Did you think we were discussing all the automated cars on the road right at this moment?

This is absurd. There is no 'fixing' the human. Driving was already incredibly risky before cellphones (humans are 'proven' to drive terribly, I mean really? Google's automated cars already have a far better record than the average human and the technology is still in its infancy). Humans do not have 360 degree vision or the mental capacity to focus specific attention on dozens of details and separately moving trajectories simultaneously - even if they ARE paying 100% of their attention to the road (which is obviously grossly optimistic).

What if the computer can't tell the difference between a bag and a rock? Then it assumes the highest-risk possibility and takes the appropriate mitigation action with reflexes so quick that it has probably begun before the meatbag in the car even takes note of the bag.

What happens when the perfect driver is checking his side view or rear view mirror right at the moment the rock rolls into the lane in front of him?

Automated systems are never going to be perfect, but I see no reason they can't be far, far more safe than a system guided by a human being.

We already allow kids alone on the streets on foot and on bicycles at parental discretion. As you say, a proper automated vehicle will be safer than a car piloted by an adult human, so it will be far, far safer than a bicycle piloted by a child. I don't see how there's even a question.

How old does a kid have to be before they can walk to school on their own? How would it be any different in an autonomous car? Leave it up to the parents to determine the independence/maturity level of their own children.

Given that least year's model sold out by June and they didn't raise the price at all between then and this year's model, I suspect you're wrong.

Pushing hard to increase demand and manufacturing is only one step. Another is to subsidize where necessary - ensuring the current tax credits continue (and hopefully making them a point-of-sale rebate) and considering making ZEV purchases sales-tax-free if necessary. There are a half dozen others. The governor's ZEV plan is two seconds of googling away: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Governo...

No, he's saying the sunk costs must be a much larger than usual (in his words, "huge") portion of the cost of the vehicle. For a completely new power train and with limited production, that's not surprising. But it is interesting to point out, because as the proportion of the sunk costs rises, the statement "I can't keep selling because we're taking X loss" moves from true, to misleading, to an outright lie. Unfortunately without knowing the actual numbers we can't actually know where on the spectrum it is (my own gut feeling puts it in 'misleading' territory).

Edit (wish I could!): I forgot about closing the original document, which does add a step 4. Silly thing to forget, since that's the main reason I use Save As instead of Duplicate. I can only imagine some UI engineer thought this extra step would help dumb people realize they're making a second copy of their document (as opposed to renaming/moving it).

I want Save As back as a first-class citizen as much as anyone, but the entirety of your rant there is simply flat-out wrong. You say there's no save option, but (as you half-acknowledge after complaining it doesn't exist) there is - and yes, it shows up in every document-based app. You say you have to go to Finder to duplicate a file, but the whole complaint here is that Save As has been replaced by Duplicate in the menu. The actual, still 3-step process is: Choose "Duplicate" (no need to save beforehand as it is the current state that is duplicated), type new file name, and (either the first time you do an explicit save or when you close the new document) deal with the Save dialog. The only way that is more difficult than Save As is that it disconnects renaming the new file from the save dialog. And if you prefer documents revert to the last manual-save state on close, simply check that box in the system preferences.

You're right - it should be (United States of America)ns. But that's kind of long and awkward. Maybe the world could agree to abbreviate it a bit for convenience sake, and drop the USof portion. As long as everyone understands the abbreviation it should work great even if it isn't 100 percent perfect, barring a few obnoxious internet pedants complaining about it here and there. (I hear some of them actually like to abbreviate the other way, as if the "US" portion couldn't also refer to the United States of Mexico. But that's holier-than-thou Internet pedants for you, they don't care about accuracy, they just care about looking smarter than everyone else.)

I hate to ask, but are you certain you were quitting the apps (App menu -> Quit / Command-Q)? There's a big difference between minimizing an app's window(s) and quitting it, certainly, but there's also a big difference between closing an app's window(s) and quitting it. Most Mac apps will continue to run happily even after you've closed their last window, very unlike Windows apps (this includes Adobe apps). If the process was still appearing in Activity Monitor (or top in the terminal) as taking up X GB of memory, then you didn't actually quit the app.

If you didn't like it, you didn't like it, and that's fine... you should certainly work using whatever tools you feel most comfortable with. But your specific points I don't get.

Why are you trying to micromanage memory usage? This isn't the 90's. The OS will free up memory when it is needed. Any memory that is just sitting around "free" is memory wasted. The best way to check if you're running into memory constraints is to check if the OS is using swap at all (Mavericks has a nice memory pressure graph too, though in 2013 you probably did not have Mavericks).

Adobe software sucks, but it should be cleaning up its own temp files except in rare circumstances. I've never had orphaned temp files in the decade+ I've been using Photoshop and Indesign. Still, if they're a problem, you only need to learn where they're stored once.

The easiest way to view long filenames is in list mode. If you're looking through a bunch of files with long filenames, it's stupid to do it in grid mode, where you're obviously constrained by the grid. The desktop itself is grid-mode-only, but the desktop folder can be viewed in a Finder window like any other folder. And if you must - hover your mouse over a truncated filename and the full thing will pop up as a tooltip (if you're navigating through the files with the keyboard, hitting enter or return will show the whole thing).

And your resale value - obviously this varies from place to place but a Mac about a year old should sell for at least 2/3 its original value - $2k or maybe even $2.2k would have been more than reasonable for a 6 month old Mac. 1/2 the original value is more common for a 2+ year old laptop. I have a number of friends who do the sell-and-upgrade cycle every year or two and it works quite well for them (though I personally don't find it worth the trouble). If you live somewhere where the local resale value is low, just use eBay. Based on the price, I assume this was your Mac, and now at >1 year old they're going for $1800.

It has, and AFAIK it defaults to enabled (mine is on, and I've never messed with it).

Slashdot search does kind of suck, but in fairness the dupe is actually the #3 result when you search for "iMessage".