Actually, the person themselves poked up in the comments and confirmed it. (And was talked to by the author of the story before they wrote it.) So we have better than usual chance that it's a true story, for a story on the Internet.

(It's even a blog I've read for years and trust, if that helps any.)

I said semi-embedded for a reason: I'm more thinking of hobiest/custom firewalls and routers. The ones from the factory tend to run a version of Linux or PFSense - But you can get similar devices from manufacturers without an OS that you can install your own OS onto.

Not that I'm sure I disagree with you. Just trying to think of a rational reason and give them the benefit of the doubt. However hard that is.

Well, I haven't followed the discussion, but I do know that one of OpenBSD's major markets is basically semi-embedded systems: Firewalls and routers. It's likely they won't have much in the way of external storage attachment, or much in the way of internal storage at all. Given that, it might make sense. I don't know.

I think it's a much better argument that fundamentalists are against vaccinations... (Muslim or Christian.)

The Apple Tax isn't as high as people think it is. Yes, you can build your own for cheaper, usually. But their prices are comparable or cheaper than other big-name brands for similar hardware. (I'll let you Google the links to prove it: There are always a slew of people checking everytime Apple releases a new machine.)

What Apple does avoid doing is selling the 'just enough' hardware: The low end, barely able to run current software. They design their machines so that the base config will work fine for the average user for several years, without upgrades. This means the super-cheap machines don't exist - you'd need to add RAM or a larger HDD in a year or two, or your graphics processor would barely be able to keep up, and Apple doesn't want people having that experience with their machines.

Now, the current discussion on whether PC's are 'good enough' is a separate point - I'd argue they are, and even several-year old Macs would be good enough. Apple did have an advantage in the statistics this article was looking at: Their latest OS release obsoleted any Mac with 32-bit anything. (Including BIOS.) Which means that part of their sales is probably people wanting to upgrade who couldn't. (Still, it supports any Mac made in the past 4 years.)

Not always. ;)

This type of thing being possible is one reason I've never trusted a car with OnStar. (To name the most visible.)

Tarsnap or something similar - locally encrypted before it's uploaded, and the key never leaves your system.

Of course, then you have to back up the key, but that's a much smaller problem.

Sure, but the chances it will happen both locally and in the cloud, at the same time, is very small. If one fails, you recreate from the other.

Just to add to the choices others are giving, you could take a look at OwnCloud. If you are running a php-based website already you won't have to install any new server. (It does need an HTTP server, and has it's own interface.)

It exports things via WebDAV, and it has an Android client. (Or you can use other WebDAV Android clients.) So you can mount the server on you computer as a directory, and you can easily get stuff to your phone as well. The one thing is that you need to upload into it - not into whatever file system you have already. (Though you can mirror into it easily.)

Worth looking at, though it might be a bit more complexity and overhead than what you are looking for.

The claim is false: The NHTSA rates cars on a 5-point scale, and gave the Tesla S a 5-point rating, the highest they could get. This rating is based on several sub-ratings, where the Tesla also got 5-point ratings, in all categories.

Tesla is basically trying to claim for marketing purposes the fact that they got 5-point ratings in all of the subcategories (which isn't necessary for a 5-point overall rating, and in fact is extremely unusual, if not unique) means that they got 'better than a normal 5-point rating'. Which, ok, they did, but the rating only goes to five points. They can't create a new rating scale just for themselves.

I have no clue: The electric company doesn't even bother to read my meter. They just send me a bill for whatever they think I should owe.

(And no: I’m not joking...)

Those two statements, of course, are not mutually exclusive. ;)

The Supreme Court is more of a check than an active force - but it is a very powerful check. History has shown that if they act without caution, they can easily make things worse than they were before. (See, for instance, Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the causes of the Civil War...)

They are willing to step on toes if they need to - lots of cases, recent and historic show that. But they prefer to avoid doing so unless they need to, because it can cause problems. If the other two parts of the government are working on an issue, it's generally better to let them work it out - there will be more voices heard, and it's easier to adjust and make changes.

Basically, they are respecting that the other parts exist for a purpose, and attempt to let them fulfill that purpose. The Supreme Court's job is to step in when the other two parts fail - and it's not clear that they have failed here yet.

Also: Congress is working on this issue. The Supreme Court really doesn't like to step on the toes of the other two parts of the government if it doesn't have to. Looking at the activity on this issue, it's likely they won't have to.