If you're talking about "mobile websites" in the context of a separate page/site that mobile devices get redirected to, I'm completely in agreement. Those are garbage.
But what I think they are talking about here (since I skimmed the article and it mentioned web standards), is what is commonly referred to as "responsive design" (https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/design-and-ui/responsive/fundamentals/?hl=en). It's the exact same website / webpage as the desktop "version", but some additional things are added to make it display / function properly on a mobile device. One such example is scaling things on smaller screens that have high resolutions to make them readable (so you don't have to constantly be zooming in and out to use the app.
And CSS does some really wonderful things now where you can display things differently depending on the size of the screen (i.e. on a desktop you might have several items laid out horizontally in columns, but on a mobile device they become stacked vertically instead)
However judges take into account the 'spirt' of the law, and are often interested in how something behaves or what it actually does as opposed to the technological implementation
While that does make sense, by the same logic wouldn't anyone who has an antenna connected to a computer/DVR and then connected that to their TV be doing the same thing and also be illegal?
But essentially all that Aereo is doing is providing a "cloud" (or "remote") version of the DVR box that many people have in their homes.
I have a computer in my apartment that I have set up as a dedicated DVR with a TV tuner card and a digital antenna connected to it. I use that to record the shows I am interested in from the broadcast channels, and watch them at a later date. I also use the network cables in my apartment to "stream" that video to my xbox and watch the show on my TV in the living room (the DVR and antenna are in the bedroom).
Is my setup illegal too? Am I required to license the ability to "re-transmit" the content to myself? The only functional difference is that Aereo is providing the same thing as a service so that people don't have to setup their own antennas and computers.
There were many factors that went into the decision to drop the bombs, but the main reason was to end the war quickly (again for several reasons). Sure, the Japanese were essentially defeated already and many of them wanted to surrender, but all indications were that the emperor was unwilling to surrender and that they would fight until the last man. The projected casualties for the planned invasion of the Japanese mainland were around 1.5 million when counting both Japanese and Allied forces (which is more than what the bombs killed, even including the lasting effects), so it may have actually ended up saving lives. However, the primary motivation for using the bombs was to get Japan to surrender before the Russians got involved, because Truman didn't want to have to split up Japan like what happened to Germany after the war.
In retrospect (as was also pointed out by others below), it was also the right decision because it showed the world what the weapons were actually capable of, and how horrible they are (a science experiment as you called it), which has resulted in us not using them again since. Had that not happened, we likely would have used them in the next major conflict and made things much worse. There had been people pushing to drop the first bomb on an uninhabited island near Japan as a demonstration, but that likely wouldn't have had quite the same effect.
What we don't know is what happens to it - what's the "main sequence" behavior of technological civilizations like ours? What do they become?
Maybe they all end up occupying themselves with reality TV shows and video games that they can't be bothered to worry about leaving their planet or exploring the universe...
But why? That's the question you need to answer. Why would any civilization advanced enough for true interstellar travel even be slightly interested in smashing the Earth with a relativistic weapon, or any other kind of weapon?
That's simple: to eliminate us before we could become a threat to them, because why take any chances.
Since they're not (and can not) delete the actual information itself being stored on the 3rd party website, there are 2 major problems:
1. They will need to keep track of each deletion request indefinitely to prevent the information from being re-indexed on the next crawl.
2. Google is only one search engine; there are many others.
If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we would all be millionaires. -- Abigail Van Buren