that I'd never heard of it before today.

I think the company is asking you to move.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do it the other way around and require hearing aids to be bluetooth compatible? This has already been figured out for a host of add-on devices.

Who cares about surgical masks? Isn't the real question that needs to be addressed is whether having everyone wear cloth masks everywhere is worth it? They don't quote the percentage for cloth masks in the press release which leads me to believe it is not a massive gain. Quoting just the degree of effectiveness for surgical masks seems misleading.

If Covid is now believed to be with us indefinitely with ongoing seasonal flareups, it is reasonable to have a discussion on whether we as a society really should be mask wearers for the foreseeable future or not. Having some actual science around their true effectiveness to guide this discussion would be extremely helpful. It is a shame that even in these studies, politics shows its influence with the publishers seeming to feel the need to avoid highlighting that cloth masks may not be highly effective.

It is definitely true when it comes to kids and pressure for them to have iphones versus android. My kids HATE having androids because of lack of access to imessage. They say it's harder to be in group texts and are constantly asked why they can't "blue message" or do the whatever emjois or reactions iphone users do. Imessage users don't want android people in their group texts because it disables some of that functionality.

I have never had an iphone and have always been Team Android but am seriously considering getting my middle school aged daughter an iphone just because of these social stigmas.

I have a bigger problem with the treatment of overages than with the cap itself. Charging for overages resulting in a massive surprise bill after the fact should be illegal. I'd be much more ok with a temporary speed reduction until the next month, or even having service suspended unless I actually buy additional capacity or wait until the new month.

Makes sense to only allow ordinary citizens to make the trip the first few times to get the kinks out. Say the first 12 or so. Then Trump can give it a go for the 13th run!

While I am in the camp of those who would never filter out anything, I am not offended easily, I see this as the best possible solution to let those who find certain words or concepts "offensive" to opt out and stop trying to force their values on the rest of us. Putting the onus on the individual rather than the company to decide what she/he sees has to be the way forward if we are going to protect freedom of expression.

While I agree this may cause "bubble" syndrome and allow for self-imposed isolation of various groups from each other, I think it could also provide some interesting life lessons. Think of a person who does a heavy self-censor without realizing the consequences, then hearing from friends that she missed out on a fun post because of it. Might cause people to start to question why they don't want to hear certain things or think certain thoughts.

I can see the next big celebrity/athlete protest of intentionally using hashtags of broadly censored words just to draw attention to the fact that people shouldn't hide from realities they may disagree with or find scary.

I'm all for individual anonymity, but do you really think corporations and government organizations like PACs deserve anonymity protection?

In no way do I think individuals acting on their own behalf should have to disclose who they are, but once you're getting paid for services, that's a whole other ballgame.

This seems to be another example of the existing legal framework not keeping up with technology advances.

Outside of true campaign finance reform, even under existing laws, if a PAC buys a television ad spot, it has to disclose who paid for the ad.

Seems like a natural extension to this existing framework would be to require all paid-for posts to include a disclaimer that it was done for pay by a PAC.

The PACs would then be subject to audits and subjected to fines if examples were found where posts weren't properly disclaimed.

I'd extend this law to all paid-for postings. Make it $1,000 fine per non-disclaimed post and a lot of astroturf would dry up quickly.

Diskstation has been a great user friendly alternative for someone not Linux literate (gasp). Very plug and play and intuitive software.

You can use Plex with it, or its own native phone apps / Roku channel.

Streaming everything both from the internet and our server through a Roku accounts for 90% of our TV now. The kids love it.

What is the actual risk here to those using cameras as baby monitors?

Step 1: Someone sees a baby sleeping
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit?

"Help! A stranger saw my baby turn over. Call the police!!!" ?

If your head is separated from your body, I don't think your mileage is going to vary very much.

Nice try, but as we know, not participating in social networks also identifies you as a potential threat http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/29/1627203/facebook-abstainers-could-be-labeled-suspicious