For someone seemingly intelligent enough to try and enumerate the tie options in code, they were brain dead fucking stupid enough to try to illustrate it with small pictures of a black tie on a black shirt.

Sheer genius.

Uh, no thanks.

I much prefer that wireles to be on a mini-PCIe card so I can upgrade it if necessary.

Damn near everything that comes with Wifi/BT ends up being single-band b/g/n and BT 2.0. For $35 I can get a dual-band, a/b/g/n/ac card w/BT 4.0.

Slapping it on the board greatly reduces options.

What part of, "I've personally rebooted while driving" did you miss? Everything continues to work just fine. Headlamps, doors, regenerative breaking. The air suspension doesn't start suddenly doing anything. I can accelerate and slow down, as well as steer just fine. And when the touchscreen comes back online, it still has the powerplant data you're talking about, the watt/mile graph...it shows data collected while the screen was rebooting, because that functionality doesn't reside there.

The touchscreen computer, and the front panel computer for that matter, is the interface to that functionality, it doesn't control the functionality. My phone can control the headlamps and doors for the Tesla, but if I shut my phone off, it doesn't impact anything. Same for the center touchscreen. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that an exploit in a browser means an exploit in the server you're connecting to with said browser. There *could* be an exploit to the actual important stuff in the car, but being able to execute code on the touchscreen doesn't imply that.

Our student at work has a plan that is like $30-40/month or something that is unlimited data (I don't remember how much high speed, they throttle at some point), 400 talk minutes and unlimited text. It's a prepaid deal.

I mean yes, there are expensive Android devices. You can have a nice, premium, phone or tablet if you wish. I loves me my Galaxy Note 3 but it certainly costs a lot, more than an iPhone even. However there are also cheap Android devices. You can get a smart phone for $100 or less (talking full price here, not subsidized). So Android phones are an option on most budgets.

Until recently, all you could get with Apple was the standard iPhone which is like $600-700 full price. Even the new "c" model is $550 full price. That puts them out of range of most people who want prepaid phone plans, which is often what people with lower incomes go for.

Well those people are also likely to spend less on apps. After all, if your finances are such that you wish to buy an economical phone, you probably don't want to ruin it with spending a ton of money on software.

So ya, that will push the average down on Android phones. Personally, I see that as a big positive to Android. There's something to be said for a thing that can be available to a wide segment of the population. Exclusivity to the affluent isn't something I consider to be positive.

Bullshit. Tesla has stated that the computer that controls the 17" and panel LCDs are completely separated from the important stuff in the car. They'd be stupid not to. Case in point, you can reboot both systems by holding left and right buttons on the steering wheel. You can do so while driving, I've personally done it. The music stops playing, and you need to put your gps destination in again after it finishes rebooting. If you reboot the panel screen, you lose your speedometer until it boots back up. Steering, acceleration, braking, cruise control, it all continues to work normally.

Yes, you can change driving settings from that interface, but it doesn't mean the functionality resides in that interface. It just passes the message through to much more robust computer handling actual car functions, and I'm sure said messages are sanitized to the extreme on the receiving end.

I know a lot of people, my sister included, who have a big issue with taking drugs prescribed by a doctor, but no issue with taking drugs purchased from a dealer. The logic can be pretty strange. For example I was talking with her about looking in to trying an anti-anxiety medication. My family all has issues with that, but she is far worse than the rest of us. My parents and I take low doses of SSRIs for it and it seems to help a lot. Thus it would probably be worth a try for her, since we have a great deal of genetic commonalities so the chances it works on her are high. Her response? "I don't want to do that, I only want to take the drugs I choose." I pointed out to her that it was completely my choice to take an SSRI, I could stop any time I wished, they aren't addictive, there is no court or medical order that requires me to take it, I continue to take it because I find it useful. Same reason we all take allergy medicine in the spring: It is useful in dealing with that, not because there is a requirement of some kind. She didn't like that though, to her it is different, though she could not articulate how or why.

