It is only the fact that have been too busy to rip the radio out of my car. I have a screen/computer to put into it that will then play lectures, audio books, podcasts, etc. Also I have it ready to replace my dashcam with a series of cameras that not only can record but also upload via a dataplan if needed.

At no point in my buying did I even look for an FM or even AM option to add on. And certainly I never looked for a satellite radio technology (those things just piss me off in rentals).

To me even satellite radio is so 20th century. DAB is also just a bandaid to try to keep the radio station media companies relevant.

But the reality is that this isn't a technology issue. For the last portion of the 20th century a variety of media conglomerates bought up all the radio stations and turned them into MBA masturbatory dreams. All profit with no content. About the last time I listened to radio was just before a DJ that I know told me that his new format was to go into work, record all his blurps between songs in one long scripted 1.5 hour session including interviews, and then go home. The songs and his blurps were all run automatically by the computer.

The few things that come off NPR, BBC, or the CBC that I care about "Art of persuasion, quirks, this american life, etc" I download. But even the CBC is just on a march further and further to the PC left and I can't stomach having one great feature cut short so they can give massive amounts of time to someone with some extreme view on some stupid social issue and listen to them grind their axe endlessly.

So the best of radio on today is worse than silence. But my own playlist is awesome and the technology is sitting in a drawer so that I don't have to use my stupid FM transmitter to get crap off my iPhone.

So like my car not coming with an ashtray, I want my next car to not come with a radio, DAB or not.

Not really.

I'd say there's a good argument that all of the information I give Google actually exceeds what a personal assistant would know about me. The real difference (thus far) lies in the assistant's ability to understand human context which Google's systems lack. But that's merely a problem to be solved.

Note, BTW, that I'm not saying everyone should want what I want, or be comfortable giving any search engine enough information to be such an ideal assistant. That's a personal decision. I'm comfortable with it... but I'm not yet getting the search results I want.

I think systems built by man that knows a sufficient amount about me, my interests and my needs can. We're not there yet, certainly, but the question was what I want... and that's it.

Put it this way: Suppose you had a really bright personal assistant who knew pretty much everything about you and could see what you are doing at any given time, and suppose this assistant also had the ability to instantly find any data on the web. I want a search engine that can give me the answers that assistant could.

Why would I want crappy results? I want it to give me what I want, which by definition isn't "crappy".

I want a search engine that searches for what I want, not what I type, and not even what I think I want.

First I want a toggle that I can never ever ever ever ever see that domain in my search results. So ask.com answers.com experts-exchange.com huffpo and especially Quora you fucking turd pile of shot Quora; I never want to see Quora again in my life.

When I want a little pizza joint or some place that hasn't hired an "SEO" guy all I get are page after page of directories derived from some government database or some crap like that. Their actual page is bottom ranked. I don't want review sites. I don't want anything that was assembled by a machine.

So a simple rule of thumb is de-list any page that offers to "upgrade" someone's listing. Full stop. Also I want a toggle that will remove listings that have any version of "upgrade to our pro service" Literally they could cure cancer but offer to cure it 1 minute faster for 99 cents and I don't want to see that page.

To me right now nearly the entire search results are like going to a dating site and only finding hookers. Some people would argue that they "need" to make money but they don't. There are lots of pages that exist for a specific reason and many of those pages are commercial, as in they offer a specific service such as a pizza places where the page is about their pizza place. Short of the recipes the page is 100% free. But I don't want some shit "Just Eat" website. Maybe they can link to the other page but I really don't want to see it ever again. For instance I loved allrecipes.com. But now it is just upgrade upgrade upgrade upgrade. Some will argue that they should be allowed to make money but quite simply the site existed before some MBA took over and "monetized" the site that's fine, I no longer want it to turn up in my search results. Don't ban it from the entire search engine, just ban it from the search engine when you tick the "No upgrade sites" option.

The other thing that I would kill for is a negative feature option. So any site that uses discus would vanish from my search results. Those scumbags need to burn in hell and I would love any search engine that sent them there.

To me there is a huge opportunity for some new search engine to do to Google what they did to all the others 17 years ago; completely make them irrelevant by brutally ignoring the wishes of the larger websites and completely focusing on the needs of the average user.

They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.

Sure, but that requires only very coarse -- city-level, at most -- geolocation. If I were reviewing this product for launch, I'd tell them that they can use location as a risk signal, but must coarsen it to avoid making it possible to use it for people-tracking.

Not really ISPs, at least as we traditionally think of them. Mobile network operators.

