It depends how they are sold If they are sold like kit cars and meant to be assembled by the end user, then there's a lot of regulations that you can get around. kit cars have very relaxed rules on what is required it make the street legal in many states. If you can get a frame from the 50's or earlier, you basically can avoid all regulations, as long as you have approved tires.

Plastic is not as hard as metal. The 3D printed guns have to be built much beefier, and even at the increased size of them, they still only last for 10's of shots, not hundreds or thousands like a regular gun. If you 3D printer a gun, you probably shouldn't fire it with your hand, as you are at risk losing some fingers.

That being said, I also question the cost and feasibility of this. 3D printing is great for 1-off prototypes, but it's a stupid idea for mass production. Even the best 3D printers are slow compared to traditional manufacturing methods once you want to produce items in the hundreds or thousands.

I've use that to develop my own software. It's really quite great. If they just opened up the development a bit more so that things didn't expire, or things didn't have to be signed at all, then it would be as good as Android as far as side-loading apps goes. I also think it would be great if they opened up the desktop API. there was a jailbreak for Windows 8 (doesn't work on 8.1) which allowed desktop apps to be run if recompiled. I think they got DOSBOX, SharpDevelop, and a few other things working on it. Just unlocking the thing would probably make a lot of people happy for not supporting Windows 10. Let's hope somebody at MS is reading this.

The actual OS I really like. It has a lot of features that are missing from iOS and Android. One big plus is the support for Network drives. If an app can read a file, it can read it from anywhere, including network drives and OneDrive. There's no special coding required on the application developers part. And apps are still restricted well enough that they can't just read/write willy-nilly to the file system.

What I really don't like is just the fact that so few developers have latched on to their App store ecosystem. And for me that only means less games, as I've been able to find apps to do just about everything else I would want to do on a tablet. If they aren't going to support it anymore, they should at least provide a supported way for running whatever apps you want to on it. Let people program their own applications at least. It wouldn't require unlocking the boot loader, but would still open up the possibility of a lot of independent app development.

I'll give you the distinction on a phone, but on a tablet, I'm really not so sure. What is the fundamental difference between an ultrabook, a Surface Pro, or a more traditional tablet. Sure I'll admit that as you move toward smaller tablets like 7 inch ones, running a full desktop OS becomes cumbersome, but you have to admit that there are some advantages to being able to run a full desktop application on your tablet in a pinch. Sure you'd want to be using tablet focused apps most of the time, but it's nice to know that if you only have your tablet on you, you can still do things like quickly edit an Excel or Word file with real MS Office. You wouldn't want to make huge edits, but just small little annotations would be great.

As you move up to larger tablets, like 10 inch and above, Android and iOS really start to show their lack of features because they don't let you run multiple apps at the same time, and they don't let you do things like mount network drives that every application can have access to. They don't come with standard USB ports, so you can't just plug in a USB stick, printer, camera, or other devices without using special dongles, and most likely they won't have drivers for things like printers anyway.

With newer Broadwell and Skylake processors coming down the line, and a 4.5 watt chip that will run full x86 Windows, there's very little reason for Microsoft to not think that everybody will be running a full power Windows installation on every device that isn't a phone. And if they can make the phone run the same apps with minor changes, then it lets developers target the entire ecosystem with very little effort. If you could have a single code base that easily supported phones, tablets, and desktop computers, then developers might see that as a huge advantage.

I have a Surface 2 with Windows RT, and even though It's not getting Windows 10, it's still had way more updates than any Android device I've ever had, which is exactly the market it was competing in. I really like it and use it every day. I only wish it had more games, but other than that, it does everything I want out of a tablet. If it continues to be compatible with games made for Windows 10 app store, then that would be a huge plus. It doesn't need to have the entire operating system, just support for the apps.

I think that RT was kind of a short stop-gap solution to fix the problem of making low(er) cost Windows tablets at a time when running full Windows would have been just too expensive. Not that you can get tablets running full X86 windows for $100-$200, there's much less of a reason to continue on with Windows RT. I hope that when Windows 10 comes out, along with the next iteration of Surface, that they will have some cheaper options, perhaps without the pen and maybe a celeron/atom processor. That would probably be comparable in price to the Surface RT and Surface 2 when they came out, while at the same time allowing people to run the full version of Windows 10.

