Why define a service company based on what hardware it uses. They're all communications companies and should be subjected to some grand unified theory of communications regulation (which would include net neutrality, I hope).

Yes, I am aware of the existence of the FCC...

"That's partly why I no longer support Windows for friends"

Be prepared you will never find girls again. No wonder the IT population is getting extinct.

Thank you airman. I for one appreciate your grasp on reality and your sacrifice both past, present, and future. I'm most thankful that you know what you did and are aware of the differences between war time and peace time. I can not express my thanks to you and everyone like you as much as I would like to.

I always wanted to fly military aircraft, I was just never sure that when the time came, and others lives were on the line, that I'd be able to do the deed, even though I have no problem doing it in all sort of video games. Frankly, I don't have the balls to put myself in that situation, knowing that if I hesitate people could die, not just myself.

Thank you for doing what I could not, so I do not have to.

+1. GP isn't a troll; at worst, this entire article is trolling.

I am baffled by this paragraph from the Apple review:

But in other areas the MacBook merely mimics Windows' offerings: media software offers little functionality that isnt available elsewhere, and Apple's office applications can't compete with even Microsoft Works.

Are they complaining that the Mac can do some things that Windows can do too? Are they ignoring nice features of iTunes like the Store, Genius, sharing, podcast subscriptions, and online radio?

And how exactly does iWork fail to compete with Microsoft Works? Keynote is great presentation software. Pages is a solid word processor / page layout application. And Numbers can do common spreadsheet stuff. (Although its chart capabilities are pretty useless, at least in the '08 version I use.)

Of course, most of what he knows isn't true...

I think Hodgman has a point. We're steadily embracing geek culture. Interoperable (in an earlier post) also makes a point that we should only take his word so far. Unless we somehow figure out a way to turn geekdom into an ecclesiastical theocracy and imprint our memes upon all of society to forever quash jocks and preppies, there will always be jocks, and there will always be preppies, and there will always be idiots, which is why I'm bringing up Hanlon's Razor here, and General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord's addendum to Hanlon's Razor.

Currently "jocks" are in charge (aka the smart and industrious). Let's face it, jocks are smart in their chosen fields. However, geeks are the smart and lazy segment, and we are running the world now. Jocks will always be smart and they will always do things the hard way and expend the most effort. Geeks on the other hand, will always be smart, but we're always looking for the most efficient way to do things. That's why we're currently becoming dominant IMHO in the American social structure, and probably why we will continue to be dominant for a while to come

Now, does anyone have a better view or a better argument? I need to learn something today and (sadly) lately the only place where I've been able to learn new things or realize that my assumptions are wrong is /.

The assumption your post relies upon only holds true if you are driving a vehicle with a standard (read manual) transmission.

Good animations for pitch, roll, and yaw here: wiki/Aircraft_principal_axes

That's only "bad" if you turn out to be predisposed, in which case your higher risk will no longer be subsidized and you'll have to pay fair premiums in proportion to your risk.

Thereby making the cost of insurance prohibitive to those with genetic predisposition to serious, expensive-to-treat maladies. This works out exactly the same as denying those people insurance coverage, unless they are very wealthy.
This defeats the general purpose of medical insurance (which IS for the healthy to subsidize the sick).

From a libertarian standpoint (yours, I'm assuming, from prior discussions), why not just get rid of health insurance altogether? That's the only way to ensure that everyone pays their "fair" costs into the system. That seems to be what you're getting at, so why mince words?

Don't even get me started on our lack of metric....

Now wait a centon, wouldn't the conversion to metric time resolve all those problems with 12 versus 24 hour time?

I agree that this is just a publicity stunt or an attempt by Toyota to prove that they "think outside of the box". However, the idea of putting the throttle and breaking controls where they will be controlled by the hands is a good idea (although it may prove impractical). There have been numerous studies that indicate that reaction times are significantly better with the hands than with the feet.

"And guess what. You're not as good looking as you think. More than likely you look like some one in need of attention. When I look at resumes I toss instantly the ones with photo's. Why? Most likely the person has some social issues."

It is very agreeable to me to know that there are people out there that can judge the character of a human being by guessing the reasons a person had to put a photograph on a CV.

It makes you marvel at human ingenuity.

The possibility that people put a photograph of themselves for a myriad of reasons is valiantly eluded by somebody that has cracked this sociological nut, by bining CVs of otherwise worthy candidates for only this reason.

it makes me happy to be sharing the world with such enlightened folk.

And this carbon-copy scare story from the media doesn't really reflect living with the NHS every day, which I do, and have done for the whole of my life.

For every crappy "go off and die" NHS story you can cite, I'll give you an American who simply cannot afford to even go to the hospital in the first place, or who could once (even with insurance!) but is now bankrupt because they got sick.

Or an American who is tied to their job because they simply cannot afford to risk losing their coverage, which is provided through their employer and would not be able to afford a self-funded plan.

The NHS needs more funding, you won;t hear me arguing about that (20 years of neglect under a Tory government will set some serious rot in that the current Labour government has been unable to shift) but I will take the NHS over the American system any day of the week.

"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."

Funny. Spoken like someone who's never been paged at home before... And about the healthcare debate too! :)