I'm not sure why it is such an issue, perhaps because of the stigma associated with mental health issues, but I've seen it in numerous occasions. People who have no issue with recreational drugs that alter your brain chemistry but think that prescription drugs that do the same are evil or bad or something. It is, as you point out, a very silly position. I can respect, though not agree with, the position of taking no drugs that alter brain chemistry for whatever reason. However it is silly to be ok with THC and LSD and the like, but not with an SSRI.

Now please don't anyone mistake me for saying "Everyone should take SSRIs." No, not at all. However if a professional suggests they, or another drug, may be useful to treating a condition you have, you shouldn't say "No I won't take drugs," but then go out and smoke a joint. That is just silly. That would be like then refusing to use marijuana if a doctor prescribed it.

Where I live, you can get cable Internet that is 150/20mbps. It has the backhaul to support it too, you really get those kind of speeds. I've a friend on the other side of the US with FIOS who has even faster, 150/65mbps again with the backhaul to support the speed.

This is in the US too. There are other countries that claim better.

I mean sure, they have fast FTTH. Fair enough, but that doesn't do you much good if the backhaul to the rest of the Internet isn't sufficient to support the speeds.

This is something that always gets left out of the "OMG t3h fast internetz!!!" articles on Slashdot. A lot of the "really fast" Internet in the world is basically a big WAN where you have a fast line, and thus fast speeds to your neighbors and ISP, but then lack the backhaul to get those kind of speeds to the wider Internet, since that's the really expensive part.

Not saying that's the case here or not, but it is the kind of info that needs to be included to be useful. Along with, of course, the actual speed.

Yeah, that's not true. You should look up ICD 9 codes and its replacement ICD 10. Many (most?) insurance plans require your provider to submit these codes when billing for treatments.

I was showing a situation where Apple products were used, but Apple wasn't paying for product placement, so the logos were covered. 30 Rock is then an example of where they did pay, and the logos are visible.

I'm all for new safety standards... if they are useful. I mean we've made great strides in reducing car fatalities. They've been dropping in absolute and per captia numbers since the late 60s, and in deaths per million vehicle miles traveled since 1921, when we started keeping statistics. That's a really good thing, that while driving more than ever less people die. The major reason is better safety standards, things like mandatory seatbelts, cars that deform and crumple to absorb the energy of an impact and lessen the acceleration shock to the occupants and so on.

However, costs and benefits have to be kept in proportion. How many deaths will something likely prevent, vs what will it cost? This is not many deaths, particularly compared to the number that occur, and I have to imagine the cost will be a fair bit. Particularly in lower end cars. Not only do you need a camera, but you need a display system for it, which probably means a digital instrument cluster. That's a fair bit more up front, and more expensive to maintain.

Look at Better Off Ted. There they use Macs, presumably for aesthetic reasons, but Apple didn't give them any money or products. So there's no logos. Where the Apple logo is, instead a big sticker of a different, generic, logo has been placed.

Maybe you didn't realize Apple did it, but they did it. Look further down this thread for one example. Hollywood is greedy and they know they can get money for product placement. So they charge for it. If nobody pays, they remove logos or make generic coverings. Sometimes it is even as simply as just putting tape over the logo (you'll see that on Mythbusters). They aren't going to hand out freebies. It isn't always money directly, sometimes it is discounts (or free) products, but Hollywood gets something for that logo being shown. For consumer electronics, often it is free devices for directors, producers and so on.

Maybe your boss told you that to help reinforce the Apple RDF that everyone love Apple for all things or whatever, but it is blatantly untrue and it doesn't take much research to discover that.

Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible? that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs, that's because Apple paid them. If you see a product logo, money changed hands. Otherwise it'll be something generic, or the logo will be removed, or what not. They don't give freebies on that sort of things because they can, and do, make a lot of money on it.

Apple isn't the only company that does product placement, but they are by far the most common computer company that does it. Most others rarely, if ever, do it. The only recent example I can think of for another one is Dell in V for Vendetta.

So why does Apple do this? Because they want to create the image in people's minds that apple are what all the cool, good looking, people (who actors in shows invariably are) use. It is an image thing with the brand. They want people to see it all the time, used by the hero characters. That leads people to form the opinion that they might want to own one.

They wouldn't spend the money doing it if they didn't believe it was effective.