Freedom of speech isn't limited to posting on a site someone else owns. Hosting your own site that isn't subject to another entities terms of service has value.

It's an interesting consumer lesson. You can sign up with a fake name and email and you can even delete your account, but the moment you supply your real name to run your credit card there is exposure. Until the simple theft of personal information carries liability for the company holding the data, not just liability for the provable harm, nothing will change. Until then we'll all just keep getting free credit monitoring, as if that solves everything.

I think there was a substantial influence from something the media isn't discussing at all. How many moderate Republicans, Independents and center leaning Democrats support the second amendment? Anyone voting their conscience in supporting the constitutional protections for gun rights isn't going to be able to vote for Hillary. Being anti-gun might play well to the democrats base in the primary, but it does serious harm in the general election. You might get a Republican to cross party lines and vote for a moderate democrat, but that isn't going to happen if that vote is going to come at the cost of liberty.

Is Facebook really expected to police the decisions of advertiser target selection? If we have laws and businesses are expected to know and follow the law then they are ones responsible for their ad choices. If we really carry the logic through, in that Facebook has a responsibility, then I'd ask why Facebook should even track race? Any time people are divided by race via algorithms the end result is always discrimination, sometimes benign, sometimes malicious, but knowing and categorizing people by race always results in some kind of discrimination.

If American workers make a lot more than other workers, that is a good thing. Stop trying to level the playing field at the expense of the the American economy.

They are phasing out customers, like me. You know how Native Americans would herd a buffalo stampede over a cliff, that's what Microsoft thinks it can do to it's customers. They think they can force everyone into renting their OS a service and unfortunately for most people, they are probably right. Nerds that actually care about privacy, security and user control are not their target market of concern. Guess what Microsoft, if you force the nerds to find an alternative, we will find it and eventually we will take the market with us.

Isn't Google just going to scan through your mail before you download it? Even if your email ID isn't matching you name, I'd imagine most people are still easily identified by mail content.

Investors my not be able understand why growth would stall, but the the sheer number of existing users makes it clear people understand what it is. It isn't growing exponentially because everyone who gives a shit already has it. The one thing I value that Twitter does well is offer a communication channel that is a little unique. I've had a TV show read a Tweet on air live 5 seconds after I sent it. There isn't another platform that would have that kind of immediacy in interaction. The value of Twitter comes from the social construct around it, not the technology platform.

Can we also get a right to refuse updates? It's my phone, my property, I should have the right to refuse and update or OS upgrade. I haven't seen an OS patch or update on mine in a while but every time I make the misguided decision to connect to WiFi Google sticks their hand up my ass and upgrades maps without my consent. Yes, I'm sure I agreed to some 20 page EULA in the past, but every action taken against my property should require consent.

RE: "You must go to "top" schools to get a job these days." - That would be the best reason to go with Silicon Valley. Some companies care about that here, most care about what you know. The East coast is thirty years behind on cultural change. I'm sure there are other areas that can make the same claim (maybe Pacific Northwest / Denver), but the East coast continues to surprise me.

I left a job with 5 days notice because I'd been given a signing bonus and was leaving after three months. I was afraid they would be mad and send me home the next day after notice. I thought it was so important to do a knowledge transfer that I just kept it to myself while I documented everything my coworker would need, so that I could actually do a proper knowledge transfer on short order. It wasn't worth it because the guy I was training was useless, but my manager was fine with me.

That would be fine, as long as U.S. citizens have priority in admissions and it doesn't put upward pressure on tuition costs.

No matter how they behave I see it as impractical that these opt-outs are either based on account settings of signed in users or cookies set on signed-out users, so if you choose never to sign in and prefer not to accept, or to clear cookies after each session then you can't actually very well opt-out of anything. Its same issue with the ad industry behavioral advertising opt-out http://www.aboutads.info/choic... , useless if you clear cookies.

Yes, I've done the same on every system I touch. Too bad it took a lawsuit to get them to understand common sense. I will be so pleased to "decline the free offer". Someday perhaps they will realize that gaining market share for a new product isn't worthwhile if it means alienating your customer base. Windows 10 could have been a reasonable option and worth considering, instead it became something we all had to protect ourselves and our families from being forced into without informed consent. It was a bad call and it set a bad precedent for how MS will treat it's customer's digital sovereignty over their own computers and purchased software.