It's easy to blame the US but we didn't create most of the problems facing the world. Europe did with colonialism. Though the US is responsible for the rise of ISIS, the political boundaries that aided the creation and much of the problems of the middle east are related to the divvying up of the middle east by Europe after WWI and the subsequent colonization that took place later. The problems Europe created will haunt us for a long time to come, probably several hundred years.

Up until WWII the US was neutral and outside the fucking around in the western hemisphere pretty well minded their business. We didn't create the problems, we've just been dealing with them. And you should fear greatly the day people like me get our way and turn this country back neutral and start looking out after our own and stop caring about everyone else. Europe, Canada and many others will be in for a shitstorm when they have to start paying for their own defense.

Part of it is their tie to dealers IMO. When you create a car like the Tesla Model S you've eliminated all maintenance and destroyed the entire service division of your dealers. People seem to forget, with an electric car you will never change the oil or coolant, replace a belt or change a starter motor, you won't need to have 90% of the maintenance activity that a gas car needs.

About the only maintenance item on a Tesla is new tires and windshield wipers.

They have only denied it will be subscription only. That would be a true denial if they retained their current business licensing and subjected the retail market to SaaS.

I don't trust them, they want SaaS to even out their revenue flow and Windows IS going to go that way. 10 might be a stepping stone where they offer both, but I have no doubt in mind SaaS windows will arrive with windows 10.

Because GM can never really innovate they are simply too large. They've come up with a LOT of really cool ideas that they totally submarine because they made more money selling gas guzzling SUV's.

They actually sold the first electric car, developed the whole platform, leased them out then refused to sell them to the people that wanted to buy them and crushed all the cars when the leases were up. The GM culture is next quarters profits, not innovating the next revolution in the automotive world. Toyota is in the same game these days along with almost everyone else. It wasn't until Tesla started to eat the high end luxury market that BMW and Mercedes were forced to acknowledge electric.

Tesla is going to drag the automotive market into the 21st century kicking and screaming. When they start selling 100K plus cars a year GM and Toyota and the others will suddenly start spending money and dragging stuff they invented 20 years ago out of the closet. But they aren't going to do it willingly and Musk isn't someone they can just smear into oblivion like they usually do with innovators.

One of the very few electric vehicles sold in the US, including the first one that was sold in the US (as a daily driver, not a 20mph neighborhood car) was the Nissan Leaf, a Japanese car company.

Not all the Japanese are going fuel cell. They are expensive, hydrogen storage is a nightmare and they are only doing it because they get more CA pollution credits for them than they do for electric vehicles. Fuel cell cars aren't going anywhere, they will never be sold outside California and will likely never sell more than a few thousand of them.

For all their innovation with hybrids Toyota has really screwed the pooch with electric vehicles. Tesla and Nissan are going to leap frog them and they will be playing catchup. Anyone that's driven a pure battery electric vehicle like the Tesla or Leaf will tell you it's the future of cars in the US.

Those things those other EU countries are doing to attract business are ILLEGAL under EU rules. The double Irish violates some pretty major EU rules and what Luxemburg was doing was grounds to throw them out of the EU.

What the EU has discovered is that a united monetary and economic union doesn't work when individual states get to set tax and spending policy. Something that people have been warning about since it was founded. Almost all the EU's fiscal problems can be tied to this problem. Greece violated EU rules (and lied about it) while spending far more than they were allowed to. Ireland allowed companies to setup business and declare themselves not tax resident anywhere. The overspending in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and others that caused the huge bailout and austerity was precisely because of this problem.

The funny thing is that none of the solutions they've taken are actually solutions. They are band-aids over the problem. Until the individual nations are willing to hand over some significant banking and monetary control to the EU they are going to continue to have these problems. A system where Greece can basically create debt for German citizens isn't a workable solution in the long run and you see the problems it creates right now, which is a deep resentment between member nations.

The catch is it's software as a service (SaaS), you only get the first year for free. After that it's a yearly or monthly fee.

They haven't done this kind of thing before. The rumors are this is SaaS in that you can download and install it for free and even use it for a year for free but after a year they hold the whole thing hostage and demand money from you. SaaS in the retail non-business market is just insane, I hope the rumors aren't true but I suspect they are given the success they've had with office365.

