Now the university just needs to apologize for its Institutional Review Board's failure to identify such glaringly unethical research methods

Do we even know for a fact that the researchers in question submitted their experimental plans to the IRB? I've worked for a number of universities and research institutes myself, and while IRB review was technically required to do any research involving human subjects, the IRB did not have any proactive powers to police research groups. Rather, the IRB relied on those groups recognizing for themselves that their research plans involved ethical issues and voluntarily submitting those plans to the IRB for review. If a group failed to do so, that's the fault of the group, not the IRB.

It seems we get a story complaining about Firefox's user interface about once a month here. Every time I point out that Firefox is actually a fork of the Mozilla Application Suite (formerly Netscape Communicator). If, like me, you don't like this fork's UI, then you can always use SeaMonkey, which is a continuation of the original Mozilla Application Suite. Unlike Firefox, the SeaMonkey developers have kept the UI pretty close to how it's always been. (And if you don't like it that way, it's pretty easy to change it via the standard preferences dialog, advanced configuration options, themes, and/or add-ons.)

The only disadvantage to using SeaMonkey nowadays is that, since Mozilla dropped support for the project a few years back, its developer community doesn't always have the resources to speedily integrate enhancements from the browser core (a project which Mozilla still maintains). So while essential security updates continue to get applied, some of the more bleeding-edge JavaScript and HTML5 goodies can take a while before they show up in SeaMonkey. Personally I'm OK with this delay, as I think it's an acceptable price to pay for a vastly improved user experience.

The former.

we have a 2 party system because we have "Winner Take All, First Past The Post" voting.

There must be more to it than that. There are plenty of countries out there with winner-take-all, first-past-the-post systems that do not have duopolies.

And criminals think they are not so bad because they donate money.

s/criminals/the rich/

Why is it ironic that companies pushing one type of product would spread FUD about another, arguably better type of product pushed by their competitors?

Why can't we worry about both (and take action commensurate with their respective harm)?

Wow -- given all the highest-voted comments on this post, maybe the researchers should consider Slashdot for their next study of online radicalization.

Stallman would rather vehemently object to being labelled as a proponent of open source. He founded a movement that advocates free software, which, while it shares many of the same practicalities as open source, has quite a different philosophy behind it.

It's the Russians themselves who referred to that region as "The Ukraine" before it became a separate country.

And how, pray tell, did they do that, given that Russian doesn't even have a definite article?

This is not true. It's been "The Ukraine" in English since long before the establishment of the USSR. And by your logic, we would all have been saying "The Russia", "The Armenia", and so on, but we don't.

Do you also get worked about about the Gambia? The Netherlands? The Ivory Coast? In English, the definite article has historically formed part of some countries names, and others not. Maybe this seems strange to a speaker of Russian or Ukrainian, which lack definite articles, but it's perfectly normal in English and is not meant to be any sort of value judgment on the country.

Not everyone who uses a Facebook account has had it for 14 years (or even 10). It's still possible that this is an effort on the part of Facebook (or some third party with whom they are cooperating) to source further training data for image analysis. (Today's deep learning algorithms are extremely data-hungry.)

I checked this out and it seems to be some proprietary, closed-source software that purports to respect my privacy. But since I can't see what's going on under the hood, why should I trust Blackbird any more than I trust Microsoft?