Here in Canada it's generally more then a few cents. In my neck of the woods gas is $1.16/L(~$4.90/gal), if I travel 30km(~18mi), I can buy it for $0.82(~$3.15/gal). Usually I don't use the app, rather I use their website. But their new policy violates a bunch of federal and provincial privacy laws here in Canada, and since they operate Canadian-centric sites, they're going to have to change their policies on it again.

Music by specific artists is a unique product -- another artist generally can't reproduce the same music in exactly the same way.

Insurance is the opposite. All auto insurance is essentially the same -- the differences have very little value. If one insurance company fails to update it's business model, 5 more insurance companies will swoop in and take the business.

So, you're saying they were guinea pigs?

Such a simple and rational solution right? Too bad that the governments there have spent the last 20 odd years restricting what parents can actually do to their children in terms of punishment. The state is more of a parent then anything else.

But -40C feels colder than -40F

No. Earnest? Maybe. Serious? No.

An article with this level of simple insight would never get published on Slashdot.

You need to add a conspiracy:

Diesel is only available because ... big oil pushes diesel and bribes politicians to keep it available. Refining oil into gasoline without also producing diesel creates a byproduct with infinite energy per liter. If they stopped making diesel fuel, the oil companies would all go out of business.

Also a problem for cycling: snow. (Yes, I know it's possible to ride a bicycle in the snow -- but it is objectively unwise.)

Driving on forest service roads and BLM lands probably doesn't apply to 99.9% of the population, but the general theme of having emergency supplies at the ready does. It would be prudent to have an emergency kit inside each service car in urban areas that could be accessed by the occupants in an emergency.

The cost of maintaining the supplies would be handled the same way as keeping the car clean by including it in the cost of the ride. And whoever used them could be charged for replacement if that is more efficient than spreading it over all riders.

Families with kids that carry around a larger assortment of "emergency" items may choose to own their own car for that time period and return to the service model once their grown enough to require a more manageable set of items. I really think a lot of these issues will be worked out pretty easily once the model takes off.

In addition to this, people will be plugging in to recharge at different times. Some nine-to-five people get home at 6pm and stay home with their families while others go out with friends and plug in later in the evening. And then there are the people on night and graveyard shifts. Add to that those with short commutes who will recharge minimally each day and others that will recharge at work.

Eventually, by exploiting a smart grid and your schedule, your car could delay charging for a few hours when it knows usage will be lower and prices cheaper.

So, he says it was over his yard, the kids say it was over their yard, the neighbor says it was over their yard. Does anyone, including the drone owners, dispute that? One would have a hard time arguing it wasn't over their yard.

That seems like something provable. He only fired one shot, correct? And we know where the drone crashed, and where he was, so we can probably determine if that's a false statement. It doesn't seem like it. He must have shot up in the air, because he hit the drone, and the drone was in the air. And it crashed in a field near his house, not in a neighbor's yard, so the statement that he did not fire over his neighbor's fence does not seem false on the face of it. I wonder if his neighbor actually saw the shot, too.

As for warning about a falling drone, don't know. And we don't know if it was necessary. We'd need a better look at his neighborhood, and the reasonable assumptions one could make (or not make out) about the trajectory of a crashing drone. It depends on how populated his neighborhood is. But nothing in the article indicated any possibility of it hitting someone while crashing. Possible, sure, but you'd think that issue would have been explored if it existed.

The article says he was charged under the Kentucky Revised Statutes with "wanton endangerment in the first degree" and "criminal mischief." Here's the wanton endangerment statute:

Do you think he exhibited "extreme indifference to the value of human life" and created "a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury?" Clearly not from the shotgun blast. As every hunter and student of simple physics in this thread has already said, there's no danger from falling pellets. And if the direction of the blast checks out (not at anyone, not over his neighbor's fence, etc) then the blast itself did not create any danger to human life.

So how about the falling drone? If he shot the drone down in a crowded area, where it would almost certainly hit someone, then yes. That does not appear to be the case, though. Nothing from the story indicates there was any significant risk of it crashing into someone. If that had been the case, you'd think they'd put it in the story. Obviously that needs to be confirmed, but I think it's likely. If no reasonable person could believe the drone had a reasonable chance of crashing into someone, then I don't see how you can convict him of wanton endangerment.

So how about criminal mischief?

I'm assuming it's in the first degree, as the value of the drone was over $1,000.

Well he did intentionally destroy property causing loss of more than $1,000. So the question is did he have a right to do so, or any reasonable ground to believe he has such a right? He clearly believes so. He believes he has the right to destroy a spy camera hovering in his backyard. Whether or not that's reasonable is up to a jury. But in Kentucky? Own backyard? Father? Kids who could either be injured if the drone crashes on its own, or by the drone pilot intentionally, or at the very least be spying on them taking pictures? I'd bet a Kentucky jury of his peers would agree that Meredith had reasonable grounds to destroy a spy camera on his property. You own your airspace up to 300ft per the FAA, and there are Supreme Court decisions that agree you have property rights over your airspace.

I hope he takes it to a jury. I'd like to see what they say. I bet he will, too. He believes he's right, and I bet a defense attorney would love this case, if not just for the news spotlight alone.

There has been public outcry. People are talking about it. Laws are getting passed. Opinions are changing. Snowden is in exile for now but I don't think he'll stay that way forever.

The US declared war on Germany on 12/11/41. It took two and a half years to land at Normandy. It's still 1943 and you're declaring Hitler victorious.

Do they have a good reason to be firing the weapon?

"Justification" is a thing. You can argue in front of the jury that yes, you broke the law against firing weapons in city limits, but you were justified in doing so because reasons, and they may or may not agree with you.

So, are the neighbors just randomly firing their guns in their air for shits and giggles? If so, he would not respond favorably. If they're firing their shotguns in the air to defend their property and privacy from flying surveillance devices, he'd probably tell his daughter to go inside for a bit while he goes and helps his neighbors deal with a nuisance.

Somebody else in the comments had a good idea...garden hose on full blast. Consider it a warning shot. Yes, I think Meredith was justified in what he did, but I like the hose idea, as you're less likely to wind up arrested.

It doesn't help that a lot of those pay-for modders, started lashing out at those of us modders who wanted nothing to do with it. That's probably the biggest thing there, if you have access to any of the hidden forums for modders on the mod sites(nexus, moddb, modgames, etc), you'd see the personal attacks that the paid for modding used. Once that started making it out into the general community that pay-for modders were attacking others for not wanting it, the community in general had enough.

Those folks learned the hard way that it's really easy to burn bridges by attacking other content creators, and pissing off mod users.