"is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses."

And machines couldn't do the same things?

I guarantee you once we have machines that can write code, we'll put them to work on how to break other people's machines. The NSA will see to that.

I think this lawsuit is more about the Kindle Fire, which is sold as a kid acceptable tablet, not the Fire Phone, which has barely even launched.

End goal: change the constitution. We need a start. It's easy to see how hard this will be and to give up early, but some of us feel the imperative to fight for it. We can change things. The vast will of the masses (corporation political donations are not equivalent to the free speech we enjoy as individuals) needs to be strategically gathered. Critical mass could take decades, as with things like gay marriage.

The "Apple ships and underpowered processed" gets an ehhh from me.

It's clocked low, but it's a 64 but processor with many branching features from desktops.

It may be slower clocked but it punches well above it's weight class. Which is usually missed because most PC kiddies only look at clock instead of benchmarks, and think 64 bit is only something that let's you use a lot of RAM, and don't really understand things like processor features.

"Watts Up With That? has a more skeptical take on the calculations."

And if you look at the site it's pretty much a site full of straw men and attacks on climate change friendly politicians and scientists, with little actual scientific facts (besides the grandiose endorsement of it's own content.)

Why is this link even here? Did someone just randomly Google it and stick it on there because, hey, it's on the internet? Or did someone want the site to get more page views?

C'mon editors. This is news for nerds. Not news my uncle sent me in his email about how Obama is part of the illuminati.

I wear a Nike Fuelband. It's not really a "smart watch", but it's a nice reminder I need to get up and walk. I can hit a button and get a semi accurate reminder of how active I've been for the day. It pings my phone when it needs my attention, and in since it's not my phone I can wear it to the gym and let it's accelerometers rate my activity. I know, I could ask myself if I've exercised enough for the day, but when I'm deep in a programming puzzle, I need the nudge.

Why do I bring up the Fuelband?

It would be great to have a Fuelband that can do calendar reminders, and maybe some sort of digital wallet thing. Maaaaybe read only interface to my text messages. My needs aren't extreme. I think that's why most wearables have fallen flat. A lot of the Android wear smart watches have features like cameras, microphones, voice control, blah blah blah... So much crap I don't need, that I'm paying for, and that will run the battery down. I want an accessory for my phone. Not a watch computer onto itself. I don't need a duplicate of every feature I have on my phone. Just tell me what room my next meeting is in so I don't have to take my phone out of my pocket.

Wearables are in an unnecessary arms race right now. What wearables need is a simple set of features done well, and done in a compelling way. That has Apple written all over it, but we'll see what Microsoft brings to the table as well.

"In the demo above, the phone displayed a partial boot screen before freezing."

"Google Demos Modular Phone That (Almost) Actually Works"

Maybe it's just me, but if a phone can't even get to the dialer to make a phone call, that's a little further from "actually working" than "almost."

I mean that seriously. My problem isn't with the phone itself. My problem is with the overly generous summary.

Call me a troll, but if any company other than Google unveiled this phone, and it didn't even boot during the demo, I don't think the reaction would be as positive.

Factually incorrect:
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedst...

And:
"The appeal stays the ruling. This leaves the enforceability of the commercial-drone ban -- at least for the moment -- up in the air."

Except trucks don't frequently crash as they're flying over my house, or power lines.

Sure, trucks do crash into houses sometimes, or do crash into power lines sometimes, but that's an entirely different situation than expecting them to fly over your hard.

The FAA could build up some form of regulated routes and co-ordination between drones, but they have not as of yet, and have not gotten any direction to do so. So until then, banning these uses of drones seems reasonable.

Spammers or hackers could get your IP turned off. But I'd do it anyway to be helpful.

Thanks. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

As a founder of the EFF, I do stand up for the small consumers vs. the wealthy and powerful. There is no perfect solution.

I know several people who this has happened to. Armed hold ups, people grabbing it and running, and people grabbing it when the owners back is turned.

So yes, in some cities this is a very real problem.

When you make the rules, you are right when you're wrong.

Peering isn't the same thing as enforcing QOS on the last mile of the connection. ISP's should be free to peer. They shouldn't be free to force QOS on end users. Having Netflix as a peer is entirely different than having my cable modem hard enforce download speeds of X everywhere, except Netflix which gets a download speed of Y. That's an artificial limitation.