Underpowered also means runs on a quartet of AAA's for months...

because Iridium has -- for a bit over a decade.

Precisely!

It's exceedingly distracting and a general nuisance.

It's a feature!

Yes, although training a flight attendant* to land a plane then expecting to pay her like a flight attendant isn't exactly tenable.

Expecting any standing passengers to survive a crash is highly unrealistic, even with vertical seats -- which is why that idea is negligent at best.

In this case, regulations exist for preventing corporations from reducing prices--that, even while more people might fly--come at too high an external cost.

All three ideas are absurd. An autopilot seeks to automate the majority of cruising tasks, but it's yet another computer system with garbage in, garbage out. The existence of a redundant individual seeks to act as the equivalent of the triple or quadruple-redundant computers in place on the aircraft. In the general aviation world, the presence of a second pilot greatly increases safety. Not only would standing be tiring, it would prevent people from having a crumple zone underneath them (the seats look like they can collapse for a reason -- they do) and greatly increase crash mortality. Allowing flight attendants to land planes just seems a bit silly. Startlingly enough, propelling a can of people through the air is still pretty expensive. You can only do it so cheaply, especially with an acceptable level of safety.

It's better than many point-and-shoot cameras? That's simply an absurd claim. I suppose, however, that instead of actually judging it upon what the pictures look like, modern cameras are now ranked based on how well you can share your (bad) pictures on (bad) websites so you can show your (bad) friends your (bad) adventures.

This reminds me of an interesting problem LEED buildings often have with humidity and gas concentrations--and, in general, what is loosely described as sick building syndrome. Sealing a building to that point of efficiency might be green, but it isn't healthy for its occupants.

In other news, the used car market for Mercedes, Lexuses, and BMW's is suddenly booming!

at my dormitory, my absolute favorite way to open the locked door (magnetic strike) controlled by a RFID reader is to open the door with my ass.

This stuff has been messed with before, and we've stayed where we are for several reasons...

...also, the lower your rolling resistance, -it used to be- the lower your traction was--although supposedly they've fixed that some too.

Also, has anyone considered how spookily this will change steering response?

(I wonder why it seems like we're willing to exchange fuel economy for safety and aesthetics lately to such a degree. Huh.)

There's a reason why 'real' GPS units cost more, despite not necessarily having as many fancy 'features' that often end up being unnecessary.

Cell phones rarely have WAAS. Cell phones usually also use the cellular system to receive the phase of the GPS satellite transmission to aid in reception--but--if you don't have any service, the accuracy can get pretty deplorable (well, compared to say my GPSmap 60CSx that usually locks within fourteen to sixteen feet)...the battery life isn't as good, cell phones are horribly made, and the chipsets and antennae are simply much, much, much better in a dedicated unit. Pick up a used GPS--that's a real GPS--and it will be much better suited to hunting and camping rather than looking for the closest Starbucks. Real GPS units have rubber gaskets for a reason.

The cost of what you propose is not only significantly higher than rolling out fiber as planned but is also partially infeasible scientifically. There are several very good reasons why spectrum hasn't been goofed with to even try to approach speeds like that (partially because such speeds either require some spectrum for almost no range or gigantic piles of spectrum for meager range). Fiber-to-the-home is practical once the models are tweaked around a bit (have all services delivered over fiber--a fiber switch itself, when in proper quantity, is not all that much more expensive than a copper switch when it means you're replacing your entire telecom infrastructure.)

Finally, I'd like to point out that wireless isn't always the solution, even though that's a popular position here. There is finite spectrum. Wireless transmission is electrically inefficient compared to wired (or optical) transmission. There is no reason to use wireless for stationary devices when they are nonremote.

It can be an issue on very large transmission lines...however telecom lines all have protection against this sort of thing.

The summary differs with a significance from the article to a somewhat unusual degree... No, it's not really workable with how the systems are currently set up. Yes, there is a possibility for infrastructure (at significant cost) to be colocated on these lines for data-gathering purposes.