I tend to agree with you (but as I said before, morality is subjective), a more interesting question is where the line should be drawn? Is it OK to target 'depressed' people with anti-depressant pharmaceuticals?

Alright, I'm just bitter because Facebook keeps showing me ads for some rehab center in Thailand (seriously). Dicks!

Is it wrong to target a problem drinker with ads for AA? How about targeting problem drinkers with free booze? What about targeting young mothers with ads for 'family planning' services, or as the article suggests pregnant women with 'pro-life' services? I'm sure there is a line there somewhere. Morality is a funny, fuzzy deeply personal thing... and I guess the line will vary from person to person.

Disclaimer: I am very strongly pro-choice (where choice is the right for a woman to seek an abortion if she wants).

The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbors were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests. (Banks - Excession)

Fairly sure François Marie Arouet was Voltaire. You're probably thinking of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (S. G. Tallentyre) who wrote a biography of Voltaire and summed up his thinking with the aforementioned quote.

True enough. Just out-and-out assuming that they arrived at a legitimate result is a rookie mistake. The comment in the article "receiving at least 3 bars of service" makes me pretty worried that they didn't control for constant UeTx power particularly well (some tests might have 3 bars, some 4, some 5 - and yeah, reported bars are based on DL measurements, but there is a good correlation between RSRP (or RSCP) and UeTx Power)... So, another meaningless result due to failed experimental design.

My bet - different CDRX settings, fast dormancy, idle timers. Is probably a better engineered network.

Ah, so now consuming the blood of virgins won't count as a purely recreational activity...

Depends. AMR-WB (sometimes marketed as HD-Voice) which has been around for years (not all carriers support it though) is much higher quality than what you typically get over POTS.

If Dave Barry heard you say that he'd roll over in his grave (assuming he is dead), but I'd hazard a guess that he shan't, because what're the odds he'll be paying enough attention - at least, that is what I've always said.

God no. As you said she is yours. A proud member of the Commonwealth.

Nuke 'em all, then there will no problems. Well, nobody to complain about them anyway.

True, that said - EMACS is still pretty much the most advanced OS on the planet.

how long until the filter/brush code is implemented server side?

Hmmm... good point. Suspect it has more to do with semantics of infinity. Infinity never behaves in a rational manner *duck*...