LLWM

Easy. We don't "allow" things to happen. Things happen. Nobody went around the room and asked everyone if they could give money to facebook.

Outcome 1 is not a bad thing, it's incredibly good.

Uber wants to replace their drivers with self-driving cars. They've always been very open about this.

Which are by definition, the areas that matter to most people.

That's how patent licensing works (albeit a comically overaggressive caricature). Do you fundamentally oppose the concept of patents or do you think Microsoft is doing something else wrong by asking to be paid license fees by competitors using their patents?

Most of us don't see any reason to continue doing interesting things beyond making ourselves look appealing during courtship.

Twitter and Linkedin are huge competitors.

Sounds identical to the arguments MS used back in the 90s. They lost.

Conversely, you old people grew up in a disconnected, technologically backwards society and you've learned your whole lives that electronic communication is something to be feared.

The simpsons has a famous quote for people like you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdozkeNqNQk

Because the people who do it don't think of it as giving up privacy and personal space. If your partner moved in with you, would you call that "giving up half your house"?

I think you have a twisted, corporate definition of "good".

If you see the appeal as only "looking for content," we are glad you stay out.

The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

No, people think that because it's bigger than everything else put together, the fountainhead of the site's culture, and is the source of virtually everything notable that's ever happened there.

There certainly aren't many good ones. And even if you don't care about the quality of comedy, any layman can compare the comedy industry to another industry that does have such protections, like, say, film or software, and see a huge gap.

I don't feel deprived of comedy in general because anyone can redistribute some list of a few hundred jokes without repercussion. Good comedy, however, is hard to come by. I've heard it all before and now I need to look for niche domains like language intersection to find novel jokes.

They are very much needed - just ask anyone who tries to go without. If they wouldn't be interested in doing business without the legal framework that currently exists, why is that an invalid argument? The "talent" is not the only one involved in bringing a creative work to consumers for them to enjoy.

Not even close. Trains would be quite useless if they did not have a lot of mass and kinetic energy. People should already strive to not be bigots regardless of what google does or doesn't do.

No. It's not google's fault people are bigots.

One factor was an attempt to counter the GIFT (http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19) by preventing anonymity.

Interestingly enough, in aviation you do see checklists with dozens or even hundreds of items that need to be "clicked" every time, and incredibly complicated UIs that take a huge amount of training to be able to use effectively.

Contrarianism is a bit strong. I'd say bullshit detector. It's a natural response to the original author blindly praising one method while ignoring all its flaws.

That's the whole point of open source. If a developer abandons a project, someone else can pick it up and keep it going. And if you disagree with some of the developer's choices, you can fork the project and make your own version. Sourceforge is a great example of how someone evil can take advantage of the features of open source to do bad things.

Why not? Someone whose mother died giving birth to them can still believe murder is wrong. Heck, even someone who has consciously murdered another person as an adult can believe that. Humans are rarely capable of perfectly following their own moral codes, but that doesn't make that morality invalid. Especially when the "violation" happened as a circumstance of someone's birth that they themselves had no control over.

As long as you don't manually revoke the app's permission to know about your location after you send it, what would stop them from building that map?

Since each app has to request your permission to access your location info, it sounds like you're happy with the status quo then.

Then it's a good thing Facebook came through with the more accurate information.

Where "skewed views" primarily means "opposing the idea of a universal basic income based on the moral principle that people should earn what they receive"? Because that's what I got out of his comment.

OverheardInNewYork has been doing this for over a decade and a half, except with transcripts instead of audio recordings.

That's definitely not the message you send when you start interrogating someone about their background like that.