Even in California where we're paying $0.15 - $0.20 per kWh of electricity, electric vehicles save so much gas that they almost pay for themselves.

Only because you're getting ass-raped on gasoline as well. When I topped off the gas tank here in Vegas before driving down to LA last weekend to visit my nieces, I paid $3.04. I pulled over in Baker for a snack. The gas station next to the jerky place wanted somewhere around $4.50! Granted, Baker's never been the cheapest, but gas in Barstow was still around $3.70. I think it was $4.something around LA, and by the time I was running on fumes Sunday morning (driving down to San Diego to make everything worse), I ended up paying right at $4 per gallon ($3.999, if you want to be pedantic) for a full tank in Carlsbad.

Gasoline is sent to Las Vegas from California by pipeline, so how is it we're paying considerably less for the same fuel after it's been pumped through ~300 miles of pipe?

You are generally safe with Nexus devices, since you have the best chance of upgrading to the latest OS.

A device with an unlocked bootloader is also more likely to be more future-proof. I have a newer version of KitKat running on my Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 (4.4.4) than on my considerably newer Moto X (4.4). The tablet's running Cyanogenmod...have no idea if Samsung ever got around to spinning a KitKat build for it, and don't particularly care at this point as the only thing that doesn't work under Cyanogenmod is the IR blaster. My phone, OTOH? Motorola has pushed newer versions (maybe even Lollipop now), but the bootloader is locked and you can't even root newer firmware versions (rooting 4.4.4 requires an unlocked bootloader first).

That new phone that Asus introduced earlier this week sounds interesting, and there's already an unlock for it. The only downside is the ginormous, almost tablet-sized screen. The Moto X is barely larger than the iPhone 4 it replaced, but it seems hardly anybody wants to build a full-powered phone that'll still fit in your pocket anymore.

It is a clever trick to equivocate "insurance" and "access". It is possible to self-insure - a completely rational, actuarially-sound, choice for many young people.

QFT. There were a couple of time intervals in my 20s when I went without insurance, but that didn't stop me from hitting up the quick-care clinic and the pharmacy on the couple of occasions that a cold (or flu or whatever it was) wouldn't go away in a reasonable amount of time with OTC treatment.

Too bad 404care makes that illegal now. Perhaps some "Irish democracy" is warranted as a response.

Since when does Android run on iOS devices? It doesn't?

At risk of being pedantic, there was a project years ago that got Android kinda-sorta working on the iPhone 3G. It was sluggish and drained your battery at an alarming rate because it didn't have any hardware-acceleration or power-management support, and it didn't let you make calls IIRC, but it was Android on an iPhone. It even set itself up in a dual-boot environment, so you could switch between Android and iOS. AFAIK, it was never developed into something that was actually usable. It also never ran on anything newer than the iPhone 3G.

If you think only the US government taps individuals and companies, then you are incredibly naive.

A few minor tweaks holds true as well.

That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.

What kind of "libertarian" are you if you'd even entertain the notion of voting for either of those socialist jackwagons? You might as well turn in your guns, your money, and your freedom now, before they take them from you.

And they make the vast majority of the income and should pay the majority source of the income tax.

They already do:

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

How much more would you like them to pay?

Fair enough. But still, if someone installed a vulnerable version of openSSL I suppose they might start using it for other things than openSSH in their Cygwin environment, where HB might still rear it's head. An iffy, minor point, I concede.
In any case, I never really had an issue with puTTY if I had to SSH on Windows, but then that's not very often. It's not my preference. I usually use my linux box for SSH, it's just more comfortable. All of us in our workgroup have 1 win box and 1 linux box, and it baffles me to see that some of my coworkers seem to prefer puTTY. But then, some people have no problem working in a window the size of a postage stamp when they could easily drag the window larger too, so.. I dunno.

Not really so idiotic: up until only a year ago, OpenSSH required OpenSSL for the crypto.

Even more than just seems like.. if actually true that these systems are not physically separated, that's careless design. It's naive and well, arrogant, no matter how good the firewall supposedly is, especially in this post 9-11 era. It'd be just another example of how broken and meaningless security theater is.

I agree with your first 3 sentences, Ghoshroy seems a little too happy to disparage the project. Development of something this advanced takes time and needs public support. I don't get your last sentence at all. I'd rather us not have to smoke anyone, and vice versa.

It's certainly likely some are, but I don't automatically equate the two or think of it as a huge problem. Though this article did qualify with use of the word "some", the tone seems to indicate that the author feels people mostly only get ahead by stepping on others, instead of maybe hard work, investment, and dedication. Sounds like sour grapes. You could run an experiment where complete wealth redistribution was conducted, and everyone in the country (or world) had the exact same amount of money, assets, and access to education. Within less than 10 years, that faux state of "equality" would disintegrate again as a great number of people would squander their assets and opportunities while others invested and worked hard. Anything else is a fairy tale.

Hey, it wasn't that long ago!

You're lucky you got modded to 5. I brought this very thing up last time the subject was broached here (not long ago) and got jumped on like as if I'd said all women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

This guy forgot to add other very real world possibilities: inclination, desire, motivation, ambition, aptitude .. etc. Those who under-perform do not always do so merely because they are victims of circumstance or others, and sometimes that's why they're judged. He thinks of successful people as bullies? lol