Freedom is scary. If people don't like it, perhaps they don't belong in the home of the brave.
Nobody is forcing you to connect to the airport WIFI network. It's just as disturbing to me that you think you should have the right to data on someone else's network just because you use it. If you were paying for such a right and had a contract in place, I could see that. But you are not, and therefore you have no right to tell them what they can and can not do with that data. It's not just you, people all over are using free services and then claiming they have a right to tell the providers what to do with the data those services collect.
It's their servers and their search algorithm. They have the right to do whatever they want with it. Any information they display on their web page is protected by the first amendment. Of course, exceptions are in place for any speech, including libel or copyrights. Now, whether that's best for all involved is another question.
You should pull over to do any of those things. Running late or being in a hurry never has, and never will be a good excuse to risk causing an accident. To say that it's less dangerous than actions that also involve hands is a poor defense.
That's like saying since people volunteer to pick cotton, it's ok to enslave other people to do it.
You forgot the right to register for selective service and conscription.
This might not be good advice at all, but why not try and get the development manager's job? That would probably inspire me a ton if I saw a weakness like that and ways to do a better. You've got some good experience under your belt and seem to understand the problem the company is facing. Hopefully, some people here who know more than I do can give you some more specific advice.
There's a niche to be filled with parent-friendly games and Microsoft has bought a great game franchise to fill it with. Well played.
A corollary to this is whether communication through any mechanically-assisted means should be defined as speech. I think this has a huge implication on copyrights. As we become more integrated with these devices, the line between what we say, think, and digitally transfer becomes gray. What if instead of describing a movie or song to someone, we're able to transfer our perfect memory of it directly to their memory?
So we're throwing a man in prison to keep one form of entertainment flowing? That seems backwards.
But it's more important for the government to protect one business model of one form of entertainment than this man's freedom.
Remote education such as the internet is very good at distributing materials and information. However, it is very bad at testing individuals' comprehension and understanding for a variety of reasons. Currently, Universities do both and they bundle the costs together in one large tuition package. I think a good solution going forward would be one that offers these two services separately.
I think you hit the nail on the head, but that's why I disagree with this article. Most nerds, believe it or not, realize the results of their personal choices as you do and don't irrationally point their frustration at innocent people. I think it's unfair to say that all nerds reach this irrational conclusion "as a matter or mental self-defense." I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this is a sweeping generalization based on one crazy man's acts.
Really, slashdot? This comments gets a 5, Insightful? It's an unsupported assertion.