoting does. I do think there are times that it is important to protect children from things at a government level because parents in many cases obviously won't and it's not fair for the children. There are just much bigger and more worthy fish to fry than buckyballs...