Small government isn't powerful enough to resist big business. A small government can tell business to pound sand, but can't help being pushed around. A small government is cheaper to buy, after all.

Big government comes with it's own problems, but it's often smart enough to prevent uncontrolled monopolies -- a monopoly is competition, after all.

The working definition of "big government" is a government that holds businesses to account. Why else would business hate it so?

The word you're looking for is fascism. Capitalism doesn't dictate your form of government, only how you allocate resources. Some forms of government rule out capitalism, e.g. communism, but otherwise capitalism can work under many types of governance.

While I agree with the rest of your statements...

This type of argument has got to stop. Besides being co-opted by racists and bigots, this one in particular is completely non-helpful in any disagreement.

I totally get the impulse, I used to whip out that line, too. It feels good to use against people who haven't left their comfort zone and don't know how the other 99% live, but in reality it sucks. I've come to realize that you can't fix peoples' ignorance by shoving them out the door, figuratively or literally.

Why would you bother? The existing capabilities of HTML is more than adequate for providing simultaneous visual and non-visual experiences.

By setting up a separate TLD and, potentially, a separate site, you've introduced an unnecessary level of indirection and created more stuff to administer (even if it's just remembering to renew two domains rather than one, some people/companies have a hard enough time with just one).

What if the sites are not equivalent, whether by accident or design? Now one group has reason to sue for unequal access.

What if you create an accidental loophole on one site that can be exploited by those in the know? As a benign example, some people force "mobile mode" on their desktop browsers because the interface is cleaner and maybe there are fewer ads.

The whole concept of a blind-only TLD just screams "trouble".

You're right, but for the wrong reason.

If you turned the seats around and changed nothing else, crashes would still be more survivable and with fewer injuries. People wouldn't have to assume the crash position, either -- they would be safer if they didn't, in fact.

We don't face backwards because customers don't like that. It feels weird and unnatural to move backwards. Airlines face the seats forward because the first airline to face everyone backwards will lose most of their customers.

Of that, I have no doubt.

I think you're being overly optimistic. If Boeing can settle this for less than what they saved during development, then it's likely that the 787 MAX process will pave the way for future development. Only if the settlements cost more will those specific business decisions be reviewed.

That neither proves nor disproves your case. Most people who die from smoking have been regularly exposed for decades before the health effects really become obvious and deadly. Those effects, unfortunately, are hard to reverse once they're evident.

Vaping is still a very new phenomena. It may prove to be as deadly, or deadlier, than smoking over decades of regular use -- but we have real evidence that it's killing and injuring people right now as well. Few, if any, 19 year olds die from smoking-related injury or illness, but they're clearly being injured by vaping.

It all depends on what your vapor is made of. Mercury vapor would be rather harmful if inhaled. The vapor exiting a power-plant's turbine would be pretty harmful as well. It's just water vapor, right? -- extremely hot water vapor that will melt your lungs.

Did they?

I guess they did.

I think your premise is a bit off-kilter.

Studies are showing just the opposite. Organic (aka carbon-based) chemicals integrate into organisms more readily, and are more likely to act like existing chemicals, than inorganic chemicals. That includes plastics.

Organic flame retardants, for example, frequently mimic endocrine messengers (think estrogens and the like) in mammals, among other things.

There is some evidence that plastics mimic biological chemicals as well. Besides adding indigestible fillers to organisms, we may actually wind up altering their biology. That's something that can be extreme or subtle, but should be studied before we continue running wide-scale uncontrolled experiments on everybody and everything.

It depends on how they're making their calculation. I can't tell from a quick skim of TFA, or it's links, how they got their figures.

If they're basing it on production and sale of jet fuel then that would take pretty much every kind of usage into account. Jet fuel in becomes CO2 out and everybody is buying it. Militaries don't typically maintain their own refineries. You would have to work harder to tease the various customers out and filter, while undercutting your base figures.

If they're trying to extrapolate from commercial ticket sales, mileage flown, or some other indirect data then it's debatable, but unlikely to take non-commercial into account. That gives the author a lot more wriggle room to inflate or manipulate the final figures, though.

You have GOT to be new around here, where "here" means "the internet."

Imagine if someone managed to break into Project Zero's system(s). Who knows how many embargoed zero-days would suddenly become available. Mass pandemonium as companies scrabble over fixes.

Almost makes a security researcher into a liability.