Just wait until for the deadly delivery drones.

that money can buy.

Actually, there is no microSD slot on the Nexus 6 or 9 .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/10/15/motorola-nexus-6-everything-you-need-to-know/
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/192061-nexus-9-unveiled-43-screen-64-bit-tegra-k1-soc-android-5-0-and-no-micro-sd-slot

Also, the battery is non-removable.

I will keep my LG G3 .

Your numbers reflect my experience as well except for 802.11ac .

I am getting between 300 to 400 mbps real world throughput depending on how far the wifi device is from the router.
That's with connection rates between 500 and 1300 mbps - the later achieved with an Asus PCIE 802.11ac NIC.

IMO, 802.11ac is a huge advance over 802.11n.

The state subsidies for solar in California have ended for the major utilities.

Agreed.

And the Plug-in-Prius can't even drive 100% electric at freeway speeds.

The "plug-in" part really is a joke on the Prius. It's definitely not worth the extra $5k over the regular Prius.

FYI, I drive a Leaf and my husband drives a Prius.

I live in Silicon Valley and AT&T can't even deliver 128 kbps DSL at my address. No DSL service available at any speed, period.

Burger King went out of business in France a long time ago.

Looks like they are trying again, with a total of 2 (two) restaurants nationwide.

You may want to read the Windsor ruling more carefully, it does not say what you stated.

DOMA section was overturned, which means the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages of couples that were married in states or countries that allow it.

Many of the state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage weren't enacted directly by voters, but by the legislatures. The Windsor case says nothing about the voters in each state.

The Supreme Court also let stand a ruling about Prop 8, which found that a state ban on same-sex marriage in California, directly voted on by the California electorate, was unconstitutional.

The 2 rulings are not in contradiction. Both will be used to overturn many of the remaining state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Did you notice the part where he apologized for doing so, and Brendan Eich did not ?

It was certainly not one activist judge that overturned Prop 22, the predecessor to Prop 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California

First, there was a trial court decision .

"On March 14, 2005, Judge Kramer ruled that California statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional."

This decision was then overturned, in a 2-1 ruling.
"he state and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage appealed. Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal held extended oral argument on the cases on July 10, 2006, before a three-judge panel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the appellate court overturned the lower court"

Finally, there was a California Supreme Court decision, which is made of 7 judges. That ruling went 4-3 .

I count one trial court judge, one appellate court judge, and four California supreme Court judges, that were on the side of finding Prop 22 unconstitutional.

Also, do you think it was "activist judges" that overturned anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 nationwide, in a unanimous 9-0 ruling in "Loving vs Virginia" ?
I guess you want those laws back on the books, too .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Actually, I misread it as "erotic hardons" .

I meant that same-sex couples already had the legal right to get married in California before Prop 8, in 2008. And 18,000 of those couples had weddings.
You can italicize the word all you want, but a civil wedding ceremony is just as legally valid.

The couples never had the legal right to a "civil union", which never existed in California.

You call it judicial activism, I call it civil rights.

The donation directly contributed to stripping LGBT Californians from the right to marry, a right they already had.

It wasn't just an indication of Eich's opinion.

While Obama wasn't in favor of granting rights of same-sex couples to marry in states where they didn't have them, he also never called for taking those rights away in states that did.

That is an important distinction, in my mind.