The MNO in question isn't the middleman, it's the service provider. It provides service to the balloons, which relay it to regions that are too remote to service now.

No, most of these regions aren't served because it's uneconomical. It's not that no one is willing to invest, it's that it's not an "investment" if you know up front that the ROI will be negative. Putting up a bunch of cell towers to serve remote African farmers, for example, doesn't pan out economically because there's no way the farmers can afford to pay high enough fees to cover the costs of all the infrastructure. Project Loon aims to fix this by radically lowering the cost of serving those regions, to a point where it is economical, so the fees the people in the region can afford to pay are sufficient to make serving them profitable.

As for why Google is partnering with MNOs rather than deploying their own connectivity? I don't know but I'd guess a couple of reasons. First, I expect it will be feasible to scale faster by partnering with entities who already have a lot of the infrastructure in place, particularly when you consider all of the legal and regulatory hurdles (which in many areas means knowing who to bribe, and how -- Google, like most American companies, would not be very good at that). Second, by working through local companies Google will avoid getting into power struggles with the local governments. Google is helping their local businesses to grow, not replacing them.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't know anything more about this than what I see/read in the public press.)

They can carry about 110kg to LEO, compared to the Falcon 9's 13150kg. That's 0.84% of the payload capacity. A launch is estimated to cost $4 900 000, compared to the Falcon 9's $61 200 000. That's 8.01%. That means cost per mass to orbit is nearly an order of magnitude worse.

Yes, this is a really small rocket. If you are a government or some other entity that needs to put something small in orbit right away, the USD$5 Million price might not deter you, even though you could potentially launch a lot of small satellites on a Falcon 9 for less.

And it's a missile affordable by most small countries, if your payload can handle the re-entry on its own. Uh-oh. :-)

Seeing that they can use secret courts I would suspect that they will order Twitter employees to just hand the data or access over anyway. Then when they balk it can be handled in a secret court where nobody knows the results. Even better I could see a situation where they identify an employee or two and order them to hand the data over and not even allow them to tell twitter about the court order (if they can't tell some people then why can't these orders be restricted to their boss as well?)

Lastly they could just get an overqualified NSA employee to get a job there and just inject the needed back doors. Don't think of this as a lone hacker attack but a single guy who has a massive support team thus someone who could do off the scale things like swap out someone's desktop/laptop (spaghetti stains and all) with a compromised machine. Let the "cleaners" in so that they can wire their own fibreoptic cables right into the server room, swap out pretty much anything cisco with compromised machines with matching serial numbers, etc.

Also by moving the servers offshore it actually frees up the NSA to attack with even fewer legal restrictions. So full on sabotage may even be a perfectly valid procedure.

So short of eliminating all American employees and doing exhaustive background checks the only way to stop this stuff from being done to them is to convince legislators to curtail what the NSA can actually do.

Why wouldn't a randomized subsample from 10M people get funded? The required sample size doesn't grow as the population does.

I may be responding to a troll here, but, no, the GP is correct. P-values are about probability. They're often used in the context of evaluating a correlation, but they needn't be. Specifically, p-values specify the probability that the observed statistical result (which may be a correlation) could be a result of random selection of a particularly bad sample. Good sampling techniques can't eliminate the possibility that your random sample just happens to be non-representative, and the p value measures the probability that this has happened. A p value of 0.05 means that there's a 5% chance that your results are bogus in this particular way.

The problem with p values is that they only describe one way that the experiment could have gone wrong, but people interpret them to mean overall confidence -- or, even worse -- significance of the result, when they really only describe confidence that the sample wasn't biased due to bad luck in random sampling. It could have been biased because the sampling methodology wasn't good. I could have been meaningless because it finds an effect which is real, but negligibly small. It be meaningless because the experiment was just badly constructed and didn't measure what it thought it was measuring. There could be lots and lots of other problems.

There's nothing inherently wrong with p values, but people tend to believe they mean far more than they do.

I recently discovered that my old arcnet card has a vulnerability that allows me to hack the planet Mars. I plan on crashing it into the planet Vulcan. (Damn those pointy eared freaks).

I also plan on hacking the Atlantic Ocean and renaming it to the Great Eastern Ocean. This hack is so powerful that even paper maps will spontaneously change to reflect the update.

You may not have come across it in a while, because you don't have a clue what the sunk cost fallacy is.

The sunk cost fallacy is "throwing good money after bad" which is in no way what I described. I was describing "cost to benefit" or "return on investment."