The libertarian side of me disagrees with this. Why should the people in the city be subsidizing the lifestyles of the people in the country? It means higher prices for everyone. If the people in the country want broadband service, they should move to where there IS broadband service. Same goes with phone service, electric service, etc... All these policies ended up creating a society where the population is widely spread out, horribly inefficient, and highly dependent on automobiles.

People in the country want the benefits of living in the city without the negatives of living in the city, and they want the people in the city to pay for it.

Now the socialist in me says that if you didn't "spread the wealth" in this manner, you'd end up with huge swaths of poor people in the country not unlike what China has today. That's a pool of workers that would work for low wages and depress wages for everyone. But I guess the broadband would be cheaper.

Come to think about it, I think I'm going to go tell the Electric Universe folks about this theory. They'd go ape on the possibility that earthquakes are caused by electricity!

You're welcome.

Given the electrons show up 30 minutes BEFORE an earthquake, isn't it obvious that earthquakes are caused by electrons in the atmosphere? Case closed.

Seems like Judges should be required to get special training and certifications (i.e. something similar to Bar Exams on specialized topics) before they are allowed to preside over cases requiring specialized knowledge like copyright, patents, medical malpractice, computer science, etc.

It seems like Google is getting the short end of the stick here. The patents involved (listed here: http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&reel=026894&frame=0001) all appear to expire within the next 5 years or so. It looks like IBM is just dumping soon-to-be-worthless patents.

Let's step back....is this more of a problem for Adobe Flash or Windows? If I'm a normal person with the choice of buying an Android or Windows tablet, am I going to buy the one that plays Flash or the one that doesn't?

I don't think Microsoft really has that much clout anymore. There are consumer choices now, and they can just arbitrarily decide to drop support for something without repercussions.

You didn't finish that last sentence. Let me help.

The winners are the ones that can satisfy the needs of consumers expending the least resources to do so and thereby attain a monopoly, at which point satisfying the needs of consumers is irrelevant. And once you've reached that point, you have the power to change the rules at-will to maintain that monopoly position indefinitely.

Herd immunity protects more than just people like your brother who cannot take the vaccine. The fact is that vaccines are not 100% effective. Herd immunity protects those who took the vaccine but for whom it was not effective. So people refusing to be vaccinated are not just a danger to themselves, but also potentially to anybody who HAS taken the vaccine.

For example, if you got your MMR vaccine before 1990, then there's a 5-10% chance that you're not actually protected from Measles.

I do believe that's exactly what natural selection is trying to do with these new measles outbreaks.

Yes...of course...it's just a 60 foot diameter piece of Skylab!

Nothing to see here folks...move along.

Agreed. IBM hasn't been doing much innovation over the past 10 years. It's all been about increasing the stock price through cost cuts (layoffs, no travel, no perks, not even COFFEE!).

IBM's new business model is cannibalizing other innovative companies, gutting them (through layoffs and offshoring), and then using the ensuing short-term profits to continue the cycle. It's evil and demoralizing for employees of IBM who always have a Damocles sword of "resource actions" hanging over their head regardless of profitability. But it seems to be working well as a formula for shareholders. And IBM really only cares about shareholders nowadays anyway.

Agreed. These comments are funny. They obviously don't know what they're talking about or they would realize that it's impossible to watch your kids 100% of the time. Imagine if whenever you had to go to the bathroom, you had to rustle up all your kids and make sure they're in the bathroom with you so you could watch them while you're poop'n.

It's called "user preferences". If you don't want your kid to know about AK-47's, then click the filter checkbox next to "firearms".

Sheesh. All that's being asked here is the equivalent of a kids playground in that big bad unsupervised city you speak of. I think a Google search engine that filters based on vetted content for kids (i.e. a whitelist) with user-preferences is a GREAT idea. It gives them the freedom and experience of learning about how to use the internet without having to deal with traumatic experiences like random goatse-like websites. And who cares if it doesn't work 100% of the time? If it filters out 99.9% of the stuff, then I'd consider it useful.

By your logic, I shouldn't even be letting my kids outside to play because it's not "safe". Or if I do, I should be a helicopter parent, constantly hovering over them to make sure they're 100% safe 100% of the time? Even playgrounds aren't 100% safe either...they're may be sexual predators lurking in the bushes after all. Does that mean I shouldn't take my kids to them? No. It means I still watch my kids if they're in a playground, but I don't have to watch them as closely as if they're running around in a ghetto.

Typical nonsensical rant from someone who doesn't have any kids. What kind of parent would *I* be if I supervised my child 100% of the time? That's called helicopter parenting, and it's NOT considered a good thing.