GPS beaconed and battery-backuped/powered strong box hardwired into your car's battery and built into its frame is the most definitive solution. Throw some biometric thumbprint scanning and numeric passcode locking if you really want to go overboard. This is an expensive solution though. ($10K plus to start with.) If you are driving a car without a trunk, upgrade your car for maximum protection. You set priorities in life, so you decide how secure your want your setup. I think that you could suffice with a small strong box with lock, key, and tumbler code and some degree of heft to it. Perhaps 35 pounds or more. This would deter speed and swiftness.

I hate to break it to people, techies included, but talking on your phone and driving kills people. Its a pretty well known fact and insurance companies are even charging higher premiums to people who have had a cell phone related accident (more than a normal rate increase). Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?

Honestly, I do not see why a social network has not done this in the past. I had this idea that perhaps Doctors could get help to people on social networks via this means - at least schedule appointments. $0 cost and doctors might be able to get some new patients. Forums are around that do this, but its not like FB. Scope is what they have on the table. As long as the chat messages are secure, I think we could see a lot more philanthropic work hitting social networks. How about donations to the Red Cross or any organization via FB?

I can't really state anything but like my subject says, I believe they got paid off by someone to do this. I fear that their hard work probably wasn't seen as a cash flow of significance. I don't buy the only "25% against any advertising" mantra. I think a lot of people, myself included, will be looking for another advertisement blocking plugin. I pay for Slashdot, not much, but I do pay. I pay for what I read.

1) First off I'm not buying another damn box for a box. And no I'm not renting a box for a box either. I read plenty of books. Brandon Sanderson, William Gibson, RA Salvatore, Proust (way back in college), and even the late Anne McCaffrey sit on my shelf. Regardless, I don't watch a lot of TV. I read far more.

2) The examples provided are about the shows I actually gave a damn to see. There are far more that have been cut short, and I'm not going to pull out a TV history encyclopedia to find out how many were cut in recent memory that were great shows. Judging by the flack I hear from coworkers and superiors, I'd say there were plenty of bullshit bad decisions.

3) No, I don't think the television studios are to blame here. I believe a la carte is totally possible when I take telcos and totally cut their greedy, and monopolistic asses OUT of the picture. Give me your bandwidth and be gone. Don't give me the shit line about "we're not dumb pipes" defense. Everyone knows their not, but don't defend their abuse of a system that sucks to try to compete in. Do something honest and right for once and provide a service that actually serves. Not enslaves.

4) Don't try and simplify the remote control, cable UI, and/or any smart/dumb television. They are piles of confusing shit any 4 year old needs to sit down and watch mom and dad use for a full 90-120 days before even feeling comfortable touching a button w/out daddy getting pissed. I've seen it.

5) No, I don't need to buy shit. Telcos need to stop raping the country. We paid their asses for fibre to the curb, decent bandwidth, and a neutral internet. What do we got? A bullshit farce. This is just one more slap to the face. I don't even pirate shit and I still have these pathetic caps that make our country look like shit in the face of the likes of Ukraine and South Korea.

6) iTunes is the way to go, and yeah, when Apple DOES indeed come out with an a la carte solution I'll be the first one on the bandwagon to say "Cancel your shit cable b/c this train is going to the moon and back." Will it kill jobs? Maybe. Will people value bandwidth more than cable? Yes. Will networks and telcos both get what's been coming for 30+ years? Yes. All I have to say is that payback is a bitch, and when the consumer pulls that plug - oh - I will savor it.

Honestly, I don't want, will not pay for, or even deign to give a red cent to telco companies and their garbage they call TV for a number of reasons.

1) TV doesn't do its job anymore. News in particular. Entertain and inform were the tasks at hand. Instead I see middle American slobs neither entertaining nor informing me of anything useful. Reality shows and garbage slant news coverage is not something I will pay for. 2) The TV that is good is covered up, hidden, made inaccessible, or mired in advertisements - if it survives some political TV executives wide-swung axe. (Examples: Eureka, Firefly, Community, and many others.) 3) The price is exorbitant. When people say they are paying for 1,000-3,000 channels they are forgetting they DO NOT NEED 1,000-3,000 channels. Nor will they watch that much garbage content. They are forcing a justification to price gouge you. 4) TV in its current iteration is a problem that telcos have forced us to have. Its complex, there are huge software issues, huge time slot issues, and even bigger hardware complexity issues that make it so unwieldy most leave the damn thing off. We're paying middle men of middle men for the right to look at content that is shit. I don't need more middle men. 5) It does not meet demand. It demands of you. 'YOU BE HERE AT THIS TIME AND THIS PLACE AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME MILDLY ENTERTAINING TRASH.' I don't think anyone should pay for that - not today not ever. I run my life, not some damn box. I don't care if its a sporting event, debate, or "hit show" b/c it will be forgotten inside of a year.

We need a simplistic a la carte system where we can pick what we want, when want, and how we want it, and how much we're willing to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. Because of monopolistic practices inside of the communications industry and due to network greed we don't have that. Instead we have the opposite of that and then some.

Hello! Don't shut down the site, just shut down the print and go to iOS NewsStand! Was this even considered? This was the first gaming magazine I ever read. I have issue #1 in my attic some place, and yeah, I thought it was grand. Now, the market has changed, and they give up? What the hell, is it that American companies just LACK agility in any shape or form these days? I can think of maybe 5 off the top of my head that will come against a big change and go "ok we can handle this" instead of doing like GamePro and caving. Ok I'm done ranting, but seriously, what is with the print industry? Sure, print is done, but DON'T kill the horse. Start a games site. See Destructoid or some other successful indie gaming news outlet. They started indie and made it big. GamePro would have had the advantage of starting big and STAYING BIG.

When the Compact Disc first came out not many had any chance to play one. It was expensive, part of extravagant home theatre systems, and only the rich could afford it. Years later it was adopted by the masses once it was able to be cheaply reproduced. The same goes for this piece of technology. While truly innovative and new technology almost never starts out as being ubiquitous; it does move us forward. This is my point: it is better, faster, and eventually it will be cheaper too. That and I heard Apple had exclusivity on the hardware totally until 2012 with regards to it. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/24/intel_details_thunderbolt_as_exclusive_to_apple_until_2012.html

I'm not arguing for or against Apple, but I do see your point. I do still believe Stallman's emotions got involved, and his anger, as usual got the better of Stallman. Choice or not, Stallman still wants all of his followers to use FOSS strictly, and only FOSS. Nothing else. It comes out heavily in his thoughts on this man's death. This sort of purism is borderline "software racism" in my mind and leads to a sort of negativity that is unwarranted and out of line. Jobs didn't care if people bought or did not buy his software and hardware. Jobs did place rules on using his goods; tons of them. Stallman will hate you until the universe folds in on itself if you even touch proprietary software. To me it is the same difference. Two views, and use the users trapped in the middle.

What I see in Stallman here is total hypocrisy. Stallman wants us to use software the way he and his flock want us to use software. Steve Jobs wanted us to use software the way he and his flock used software. What I think Stallman, in his myopic viewpoint, is trying to state is: "I'm pissed off I was not as successful or appreciated. This is my rant on it." It is with that sort of chaotic thought train, and also because there were too many chiefs and not enough indians, is why I stepped back from a lot of FOSS. Rapidly.

This is just a tour of the 9 hells. Why on Earth does there need to be a YOUTUBE video on it? This is a videography of pain and torment. Do not click. NSFW.