Ah, you're right. I got it mixed up with the "Civic Si" which is a similar but slightly different car.

He imported a Civic, not an Accord. There are two cars called the "Civic Type R", one of which is made in Japan (and also sold in the US) and the other is made in England (and sold in Europe). The former looks like this:

http://www.allvehicles.co.uk/c...

The latter looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Really? The Firefox 4 mockup page on their wiki contains some discussion on the Chrome UI, so it seems unlikely that Mozilla had developed something along the lines of the Chrome UI before Google did. Otherwise they could've just referred to their own designs rather than Google's.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk%...

Do you have any links to these pre-Chrome Firefox mockups?

From the article:

If every website had to be set up in a different data center for each country that they served, most websites would not bother setting up in most countries. They'd just set up wherever is most profitable, and forget about the rest. For big sites like Google and Facebook, they might just go and set everything up everywhere, but smaller sites are probably going to be US-only, or China-only, etc.

For examples of this, look at websites that already need to have separate country-specific sites for other reasons. Amazon doesn't need to have servers in each country, but they kind of need to have local warehouses (part of it is to ensure reasonable shipping times, and another part of it is that some companies refuse to ship products overseas). Netflix doesn't need to have servers in each country, but their content is geoblocked in all but a few select countries.

It's bad enough that we have to deal with things like shipping restrictions and content restrictions, but at least this only affects a few web sites. If every single website out there was forced to set up servers everywhere, the reality is that they would just stop serving most countries, and the Internet would fragment into a bunch of country-specific bubbles.

That was for the CIA, not the NSA. Maybe you think they're all the same anyway, but at least get your facts straight.

15 years ago, Internet Explorer had just won the browser wars, and all we had on Linux was an old version of Netscape Navigator that barely worked. Even Netscape had abandoned it and no one had any idea if and when Mozilla would ever be ready.

Compared to that I think 2-3 options is pretty good, especially when all of the browser vendors respect web standards (even Microsoft), Firefox is completely open source and so is nearly all of Chrome and a large chunk of Safari too.

According to the article, the trial was for "LSD-assisted psychotherapy", so it was a combination between an acid trip and a session with a therapist. There was someone monitoring them, and they probably did have to get patients to "snap out of it" once in a while.

That's one way to look at it, but if there are already cameras everywhere then who cares if there are a few more? It won't take away any more of your privacy, since you already don't have any.

The other way to look at it is that we currently live in a society where surveillance is asymmetric. We're filmed by police, the NSA and corporations, but try walking up to a cop and filming him and see how successful you are.

A world where everyone is wearing privately-owned Glass might level the playing field a little bit.

Not sure what you mean by that. The IP in WhatsApp is the execution of the idea...

Also a car has many tens of ECUs, which are connected by a CAN bus that runs on the order of 100 kbit/s. This means that it takes many hours just to send all of the firmware updates to each ECU over CAN bus.

A lot of those points could be made about the iPod. Can you imagine yourself listening to one at the dinner table? At dinner with a date at a restaurant?

There's nothing stopping people from taking off their Glass when it is socially inappropriate to wear it.

I like how you narrowed in on the form factor and operating system, and assumed that no other details are important enough that they could be used to differentiate. You know, little details like how Amazon has this whole business of streaming digital content, how it has the huge financial resources to produce content and market the device. Stuff that Ouya doesn't have.

But no....maybe you're right - it's a console and it runs an operating based on Android. So therefore it's going to be exactly the same.

A lot of people have pointed out the fact that getting rid of the shuttle buses will increase traffic. But another thing that strikes me as odd is that they accuse this guy of developing an apartment building in Berkeley. Don't they understand that this would increase housing supply, and bring the cost of housing down? They're basically sending a message to developers not to build any new buildings, which is a really dumb idea if they want to halt gentrification.

So then let's try to bring that back, rather than flying under the radar with adblockers that trick adservers into thinking that they're working. Even if the advertisers are serving malware, two wrongs don't make a right.

I think the ethics of ad blocking is similar to software copyright infringement; it undermines the business model of the company that is offering content. For this reason I don't run an ad blocker.

If you're against proprietary software licenses you shouldn't go and install an unlicensed copy of Windows, you should go download a Linux distribution. Just by using Linux you make yourself counted and you help create a sustainable ecosystem of free software. If no one was willing to pirate Windows, a lot more people would be using Linux on the desktop today.

Similarly if you're against the ad model you should go seek out and contribute to sites that aren't built on an advertising business model (e.g. Wikipedia).

The argument that ad networks serving malware justifies using an ad blocker is to me a bit like saying "Target can't secure their customers' credit cards, so I'm ethically justified in using fake credit cards there".

Disclaimer: I work for and own shares in a company that makes most of its money from advertising revenue.