I was skimming the summery and about halfway through I was thinking they were talking about some device that they plug your thumb drive into and it detects weather it contains porn or not, which is dubious enough; but then I suddenly realized that it was a literal dog named URL (in all caps) and suddenly I couldn't decide which of those two things is stupider.

I'm sure the dog is happy, it doesn't know that its job is total bullshit. Ignorance truly is bliss.

It is fascinating to me that people seem to be advocating that YouTube should force its customers, which are the advertisers; to pay to have their ads placed on videos which the advertisers perceive as a bad juxtaposition with their ads. Do you really think that Pepsi wants to have their product associated with a video titled "Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face"?

Look, it's simple. YouTube content creators are not entitled to monetization through YouTube's advertising system. They can still post their videos for free and YouTube will pay for all the bandwidth for serving their video. They are also free to monetize their videos in other ways. Patreon is probably a good fit for video creators with large fan bases and controversial content. They can also still find their own sponsors, but I object to the idea that sponsors should be forced to be associated with any and all videos on YouTube regardless of content.

Here are a couple of videos on the topic that give some context:
Eli the Computer Guy
The Young Turks

Eli points out one problem, though, which is that YouTube makes it hard for people to find out what the rules actually are. It would be nice if they could be make things more transparent.

Yes, but there is an upper bound that can only be approached asymptotically, even with arbitrarily large amounts of money.

Good lord. If your priority is to avoid public restrooms, then that would rule out doing anything outside the house. Hardly a problem particular to Broadway Theater.

Sounds more like the Killbots from Chopping Mall than Robocop.

What good is living forever if you can't enjoy a bacon cheeseburger from time to time?

Did they set it to wipe the phone after (however many) incorrect PIN attempts? Because that would be uncommon. If not, they could just keep trying PIN codes, and eventually they will get in.

The premise here is flawed.

While it's a pretty bad game, E.T. is not even the worst game on the VCS platform let alone the worst game ever made. Pac-Man is arguably worse on the platform, and there are numerous third party games that are way worse than anything Atari released. "Sorcerer" by Mythicon really sets the benchmark for how bad a game can be in my opinion. E.T. is at least 100 times better than that piece of crapola.

The solar wind is going out at all directions. You would have to first build a Dyson Sphere of solar wind harvesters in order to implement that idea.

So we are supposed to accept the word of an (at best) incompetent company, with management that is tied to Clinton, while the Sanders campaign is expected to prove an unprovable thing. The Sanders campaign has had its records accessed in a similar manor during previous firewall lapses. Do you seriously expect that the corrupt leadership of the DNC will apply the same punishment for those transgressions?

I wonder if the access logs for this site would prove that you are a partisan shill for the Clinton campaign.

I think the answer is yes.

Fortunately for you we have a tradition of respecting anonymity around here.

This has become a thoroughly pointless thread.

I would advocate replacing the current practice of corporations being legally required to act in the best interests of shareholders only with a new hierarchy or rules, much like Asimov's laws if you will:

First, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of the general public.
Second, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their employees where it doesn't conflict with the first rule.
Third, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their shareholders where that doesn't conflict with the first or second rule.

A corporation jacks up the price of a generic drug by 7,000,000%? Sued by the general public.

A corporation informs employees that they will have to train their H1B replacements? Sued by their employees.

A corporation pays its CEO an unreasonably large salary with no evidence that that results in better executive performance? Sued by their shareholders. (This should be happening now...)

I like it better than a corporate death penalty, because many corporations do have value and importance to the general public that would be at risk of being destroyed because of a single bad acting CEO. With this scheme, the courts would have a framework for redressing these issues.

In the case of patent trolls, some patents are more obviously bullshit then others. The more obviously bullshit the patent, the more strong a case members of the general public would have to individually sue the trolls for obstructing their use of the technology. What if everybody who uses HTTPS could sue these clowns?

You are making a very common mistake of free enterprisors here... you are ignoring (or denying) the externalities. Government intervention is necessary to deal with this problem. Some of the interventions, such as bumper design requirements to minimize harm in collisions effect both gasoline and electric cars, while others, such as emissions and fuel economy requirements only effect gasoline cars.

While there is certainly much to criticize about government subsidies for $100,000 luxury cars, they start to make more sense when the technology works its way down to the lower end. I would favor phasing out the subsidy based on the vehicle price, it should be $0 for anything over $50,000.

By the way, how much do you think gasoline would cost if all the subsidies for petroleum went to $0?

Smells like Fail.

It takes a capacity for being deliberately obtuse to fail to acknowledge that Malthusianism has been discredited for decades. Indeed, population growth is already going negative in many countries. All you need is to have good education and easy access to birth control.