I simply don't trust a company that farms out their userbase's private information for monetary gain,

But the point is they have not done that with either of those two companies (at least not any more than those companies were already doing).

Your mistake is in treating all subsets of a company equally based on what one part is doing. If you want to see change, reward what a company does that you like, do not instead curse them forever for the mistake of one part. Otherwise you will never see change because there is no motivation nor visibility to what people want more.

This is going against what almost everyone here predicted would happen with both services: That no one wanted Facebook in their lives...

I think that statement is accurate.

What did not happen was those apps becoming Facebook. If you didn't know Facebook owned them, you might not guess it otherwise... Facebook has only been used to steer users to those apps, not to change what they do.

The same will happen for Oculus.

Suppose I rent an apartment in New York, and I setup an antenna to pick-up New York broadcasts. Then I stream those broadcasts to my TV at home. Have I illegally retransmitted the signal and I need to pay a licensing fee?

The question is "Why does the citizenship of the person matter?"

ok. But it doesn't change anything.

Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?

Suppose the US was not at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?

Does a declaration of war somehow change the way we treat US citizens acting as terrorists in other nations? I'm not sure it changed the fundamental question.

I'm completely spit-balling here, but what if each component needing drivers brought their own?

Yes, just like each computer peripheral you bought used to come with a CD - that you had to toss and download an updated version of because your OS had changed since the CD was made... which would remain true of the OS vis-a-vis whatever driver shipped on the physical node.

So it would be no different, you'd be constantly managing drivers.

Like I said, I've not had a phone scratched in any way for the last few iPhone models - I keep it in an pocket with keys and sometimes other things, and never use a screen protector. I'm sure sapphire is even more durable, but Gorilla Glass is already quite impressive as far as scratch resistance.

You're right that screens cracking is a real issue, but possibly they have figured out how to treat the sapphire so it's even better in that regard. It may also feel better though that's totally speculation.

Not what the masses want.

It's REALLY not what the masses want when you consider drivers have to me made and maintained for each module... nothing like driver conflicts in your phone! I don't know that even many geeks want to go back to that model.

It's surprising that Apple didn't do this a long time ago.

It's not if you read the article and know more about the costs Sapphire have traditionally added.

It's embarassing how fragile Apple's mobile products are.

You mean, the ones that use the same Gorilla Glass everyone else is using?

Sapphire does sound nice, but you are selling Gorilla Glass way short. It can take a lot of pounding, and I haven't had keys (or anything else) be able to scratch the display in years. I recall a model of the iPhone a few years ago where a YouTube review showed things like shaking the phone in a bag of keys, and the screen was untouched.

I have no doubt whatever comes next will be better, but I wouldn't say mobile devices suffer from overly delicate screens anymore.

If you take off your "Electric Companies are TEH EVIL" hat for a second, it's pretty interesting that they have the same issue that states do with paying for roads in relation to electric cars. That is, someone generating electricity or using an electric car is making use of a resource where the cost of access is subsidized by something you are no longer consuming.

I think the electric companies have a pretty good point that they still have to pay to maintain lines to your house even though you are now consuming a fraction of what you would have.

I am confused on this issue. I'm not sure I even understand the question. Here is my thinking, so please comment:

Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Men with guns attacked a US military base in Country X. The US troops fire back, killing the forces of Country X. But aha! One of the enemy was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot shoot at that one person?

Suppose the US was at war with Country X. Country X had terrorists bombing buildings in Country X. The US send drones to shoot at the men who have been bombing buildings. But aha! One of the bombers was actually a US citizen! So does that mean the US troops cannot send drones to shoot at that one bomber?

I'm unclear why the citizenship of the person has anything to do with the military action used against them. I am also unclear why the method used to fire upon the person changes anything either. Would it make a difference if the person was a US citizen because they were born here but left 2 days after birth? What if they were a naturalized citizen who was a resident for more than 7 years?

Why is it okay to target non-US citizens with drones, but not US citizens? Why is it okay to shoot them, but not with drones?

I have always thought a small car-mounted drone could be incredibly useful. Even if it could not be used above say 10MPH, just something that could pop up a few hundred feet in the air to give you a quick overview would be awesome.

Especially for finding parking.

I wish my car had a drone for instant scouting of traffic-jam alternates.

You do, it's called the Waze user that is ten minutes ahead of you down the road, mixed with many road sensors reporting traffic flow rates.

If you are using navigation many mapping applications automatically route around traffic issues (including Waze). I personally just have it up while driving, not really using navigation but just to keep an eye on traffic rates and issues. I've turned off many a highway before to avoid a Waze reported issue and taken a pretty obvious alternate route you could see at a glance on the map.

For anyone that has not tried leaving modern mapping applications open with traffic status enabled, I highly recommend it - just get a decent car mount so it's easy to see the display. I recommend Waze in particular only because it's one of the best at taking in user reports as to police or road hazards (like chair in right lane! just one example of something I have reported in the past).

It's probably impossible to know until you are actually in the same situation.

It's possible to know because you know how it is from the side of people noticing things. I find artificial hands immediately obvious, as much so as a robotic hand would be.

I think either would fare just as well in terms of not attracting notice when covered by a glove. Why not, then you would just look a little odd in summer...

I have no love for Healthcare.gov, but honestly just about every site is sending out notices that people may want to change passwords. Heck, Yahoo *made* me change my password.

Like everyone else they don't know if anything was taken. And frankly, Heatbleed is probably the least of the security issues Healthcare.gov has... I'd be way more worried about backbend systems, and then it doesn't matter what your password is.