Well, that is certainly possible if that's important to you. .

You also could have clicked the link I provided,l and perhaps typed the word "ethernet"... There are lots of models covering many different use cases. My unit works great over wifi, which is great since I have no Ethernet in my bedroom...

Google TV isn't a failure, it's just not the only success.

I have a Google TV stick and I love it! It is just a tablet that uses my TV as its screen and a wireless keyboard as its input. It is about the size of a thumb drive. It cost $40 on Amazon (.search for mk808b to get the exact model I'm watching Hulu+ on as I write this)

See my post history for details: this is quite successful. I have no idea what Google would want to improve...

Play store: no problem. How else do you think I installed Netflix, CBS.com, Hulu, uTorrent, and all the other apps?

Seriously, just imagine a tablet running on your TV using a mouse/remote instead of a touch screen. That's what I use every day. (And what is currently playing Sherlock Holmes a la Hulu; my wife loves that show)

I have a "Google TV" and I love it! Also called a "TV Stick" they are best sellers on Amazon with many models to choose from starting at around $25. I bought an MK808B for my bedroom TV and it's hard not to love.

1) It cost $40.

2) It uses my already existing TV

3) It streams Hulu, Netflix, CBS, NBC, and any other TV network that bothers with an Android app over wifi.

4) It uses about 2.5 watts of power.

5) It's not much bigger than a thumb stick.

6) It works seamlessly with an "air mouse" wireless remote.

7) It plays MP4 videos fluidly and runs uTorrent without issue.

8) It has room for two USB devices and an SD card.

9) Effortless support for 1080p resolution.

What more do you want from set top box that actually hides behind the TV?

Seriously: a major airplane "disappears" despite evidence that it wasn't really crashed. Everybody's wondering who dunnit and how, and whether or not it will become another impromptu bomb.

There's a *lot* you can carry on a 777. $50 mil is a lot, but the amount of damage such a plane could do with a little direction makes $50 mil look like peanuts. And it's pretty clear that anybody with the skills to make it disappear as completely as it did is capable of more than just a little direction.

You know, it could be that Tesla enlists the help of elite hackers who have compromised other high-flying products to harden their systems before somebody gets killed?

The problem here is that the product has no specific point to it - it exists *solely to produce vendor lock in*. Since it's little more than a re-badged Android TV stick there's really nothing special at all about it. This, in a market space that's saturated with me-too also-rans.

It's not that Amazon's offering is horrible, it's that it's not notable in a field littered with the corpses of other not-notable failed products.

BTW: Very few "normal" people are actually aware of hypermiling. Techies/nerds more so.

You can pretty significantly improve your fuel economy by using a "hybrid" approach, which I do to raise the average fuel economy of my car by about 20%, which is significant. This, by the way, includes enough "pedal to the medal" incidents that I do get to enjoy the 200 HP engine in my beautiful convertible!

Simple things, like trailing cars going through timed lights, letting off the gas a mile or so before your turn off so you bleed speed from 65 to 50 or so before exiting and watching a half mile ahead for red lights can improve fuel economy significantly without pissing people off. If you were in the car while I drove, it's likely you wouldn't notice unless I said something.

Bezos isn't crazy? How much do you want to bet on that?

The Drones idea has more holes in it than an R/O water filter....

Ha ha... paying attention goes oh so much deeper than countdown timers...

What most people don't know is that you can improve your fuel economy rather dramatically using a variety of techniques commonly referred as "Hyper-miling". I didn't think much of it myself until I got a car that has a fuel economy computer built into the dash, and then it started to click.

See, brakes are death to fuel economy. Sounds obvious, but what isn't obvious is what that translates to in real world use.

Example: negotiating a red light. Most people don't pay attention to red lights until they are half a block or so away. If it's red, they start to apply the brake, and then as the light stubbornly refuses to turn green, they apply more and more brake until they stop behind the next car. Which is exactly the *wrong* way to get best fuel economy. Instead, you should be looking ahead as far as possible, and apply the brake as early as possible to reduce speed as early as possible to increase the amount of time it takes to cover the block distance while losing as little forward momentum as possible. Instead of waiting until the last minute and losing all forward momentum, you brake early and keep perhaps 30 MPH. This means that you don't have to accelerate to 30 MPH and you save that much fuel.

It was rather surprising to me how much difference I could accomplish using these techniques! On the freeway, if I drive around 50 MPH unless going up a hill, then more like 40-45, the normal 25-28ish MPG becomes closer to 34 MPG. Around the town, normally, my car (a 4-seat Chrysler convertible) gets around 18-20 MPG, but using these techniques about braking and reduced acceleration, I can get over 30 MPG on town surface streets! (flat land) Unfortunately, I do have to get used to being flipped off in order to achieve this.

In any event, you *can* get a rather sharp increase in fuel economy by paying attention to the forces of momentum, timing and friction.

Nothing like watching shows on illegitimate, foreign-hosted websites laden with pr0n ads and drive-by zero-day flash exploits... Sorry, no. I, for one, have a detectable amount of self respect.

... which demonstrates that you don't understand the problem. See, people die and will die in every production car ever made. Accidents happen, and with enough money spent, virtually every single death could be prevented, with enough additional shielding, crumple zones, and whatnot. But the result would be a car that nobody could afford, not even by a long shot.

So, in a very literal sense, every single car you've ever driven is a balance between the amount you're willing to pay and the amount of risk you're willing to assume. At what point does a death become a death due to a design flaw? Well, guess what: there is no obvious, intuitive "line" that would be easy to sue over.

An ignition switch occasionally dies? Would you *want* a car company that didn't improve its designs as it learns more about them? But on the balancing side, you literally cannot afford to pay for a car getting a recall every time an improvement is made.

There are a ton of shades of grey, and it's not callous, it's just sensible business to balance costs with safety. Doing it any other way would be the foolish way to do things.

Printing presses are also increasingly under pressure (no pun intended) by start ups like Lulu that essentially print books on demand.

If BTRFS bit rot detection is anything like ZFS' then it most certainly can check for bit rot and correct it automatically.

Actually, I remember reading a study a while back covering this very subject. In fact, having passengers in the car engaged in conversation actually improved driver alertness because the passengers would pause talking, stiffen, make a sharp breathing noise, or other indications of tension causing the driver to be on alert even when otherwise oblivious to the driving risk.

In practice, it's like having "more eyes on the road" even when they aren't driving.