I think a better solution is that once you've achieved cruising altitude that passenger can petition for a vote of all passengers to have specific annoying passengers literally thrown off the planes. No parachute, just a good heave. As annoying cell phone users are - shouting in their phones, etc. - seat kickers, loud drunks, crying babies and others deserve some sort of retribution too.

There is nothing in the post that provides any indication much less evidence that the money spent on this by APS came from anything that was in violation of the terms of their monopoly and rates. So unless you have special inside information you are not sharing, you've just proved the point that the term "ratepayer money" used in the summation is prejudicial and inflammatory. In the meantime you can share with me a justified outrage about their admitted lying.

Yes, the use of the term "ratepayer money" is prejudicial and inflammatory as well as misleading. That's pretty typical with Slashdot and almost every other source on the internet. However, the primary objection expressed is that APS lied. I, and others, object that APS, Exxon, Koch brothers and others astroturf their positions, i.e. they set up phoney "citizen" organizations and sites to push their views so people will not be aware of their financial interests in the debate's outcome. That's dishonest and does not contribute to honest open discussion and debate or to science. It's O.K. to promote a position that you benefit from - whether its financial or biological (like health), but it's not O.K. to use deceit to hide your motivations. What they are afraid of, I think, is that people will more closely examine their scientific methods and conclusions if they know you have a vested interest in a particular outcome.

Just to be preemptive, advocates on any side of any position can have a vested interest in a particular outcome. We should always be skeptical.

You're right (and sourcing Wikipedia) that it's FreeBSD and NetBSD, not OpenBSD. Other sources I've read have said that there is very little Mach 3 (except the kernel) left and Mac OS X is primarily *BSD these days . And you are right that Apple implemented most of the power savings. None of this changes my gist which is, Mac OS X is a desktop operating system that unlike Windows, manages battery life very well. So it is possible, isn't it?

On the second point about refactoring/re-engineering you've overlooked some facts. One is that Apple has releases like Snow Leopard that are primarily a refactoring of the previous version in order to set the stage for future improvements. They also replace frameworks (Cocoa versus Carbon) instead of layering one on the other (Windows API versus MFC). Microsoft, on the other hand just keeps piling it on and is, by Gates own words, more interested in features than fixing underlying issues. Linux and *BSD also do a good job of keeping things from gunking up by avoiding a lot of tight coupling of features to the OS kernel and each other.

So yes, Windows NT was not only new, it was MS's first full operating system. Windows was until then a GUI environment on a control program/monitor - not a full blown OS. However, NT is big and has gotten bigger thanks to Microsoft continuously adding on new tightly coupled layers, e.g. COM/ActiveX, Windows MFC and above, etc. Remember how MS argued to the EU that they couldn't remove IE from Windows because it was so tightly coupled to the OS? Relative to Apple and the *ix communities, Microsoft has not managed the underlying OS architecture very well and that makes it difficult for it to make non-superficial changes quickly.

Microsoft has a business model that demands it make big bucks selling the OS because it doesn't own the hardware business. They've also been incented to tightly couple applications and features to the OS in order to preserve their market advantages. That has led it to where it is now which is an OS that doesn't manage power use very well and is difficult to change. The bottom line is that Windows performance in terms of power management is due to Microsoft's decisions and is not due to the fact that its a desktop OS.

A little Bill Gates philosophy that helps explain how Windows got this way: http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html

Mac OS X is a desktop operating system - OpenBSD. And no, I don't experience any lag as things "wake up". So now what do you say? Windows simply doesn't consider power management as a priority. Why does it keep polling every connected hard drive? It's an antiquated core with features continuously layered on. It needs a rewrite from ground up.

