I know I'm going to get disappointed though when somebody has something to complain about it.
You assume that I think taxpayers should have to rebuild those houses.
I'm not assuming that. Regardless of what you think about the issue that's the reality on the ground. A location gets hit by a hurricane, news stories float around about people who have lost everything, there's a public swelling of support, and before we know it the government is in the insurance business. It's happened with coast lines, it happened with fire insurance in LA/Hollywood, it happens in many, many places. Most people can't be cold hearted basterds enough to realize that in certain situations, helping people rebuild their lives creates dependency problems. And since we're in a democracy, that's the reality on the ground.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you?
Because when inevitable destruction occurs to the beach property, you'll get an interview on TV and sob and whine about how much you love your house which was just destroyed, and then my tax payer dollars have to be invested in reconstructing the house that's in a dangerous place to build. That's why the government should stop the building of houses in dangerous areas.
A European court ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot trademark Skype, its popular Internet-calling service, in Europe because its name and logo is too similar to the longtime British broadcasting company.
Link to Original Source
Can I be the one who decides who is undesirable and gets silenced?
No, that's Anakin Skywalker's job.
So to protect against silencing, you're going to silence?
Well, if one bully can silence 100 shrinking violets, by removing the bully, twitter will get less silence as the shrinking violets have conversations about how important everyones feelings are on whatever subject matter is worth tweeting about.
If your goal was to get as many eyeballs looking at ads on your platform, wouldn't you trade one bully for 100 shrinking violets?
Is handing out torches to angry villagers. Going to be interesting to see how they square this.
Shouldn't that be everybody's business model, supplying a need for the largest market? Do you think there are more angry villagers, or more victims being lynched?
Do you think that no science was used in the European countries who all banned GMOs?
Yes, those bans came from fear mongering.
your irrational fear is nothing but illiteracy and ignorance
I think I have an irrational fear of sentences with no capitol letters in them. It makes me feel that the person authoring them is illiterate and ignorant.
Things DO NOT need to be connected to the internet.
I wonder if that will become the definition of a 'thing' in a generation.
Thing: An item which is connected to the internet.
This is a little bit different than Internet Exploder, which MS was forcing people to keep installed when using the OS. But one could just as easily type www.yahoo.com into the URL, or even www.bing.com into the URL.
But could just as easily launch Netscape from their desktop as they could IE from their desktop.
You couldn't buy a computer (and still can't) without Windows.
But with a computer you could always buy the parts and build your own. Slashdot will regularly feature posts from companies selling non-Windows computers. Just because IE is installed doesn't force you to use it.
Andrew Huang argues that Moore's Law is slowing and will someday stop but the death of Moore's Law will spur innovation. "Someday in the foreseeable future, you will not be able to buy a better computer next year," writes Huang. "Under such a regime, you’ll probably want to purchase things that are more nicely made to begin with. The idea of an “heirloom laptop” may sound preposterous today, but someday we may perceive our computers as cherished and useful looms to hand down to our children, much as some people today regard wristwatches or antique furniture."
Vaclav Smil writes about "Moore's Curse" and argues that there is a dark side to the revolution in electronics for it has had the unintended effect of raising expectations for technical progress. "We are assured that rapid progress will soon bring self-driving electric cars, hypersonic airplanes, individually tailored cancer cures, and instant three-dimensional printing of hearts and kidneys. We are even told it will pave the world’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies," writes Smil. "But the doubling time for transistor density is no guide to technical progress generally. Modern life depends on many processes that improve rather slowly, not least the production of food and energy and the transportation of people and goods."
Finally Cyrus Mody writes that it seems clear that Moore’s Law is not a law of nature in any commonly accepted sense but what kind of thing is Moore’s Law? "Moore’s Law is a human construct. As with legislation, though, most of us have little and only indirect say in its construction," writes Mody. "Everyone, both the producers and consumers of microelectronics, takes steps needed to maintain Moore’s Law, yet everyone’s experience is that they are subject to it."