After all, in our present system, advertising "pays the freight" so since I subscribe to only a few, favourite sites, I accept the adverts (the non-intrusive ones) as a legitimate "imposition" on my web-surfing experience.
However, I do use FlashBlock, and I use Ghostery. With Ghostery, I block all trackers, "analytics", "beacons, and most widgets. But if it's a site which I visit at all regularly, I make sure that ads are permitted.
But oddly enough, between FlashBlock and Ghostery, this ends up blocking the vast majority of ads -- I guess advertisers just aren't willing to show me the ads if they can't count how many times I've supposedly seen them.
That's a badly misinformed article by a marketing dweeb who -- to be kind -- appears to be misrepresenting himself as (a) a techie, (b) knowing anything about Net Neutrality
Of course, I might be wrong -- he might easily just be a cynical, lying PR shill for the big ISP corporations. Considering that he is (c) not presenting any sort of relevant arguments, but rather, merely smearing NN with utterly irrelevant, ideological "Big Gubbermint is BAD" blatherings, this is perhaps the likeliest conclusion.
"The Canadian agreement needs to be translated into all 24 official working languages of the EU before the ratification process in the European parliament could start..."
So... will the get that right, this time around? Translation is tricky enough, when there's plenty of time, and little room for differing interpretations -- and they've blown the job before (more than once).
Or is this going to be another one of those "each language-version is equally authoritative" messes?
As someone who,in my college days, had a job chauffeuring children between the university daycare and the local elementary school every weekday, I am in a position to positively affirm from personal observation over an extended period, that some 11-year old kids are noticeably more mature than some 30-something year old parents.
(I'm sure that many an elementary-school teacher could say the same -- but they need to be more careful about actually saying so in public.)
The schools proper response would have been a dressing-down, requiring a (convincing) apology to the teacher concern, and perhaps a retraction/clarification in the same venue as the problematic comment (but it might be better to "let sleeping dogs lie" rather than revivify the matter).
In addition, all this should have included an explanation to the student why this was a potentially serious matter -- and that repeating such behaviour would carry more serious consequences.
A Five Day suspension was almost certainly massive over-kill, but the over-reaction _could_ have been excused as merely due to concern that a potentially serious matter, brought to the school's attention by a member of the community, be seen to be treated seriously -- IF it had not been followed by the official strategy of outrageous escalation as its knee-jerk response to any objection.
The Sagehorn parents were likely motivated by some quite reasonable concern as to the likely effects of a relatively major suspension (especially over a matter of alleged "sexual misconduct") would have on their son's admissibility to a good college (and even more so, if any scholarships would be involved). So they wouldn't have felt they could afford to let the matter lie. And actually, this possibility should have been of some concern to a responsible school administration as well.
The issue isn't whether the student, Sagehorn, merited some sort of discipline -- that's a red herring; the issues are (i) how severe that discipline should reasonably be, and (ii) the draconian, abusively authoritarian response of the local officialdom to any question being raised over whether they were applying their authority appropriately.
"If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn't designed to reflect the business interests of their owners."
This has nothing to do with the reporters (aside from those who work for outfits like FOX/NewsCorp, who really, really, really should know better). It's the editors who decide what to print, who gets assigned to stories, and what resources might be made available. Of course, the editors aren't necessarily "taking orders" (some would even, in fact resign, if they ever were) but the ones who tend to lean/decide the "wrong" way, don't get hired, or don't get renewed or promoted, etc...
It's one of the relatively more subtle consequences of media conglomeration / media concentration -- an ever narrower range of opinions are represented. The final nails in the coffin of American journalistic independence might arguably have been the sales of the New York Times, and the Knight-Ridder corporation.
So of course, when there's a change of standard format (such as, say, from vinyl to tape, or tape to CD) or even when your original purchase becomes a "worn" LP or cassette in need of replacement with a fresh, clean media -- the distributors are perfectly happy to exchange your old copies for new copies, for the cost of the media itself, and perhaps a small handling/service fee... Right?
What!? No, they aren't amenable to simply replacing the media, itself, for a suitable service charge?
Gosh! Why not? Isn't that kind of... you know... inconsistent? I mean... in that case... the public might naturally conclude that, you know... the music industry has been lying to them, all along! (Then what???)