The original story is just unbelievable. Namecheap is pretty generous, they allow a grace period after expiration that all you have to do is pay the reg fee to reinstate (no penalty). But they have no obligation to do so and I don't blame them in the least if two weeks into the expiration they decide to auction the domain off. If you intend to keep a domain you shouldn't be paying yearly. Take advantage of lower prices today and register it for a decade.

You don't get rich wasting pennies. If there is a legitimate difference between the services that makes one better than the other then that can be factored in, but wasting money for the sake of wasting money is foolish.

And the great thing is if the Uber driver gets in an accident you know with certainty that there is little to no insurance to cover your injuries.

$20k won't cover one ER visit where they have to do emergency surgery. Hell spend a day in the ICU in some metro areas and you could easily top that even without surgery. I had a relative spend 3 days in an ICU in San Fran and bill was $92k.

Uber keeps pricing down by cutting corners on maintenance, insurance and driver wages. That's a wicked combination IMO. One of these days someone is going to get seriously injured in an Uber car and all these problems are going to hit the fan like a sledge hammer. Even if the service is superficially better, is the corner cutting that's eventually going to do them in. Personally I think the medallion systems in most cities should be either done away with or made unlimited. I also believe the taxi regulators have unusually close relationships with the cab companies and as a results have been corrupted into protecting market rather than protecting the public. (not much different than a NCAA that protects schools and earnings above the students they were chartered to protect).

But the answer to the regulatory problems isn't the current Uber or Lyft IMO.

Trivial to fake. They put things into the drivers that if it recognizes a benchmark game it turns down or disables certain features to boost frame rates, even where the driver and/or game claims different settings.

Both AMD and Nvidia have been shown to do this.

The average person in a LOT of the countries in Africa makes less than $2 a day, the bulk of which goes to pay for food so they don't starve and they often have to subsistence farm on top of that because $2 doesn't go very far. $6.50 is laughable. They need light, pencils, paper and hell even electricity long before they need a surface tablet.

But it's not like I expected Zuckerberg to get this. He's the quintessential rich guy now that doesn't understand the little people.

Your statement makes sense right up until someone flies one of these into the engine of a commercial jet and causes a crash that kills hundreds and does millions in property damage.

Drones need to be regulated. The FAA is throwing a harsh line right now while they work out the regulations because if they don't the courts will hold them to that relaxed line they took while writing the regulations. I have no doubt in the end we'll end up with generally sensible regulations but it's going to take a while.

When drones were $5000 a maybe a dozen people in the entire US owned one it wasn't a big deal, but when they start selling for $200 a Costco they are going to become very very common and a threat to aviation. The FAA is taking action precisely because they've had several close calls with airliners. In starting the regulatory process they start with the heavy fist and then loosen it based on the input they receive and the research they do. They are likely going to require people using them for commercial reasons to have some license where the person has committed to not put drones into the commercial or military flight corridors and to generally stay away from sensitive sites (reactors, military bases, etc). And the non-commercial users are going to be restricted in height ordered to stay away from airports and flight corridors, they could even make it like RC planes where they have to use FAA designated sites and they are banned outside those areas.

People don't generally realize how dangerous these things are. A 10 pound drone that lost power at 300 feet would kill someone on the ground if it hit them and would do immense property damage (it could punch through a roof, heavily damage a car, etc). The more drones in the sky the bigger the chances of this type of incident. Drones are one of those areas where your right to fly one could harm my rights and it deserves to be regulated to prevent discord, property damage or injury to people.

I don't disagree that making someone have a pilots license is stupid, but right now that's the only license the FAA basically has for piloting anything. I would support requiring that people piloting drones have taken and passed a safety course and in the case of commercial drones have insurance.

I'm claiming they are technically telling the truth and don't care if someone misunderstands.

A person not knowledgeable about how the foundation is structured and donations are spent might be misled to believe that a donation made to the foundation for the purposes of LibreSSL would be spent on LibreSSL and they are happy to let that misunderstanding take place. Rather than be completely clear about not just what bank account they stick the money in but how it will be spent is an important detail that they are concealing.

Look at it this way, charities in the US are required by law to file public statements on how much of the donated money actually goes to support the charitable cause they are requesting support for. That information is missing in this case and it's rather important information. (I'm not claiming OBSD is violating the law, they are not in the US and not beholden to US charity laws). I believe 100% that leaving out the details of how the money will be spent is a lie through omission and that it's deliberate on their part. They should just be honest about it. It really grinds my gears when people lie through omission. It's more deceitful than bold faced lying in my opinion.