1) Exact string matching. As an example, if I search for " 'x.25' " don't give me hits for something with dimensions of 45mm x 25mm.
2) Allow more complex search constructs . For example I'd like to be able to specify the search term " 'x.25' near protocol -handbook ". You can sort of do that with Google's Advanced Search, but it's extra steps and you still don't get terms like 'near' or exact match.
3) Bonus points for boolean constructs such as " (lions or tigers or bears) near woods ".

In short, provide a robust search engine that will support meaningful search terms that can be used for more than shopping for a new TV or figuring out who stars in your favorite reality tv show.

Once we get things moving through the intertubes the sustained speed closely matches what we pay for. Notice my qualification "Once we get things moving". We have high latency and frequent dropped packets. So while our speed matches our plan, the over all quality sucks. I should also add that speed is a relative term. We get 3mb/s for $50/month and we're glad to be able to get it. Our neighbor not to far down the road only has old fashion dial-up.

But then again we live in a rural area with CenturyLink as our only option so it isn't surprising that our connectivity is so poor. CenturyLink has a proven track record for not investing in new infrastructure, never mind maintaining what they already have in place. CenturyLink epitomizes all that is wrong with intrenched monopolies.

The biggest problem with banning anything, especially weapons, is that only the people who feel morally obligated to follow the ban will do so - leaving them unprotected from those who don't.

Not really my point.

My point is that if a large company establishes "standard" pricing there will be areas where it works well, and areas where it doesn't. The big problem, which I guess I didn't touch on, is that the sheeple will just spout whatever price they are fed by a big company without thinking about the realities of the areas in which they live. "What do you mean that you won't install my bathtub for the Amazon price just because I live up a 100' flight of beautiful artistic rock stairs and the house has the original lead plumbing in it."

But like so many other things, the service is tailored to densely packed cookie cutter regions and will be force fit to areas that are outside the norms.

What caught my eye in the fine summary was "One of Amazon's goals is to help standardize the price for various services, so there aren't any surprises when the bill comes due." We live on a rural ferry served island. It is considered a destination for tourists and rich retires alike. The result is that the cost of living is significantly higher than on the other end of the ferry. The ferry consumes several hours for a round trip and is $40-$50 depending on the season so even if you commute from the mainland it is still quite expensive. So is Amazon going to tell a service person who registers here that they must charge the same amount as somebody on the mainland?

I can understand trying to normalized rates at a macro level like a greater metropolitan area or a large region, say "southern California", but to break it down detailed enough to take care of micro regions is going to be pretty tough, or expensive.

My biggest fear of this technology is that people may be investigated for no reason other than that their car was seen in close proximity to where a crime was committed. Police and district attorneys have been found to fit the evidence to match an individual. This has lead to, at a minimum an extended "interview" at the police station, and at a maximum being put to death. Was your car parked at the entrance to an alley while you picked up a pizza at the same time somebody was raped in the alley? How much money do you have for an attorney?

 

I don't know about most, but I'm sure many do. I know I do. My normal vehicle is my work E250. Occasionally I drive my wife's Subaru and frequently notice that I'm driving 10 or 15mph over the limit. While the Subaru can certainly handle corners and stop a heck of a lot quicker than the van, it doesn't make up for the one constant, human reaction time. We live in a rural area with narrow roads and a lot of twists and blind driveway entrances. Being able to easily keep one's speed reasonable would be a handy feature.

I agree - and this technology will give more parents the peace of mind to hand over the keys to their kids. I only see good coming from this.

No. There's plenty of space to learn - and now there's recourse for abusing the freedom they've been given. The car doesn't shut off, the parents are required to remove driving privileges... if my kids want to drive my car, there are rules. I already told my son (months away from getting his license) that I will never buy him a car - I will by myself a car and let him use it as long as he's obeying the rules. He didn't complain... I don't owe him a car. It's a privilege. If he doesn't want to be monitored, he can pay for his own car and his own insurance... it's just that simple.

The context of my statement was presidential elections. Ideally, the president should matter very little. Unfortunately, after 240 years, the U.S. Constitution is essentially turned on it's head. In times of peace, the majority of governing is supposed to happen locally. If that still happened, we'd have much greater control over our local politics.

The other bad part about that is that by the time the primaries get to my state, the ones I liked have already been eliminated by the party establishment. I can vote in either primary (but not both) because we don't do party registration in my state, but by the time the primaries come around, anyone that would have made a significant difference is already eliminated.

Only nobody sold Obama as a constitutionalist... in fact, for liberals, "constitutionalist" is one of their many examples of "code words" for "racist." He was sold as a constitutional scholar... so he knows about it, he knows what it says, he just doesn't care.

but how about if we don't kill people?

After all, aren't we punishing them for supposedly killing in the first place? What makes the government morally right for taking an action that they condemn in others.