...they'd be courting disaster. As in dead release, dead revenues for the next five years, or dead company. The idea that this vendor is magically immune to customer satisfaction is a notion without a future. Great present, but lousy future.

The content is completely free. If I report that the sun will come up tomorrow (at dawn, say) you are completely free to tell anyone you like. I owe you nothing. It's expression that can be owned.

What is really meant here is news. More specifically news gathering which is done by humans known as reporters, and editing, which is done by humans called editors. They are not "creating content"; they are writing the news.

Now: Google doesn't do any of that. We can have a discussion on whether Google is distributing the results without helping pay for the feet on the street and the fingers on the keys. Seems like a good discussion to have, since there are now fewer feet on the street and fingers on the keys, and hard news reporting is on the decline. Consider a world with all the "content" anyone wants but little real news.

Probably the costs of data breaches are about the same as they've been for years.

What may be rising is the share of that cost shouldered by the companies that make money by warehousing data about individuals, as compared to the share shouldered by the individuals concerned. If that's true, that would be wonderful. It would create the right incentive for said companies to get real about data security.

A more accurate title would be "Texas supports teaching science in science classes".

Texas as far as I can see takes no position on what specifically currently is accepted by scientific community as science, leaving that once again as it had always been before, up to publishers of science books. That seems a wise choice.

And Texas likewise makes no limitations on what may be presented in courses on history, literature, comparative religion, anthropology, and so on. That also seems wise. The only problem was teaching religion in a science course. That problem is now solved.

not only their own content, but illegally uploaded content by other users

It's pretty difficult to have illegal content. You mean "expression" or more specifically, "video". Content is pretty much impossible to own.

So let's rewrite this correctly: "not only video posted by owners, but also video posted illegally by others".

The gold standard now for personal electronics is, "Is it easy enough for my grandmother to use it?"

My last three consumer electronics purchases (DVR, car audio, component HD radio) all fail that test handily. Not even close.

So 25 years later, there's a lot of room for improvement toward meeting that standard.

Congrats Apple on meeting it earlier and more often than most.

They're using CNS activity in the humans as their metric? Really? Then they're not getting it. The test is behavior. Internal events may be interesting but they're not part of the test. Otherwise we'd also be using internal events in the machine as part of the test. It really is amazing; it's like Ryle never happened. You imagine the researchers next examining Holmes's words with a magnifying glass to learn more about Doyle.