Every survey I've seen. So I'm questioning the GP's sweeping assertion. The iPhone has a 90% brand retention rate when buyers replace the current phones. Android users tend to experiment more so none of the android manufacturers can match that. It doesn't really mean Apple is better or worse, it's just that you can't claim Samsung is obviously better - unless you are just expressing a personal opinion. JD Power consistently finds that the Apple iPhone ranks first in satisfaction. Consumer Reports depends on the question they are asking and their mood so they have results for everybody's taste. JD Powers http://www.phonearena.com/news/J.D.-Power-ranks-Apple-first-in-US-customer-satisfaction-followed-by-Nokia-and-Samsung_id41087 ACSI http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=281:press-release-may-2012&catid=13&Itemid=357

It's about performance as well as improvements to the overall chip architecture. RAM addressing is not yet an issue for phones or tablets. A couple of links you might want to read about this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/17/inside-apples-64-bit-ios-7-and-the-prospects-for-a-64-bit-android http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/09/review-with-the-iphone-5s-apple-lays-groundwork-for-a-brighter-future/3/

My you are full of unsupported assertions today. "Most every tech company has been caught". Really? Any evidence? "Samsung ... the good guys" You must be kidding. They copy and they clone. Apple does gold so Samsung does gold. Apple sells a 64-bit phone with a 64 bit operating system and conversion tools to take advantage of it. Samsung announces that they'll be building 64 bit phones too, one day. Of course unless Android is converted to 64 bit that will be pointless and there is nothing from Google indicating that is going to happen any time soon. Chrome OS seems to be more important to them these days anyway. And finally, "their hardware is still clearly the best". Evidence or just your opinion based on your limited experience? I've tried Apple, Nokia, HTC and Samsung and liked Samsung the least hardware wise. Consumer Reports and other customer satisfaction survey's I've seen don't rate Samsung all that highly. Apple leads the pack in every survey I've seen.

But they did enter into an agreement with AMC. AMC provided the product definition and description and set the price. People bought the AMC product at the AMC price, not an Apple product. If I buy a PS3 and find out that it's DRM'd all my gaming, it's Sony's fault not Best Buy's.

Do you really think that people think Apple produces "Breaking Bad"? Really? Do you think that Apple doesn't provide an accounting to the providers of which Apple ID's bought their shows and more? Nonsense. You really haven't a clue, do you? And as for the "greed" and "making as much money as possible" (from content), you obviously don't get Apple's business model. They make the big bucks on the hardware. The content sells hardware. You don't have to get any of your content from iTunes in order to use it on any idevice. Those companies that sell their stuff on iTunes pay a 30% cut to Apple on a price they set themselves. That's much less a markup than a retail store. If a content provider wants to give it away, i.e. price = 0$, Apple charges nothing to anyone. That's not exactly greedy. It's taking a long view - giving up maximum profit on content in order to maximize profit over the long term. All for profit companies try to make as much money as possible. It's what stockholder expect managers to do. If they don't, the managers get fired. The stockholders are primarily fund managers with our pension and 401k dollars so I hope they demand profitability. Do you think companies are in business to be nice? Do you believe in unicorns and Santa Clause. Grow up.

Apple did not out source any work. They own the store, really more of a consignment shop. The content owners set the prices and terms. The content owners provide the product descriptions, etc. Apple handles delivery and payments on behalf of the content owners.

What I'm saying is that this can happen in any country where your data is stored or with any company that is vulnerable to pressure from any government. Remember RIM caving to India on the protection of messages originating or terminating there? RIM's servers are in Canada. They've since (or it became known since) to other governments as well.

That was IBM. ITT is/was not IBM. Different deal.

It's hardly shocking that the U.S. government will pressure companies or anyone with in its reach to serve its interests. Every government does that though some governments have more evil aims than others. (Like people, the U.S. is not evil though sometimes it does bad things.) Did AT&T ever refuse a government request to tap a phone line? I've read that in the 1930's the U.S. pressured ITT which was installing Germany's telephony infrastructure to include things to help us tap their lines. Not sure exactly what that was, but I'm glad they did.

The "news" here is that the U.S. is better positioned to apply leverage to get the information and access it wants than other governments are. It also has a stronger military and a greater influence over international financial institutions. It's good to be king. Thankfully Putin and the Chinese Communist Party do not have the same reach, but they certainly do their best with what reach they can muster. Most of the posturing by EU officials is hypocritical. They directly benefit from the U.S.'s position and protection. That's why so many secretly cooperate.

The point is that if you put information or valuables where somebody else can get it, assume someone will. There is no permanently "safe" place for your information. There never has been. Why does anyone expect that there is?