Although I agree they are different things, there are quite a few similarities between gas giants (like Jupiter), brown dwarfs, and stars

Oh. I completely agree. There's no reason to have DRM on Netflix now that the DRM has been broken on BluRay. If pirates wanted to copy the movies they would just use the BluRay as it's much more convenient. It would be great if there was no DRM required for Netflix, but at the end of the day Netflix can't make that decision on their own. They can only distribute the movies that they are given access to by the movie companies under the agreed upon terms. I'm just saying that Netflix is doing the best they are capable of given what the realities of the industry are. Perhaps the only thing better they could do would be to allow it to work without DRM for movie companies that are ok with distributing without DRM. Netflix should also release the content they produce without DRM to show they are in support of this (if indeed they are). Then it's up to the users of the service if there is enough content without DRM for it to be worth the subscription fee. Then Netflix could really pass the blame onto the movie studios for not making the content more easily available to everyone.

Even ignoring the obvious problems with blind people and idiots who forgot to turn on their lights, what about trying to cross a road that has a bend it in. Often you can't see around the bend, and the only way to safely cross is to listen for cars coming. Not only that, but as a cyclist, I find it very important to be able to hear cars coming up behind me. Sure I look back and check to see if they are coming, but the closing speed is really fast on some roads, and the car could be catch up to you in a very short period of time. And again, you might not be able to see the car even if they are only a little bit behind you if there is a bend in the road.

In defense of Netflix, they support playing videos over HTML5 (with DRM extenstions of course). So if Blackberry would update their browser to support HTML5 with DRM, then blackberry users could watch Netflix on their devices.

By supporting HTML5 video, it's completely up to the device maker to allow people to use Netflix on the device, even if there isn't an official app from Netflix. In the same way, I think that it would be nice if Apple had an open API for accessing iMessage, so that other apps could be built to communicate with their system from Non-Apple devices. That being said, it's their own service and they should in no way be forced to do it.If Apple thinks the market want it, and it's worth their money, they should do it on their own terms.

I was pleasantly surprise when my Surface 2 with Windows RT started working with Netflix in the browser. The do have and app, but I actually prefer the way the browser interface works.

Almost nobody alive right now will still be around in 100 years, and almost certainly nobody of voting age will be around in 100 years. Most people really don't care what happens that far out. So many other things can change on such a large time period that it almost isn't worth trying to plan so far ahead. In the past 100 years, we've gone from the majority of people using horses or walking to the majority of people using cars. Maybe we'll end up heading back the other way to the point where nobody drives their own car. Maybe we will have finally gotten fusion power working and we can have clean, cheap power.

Yeah, but since it's not baked into the Android OS, it doesn't work with all the apps. It actually only works with a small subset of apps that are modified to work within the Windowed interface. So you can do things like watch a video while browsing the web, but you can't play Minecraft on half the screen while playing Candy Crush on the other half.

For $149 you could buy an Intel Compute Stick, and it would run windows games. Some of them anyway. It wouldn't run the latest high definition graphics-fest games, but since it run standard Windows, there's a lot of games it would support. Give it a few more years, and I completely forsee having a Windows dongle for $40-$50. I don't think Android and other alternative OS's will be able to compete for very long at that price.

I upgraded my laptop to Windows 8 when it came out because they had a special price of $39. If they can sell windows at that price to the end user, I could see them selling a lot more copies. I'm looking into getting a new desktop PC, and it's a choice between settle for some HP/Dell/Whatever machine that doesn't quite meet my wants, but get it because windows is included for free, or build my own machine exactly the way I want it, and run Linux. The reason I don't want to run Windows on the PC I build myself is because I find that $100 for the OS on a $500 computer to be a little bit much to ask. If the cost of the OS was lower for end users, I could see a lot of people getting it, even if they are only running it as a second OS.