That's not possible. Someone must be lying. I know this because California banned all those evil high powered rifles.

Murder still happens. We still ban murder.

In fact, virtually every kind of crime happens. We don't just go "oh well" and remove the laws because a bunch of people did it anyway.

Stop being so goddamn butthurt that you can't play with the lethal toys you want to. Please, by all means, move to a country with fewer gun restrictions, and enjoy actually having to use them to protect yourself from all the people who have 'em, too.

Rich idiots in privileged settings come up with this crap and force it down the throats of the rest of us,

Nothing like a bit of ad hominem in the morning. Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the 1:4 efficiency difference and is a conspiracy by rich people to cram "crap" down the throats of us "common", good, hard-workin' innocent folk.

The whole reason this has been legislated is that people refuse to buy compact fluorescent bulbs because they're stubborn and hate change. So they say "they give me headaches" and "they're not as bright" and so on. Even "they cost too much", after you've gone blue in the face showing them the VERY basic math that a 3rd grader could do, showing they pay themselves back within a year or two, AND practically give them away with rebates.

Is the processor running free microcode?

Also, did they really code their own SMC bios? I find that hard to believe.

Well, if they're Intel turbo-boost processors, running more threads (and activating more cores) drops the frequency of all the cores. Fewer cores in use = higher core frequency.

They've been upset for a long time, about doing secret, unapproved missions. It's a snowden LEAK that make their discontent ... public knowledge.

Meh. I disagree - I think most NSA employees love that they get to do something really james-bond-ish, get a blank-check budget, and have essentially unlimited power over everyone else. There is no doubt a strong voyeuristic angle to the whole thing. They're also, by and large, getting paid obscene amounts of money.

I've met a number of people who work government jobs with clearances and they all act so goddamn smug about it, I've wanted to punch them in the mouth.

I think they were all quite happy nobody knew the power they had; they were "getting away with it." Now that we do, they're demoralized because they don't get to lord over us with the mystique. Plus, robbing the cookie jar isn't fun when everyone sees you do it.

Fuck 'em. I hope the place becomes a miserable place to work and the whole thing falls apart at the seams.

Porches are notorious for "biting your head off" when you make a mistakes

You're referring to the 911, which is rear-engined. The 911 turbo was particularly infamous because it had a poor turbo boost delay. You'd put your foot down, there'd be a delay, and then suddenly you'd have gobs of uncontrollable power.

944's, 914's, Caymans, Boxsters, etc are/were not "notorious" by any stretch.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking

Yes, I'm fifteen. Admittedly, a rather-well-sexually-educated fifteen...

Range

I hear this trotted out constantly and it's nonsense. People say the same crap about the Tesla S, and it's got hundreds of miles of range. 80% of the US population lives in an urban or suburban area. A huge percentage of car trips are 2-3 miles!

Really, Nissan should have aggressively pushed them to Zipcar and the like. Perfect setup; Zipcar can afford the charging infrastructure, most of their customers drive well within the range of a Leaf.

How many times does this need to be said?

When you give advertising or subscription money to CSM, that's money going to CS.

These days the CSM is just another way they establish themselves as legit; it's branding, pure and simple.

The Christian Science Monitor has been around for a long time and has a strong record of integrity and high quality reporting.

Mary Baker Eddy established the CSM because she wanted a news source that wasn't "anti" Christian Science. The major papers of the day ridiculed her, called her a dangerous quack, etc. She was all of those things - and couldn't logic or reason her way out of a paper bag.

You know how people select news sources that fit their world view? Yeah, she went out and *started* a news source that fit hers.

While owned by the CS

And therein lies the problem. You're supporting a cult that believes medicine is the work of the devil, and that if you get sick, it's because you deserved it / didn't pray enough. They're a cult that has latched onto the word "science" to give themselves credibility.

You're supporting a religion whose belief system actively kills people, including children, by teaching that prayer is effective at curing things like a burst appendix.

They are a CULT. STOP SUPPORTING THEM.

