There are three problems with that:

1, the PUC is a local...VERY local...authority, at most reaching to the borders of a state. There are hundreds of them in the US alone. Unless you want things like wireless standards adoption to be fragmented across that large a scattering, you don't want this.

2, there's a nation-wide PUC equivalent that deals specifically in the things you just spoke about. And it's called the FCC. Which proves that the basic hopes and dreams you have are unrealistic, based on their past and current performance as a regulating entity.

3, what you're talking about has nothing to do with most of what TFA was getting at in the first place. Connectivity is not the core of it all.

If he'd said the same thing with only that one substitution...that fascism = all other authoritarian forms of government? Sure, I'd have responded in much the same way. Though, it actually would have been less ridiculous, since historically fascism hasn't been the doctrinally-sworn enemy of all other forms of government to the same degree that communism is. In other words, there would have been less stark examples of how fascism is not interchangeable with other authoritarian forms of government than there are with communism.

I wonder in turn...if he'd called the guy a fascist and I'd replied much the same way, would you have posted as an AC?

The same as the difference between communism and fascism. (Mussolini and Franco, both facist leaders, fought the Communists tooth and nail in their day.)

The same as the difference between communism and the Taliban. (The Taliban emerged from the fighters that overthrew the Communist regime in Afghanistan.)

The same as the difference between communism and monarchies. (It bears mentioning that one country...Russia...had its monarchies ended by Communism in a bloody civil war.)

The same as the difference between communism and National Socialism (Nazis..who hated communism pretty hard, by the way, and killed 25 million of them).

Saying that someone is the same as a communist because they are authoritarian is as far off the mark as saying two companies are the same because they are direct competitors in the same market. Communism is a subset of authoritarian government forms, not the same set, and it's not at all compatible or even friendly with most of the other forms of government that share its authoritarian characteristic. I know it feels good to throw words around that make someone sound bad, but really...if you want to be a truly active and useful participant in a democracy, you have to pull your head out of your ass and deal in terms of fucking reality.

Oh don't worry about the employees, they'll be fine. With Mark Hurd at the helm, they'll be...*laughing*...*doubling over laughing*

Oh, I'm sorry...I couldn't QUITE make it through the rest of that sentence without laughing my BALLS off!

You're confusing past nations that were inhabited by Muslims with Islam itself. This is like saying that Christianity has a long and glorious history of cultivating the Internet, since most of the people at CERN who invented HTTP were Christian.

From Thoreau, in Walden:

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.

Based on this, it seems to me that every one of us who has ever been involved in development projects for any significant amount of time has encountered fear as a major force in one or more projects. For that matter, I'd say we've all encountered it as a force in many things we've been a part of.

The new GoPro camera...which hasn't come out yet...is said to effectively capture video at double the rate that it currently does. So it can do 1080p at 120 frames/second.

But there's a problem with that...the existing GoPro, at half that speed, requires the very fastest of SD cards (UHS Speed Class 3) to be able to write the data fast enough. So I was wondering how the hell the camera would even be able to work at 120 fps 1080p resolution in the first place. This card, with its throughput, answers that, since it's triple the UHS Speed Class 3 specification.

Agreed. From TFA: " Barr says she was casually acquainted with two of the convicted murderers, Judith Clark and Kuwasi Balagoon (née Donald Weems) but had no prior knowledge of their criminal activities." I think that 1, if she'd known them beforehand, it would have been obvious to her that they were a bit past the "baking cookies" level of extremism, and 2, she'd certainly have heard about it when they were arrested/tried/convicted/imprisoned for their role in the attempted hijacking/resulting murder. That is, if she didn't know about it after it happened, but before they were arrested. When an acquaintance who is part of your circle of friends gets involved in something like that, I would tend to think you'd notice.

Actually, as someone who just bought an Audi, I disagree. The Volvo was by far the most sedate brand in its class. BMW/MB/Audi all had it beat. Even the Hyundai blew it into the river for fun factor. (The new Genesis by Hyundai...especially with the BIG motor...is a beast.)

Yes. Especially if you're male and dating.

I hope so...if so, he's doing it in a very clever way. Provided, of course, that he can determine the difference in ideas between that which comes from a fairly normal user with a standard need/desire as opposed to a socially-incompetent neckbeard.

As an astronaut, I wonder which would appeal to me more? The "Exciting Choice" or the "Safe Choice?" On one hand, I'll be strapped to it as it launches it (and me) into space. On the other hand...I'm an astronaut! My choice of car is probably NOT a fucking Volvo.

Your point is merely that innovation is something people don't see coming. I don't think it applies here, however.

Everyone wants an "iWatch," so much so that you can use the term and everyone knows exactly what you mean by it. Everyone wanted an iPhone...they were freaking begging for it for years before it came into being.

In this case, though, Intel's made a massive mistake. You can't pair a highly-durable good (bracelet with semi-precious stones, precious metals and exotic materials like "water snakeskin") with something based on personal technology. Very few people will spend $1,000 for the non-functional components of something that they'll replace as often as a cell phone. And almost nobody will do it twice.

Even more notably, the pictures they sent are of bracelets that make distinct statements with regard to color, texture, etc. They won't match just any outfit...which means that either the user must not come to depend on the bracelet (or they'll be disappointed when it clashes with their outfit and so they don't wear it) or buy multiples (which only amplifies the cost/disposability conundrum).

If they had a form factor that allowed for separation of the cosmetic (semi-precious stones, snakeskin, etc.) and functional (electronics) components such that you could swap the electronics module between shells and update it without having to throw away the whole bracelet, then this could work. It would also allow for a platform, however, where you could just wear the electronics module in something like a silicon wrist strap...and thus, that negates the whole point of Intel's idea here by caching the thing as a fashion accessory. As soon as someone puts it in a $10 wristband and notices that it doesn't do all that much that they need, everyone notices the emperor is naked, and they go back to buying bracelets from Cartier or Tiffany's instead.

The key to the iPad and the iPhone was that they were, at their core, supremely functional. That they had lovely form factors was just icing on the cake, and their cache as items of status followed from that...not the other way around.

Really? Do tell us about all the governments that would rather have Iran or North Korea in charge of ICANN. Please :)

Actually, since the whole question of TFA is about ethical choices, it does have to identify them. It can't view a trash can as being equal to a child pedestrian, for example. It will have to see the difference between a dumpster (hit it, nobody inside dies) and another car (hit it, someone inside it may die). It may even need to weigh the potential occupancy of other vehicles...a bus is likely to hold more people than a scooter.

The question at its heart is not about object avoidance in the article...it's about choices between objects. And that requires identification.