Are you intentionally using every stupid cliche in the book?

You forgot "bikes don't pay for roads."

"Makes me want to start cycling again."

Translation: the author, like most tech bloggers, doesn't actually use a bicycle, but considers themselves qualified to speak about bicycle products.

As a many-years bicyclist, for transportation, recreation, exercise, etc...I offer the following advice:

Any time you see some new device being marketed, consider that the bicycle in its first forms dates to the early 1800's, nearly a century before cars were commonplace. In that time, cyclists have figured out the solutions to most problems, and those solutions have been refined as material sciences, engineering, and whatnot have evolved. So, for example, my front light uses a sophisticated mirror and LED to light 50 feet of bike path in front of me, while my back light uses LEDs and light pipes to provide a 2-inch wide big glowing red bar...all powered off a smooth, unnoticeable generator in my front wheel's hub.

The solution to this "oh my pretty little cyclist head just doesn't know where it's going" problem is one of the following:

• I look at my phone as I start my journey, figure out the first 2 or so turns, and look again at said phone when I get to a light or a convenient place to stop. I typically note approximate distance between turns and street names. It's a skill pretty quickly learned.
• I can place an earphone in my ear. Both Apple and Google provide spoken directions.
• I can place a GPS cycling computer with route navigation on my handlebars. They're daylight-readable and backlit, the batteries last 8-9 hours while navigating, they make a nice loud "BEEP DA DA BEEP!" for an upcoming turn, show a big-ass arrow you can practically see in your peripheral vision, along with the street name/distance, too, usually.
• I can place a "cue sheet" on my handlebars in any of half a dozen different ways. Clips, clear plastic holders, you name it.

The device strikes me as rather ignorant of how most cyclists travel, anyway. Most everyone I know, including if not especially beginners, consult Google Maps and think carefully about their route because of safety concerns. By the time we're on our bike, we probably know where we're going and how to get there.

Damn near everything bike-related that has come out of Kickstarter either solves a problem that was already solved, and was solved better...or solved a problem that didn't exist. Both are usually due to ignorance on the part of the designers, or designers preying upon ignorance among the general public.

Sadly, an increasing number of these products are designed to prey upon people's fears about danger, or continue a culture of placing the onus on cyclists to protrect themselves from other people doing stupid, dangerous, or illegal things with large, fast-moving vehicles who then strike them.

Their expenses for branding and marketing were almost $30,000,000.

This. This is the problem right here. Why does an open-source project need to spend thirty million dollars promoting a "brand" most people are already fully aware of? Firefox already has a healthy enough market share; there's no NEED for it to have more.

And why does it cost $150M/year to work on a browser, email client, and some dev tools? They have 650 or so employees - assuming every single one was a developer, they're spending $230,000 on each one.

If it truly costs $150M/year to work on the "products" Mozilla produces, that's absurdly inefficient.

What were they going to do? Operate off of donations?

Aside from you ignoring the giant white elephant in the room, which is that Google is increasingly encompassing or influencing every aspect of the internet it possibly can, which is NOT HEALTHY...Why not operate off donations? They're not a for-profit corporation, they don't have investors or shareholders, etc.

There was ZERO need for growing Mozilla into the monster it is today with a finger in everything. What the fuck is Mozilla doing promoting a surfing competition? Why the fuck is Mozilla making an OS and trying to sell cell phones?(Did all the OpenMoko failures start squatting at Mozilla HQ or something?) Why does the Mozilla website design change every month?

While I'm ranting: nobody was clamoring for the moron-ization of Firefox's controls (some privacy-related, like the stripping-out of the ability to expire history+cache+cookie data older than a certain time period. Want to only keep the last 7 days of history? Too fuckin' bad! Gee, who has an interest in that? Advertisers like GOOGLE) or the butchering of Thunderbird at the hands of some 20-year old self-proclaimed UX expert.

About the only thing I see Mozilla doing well these days is pissing people off with every application update, something Google excels at, as well.

And by the way, get off my lawn.