Compare your post with this one which gives a success rate of 84%:

I'm confused.

But 3 failures out of 19 launches doesn't sound bad at all (?) I'm trying to reconcile your post with this post which claims half of the launches are failures.

I don't expect perfection at all. Just curious why there was such a huge contrast between the two posts, and what errors or misjudgments along the way (by either you or him) might explain it.

It'll be interesting to see what percentage of SpaceX's launches fail.

I'm trying to reconcile your post bout bing the 'best' with this post which claims half their rockets go up in smoke.

Penny-wise, pound foolish.

Instead of removing windows, it'd be better to make the windows bigger to bring about a sense of awe to passengers. Or is it better to take out any wonder or joy in life and replace it with mere functionality?

They'd be far better investing in and researching electric planes like what Elon Musk has spoken about.

The world turning into Idiocracy, one step at a time.

In the UK at least, Samsung still seems to be the highest rated, along with Crucial who both get 4.8/5 from numerous reviews.

More eye candy? How about making it look less flat - you know, how like Aero used to look? You could distinguish windows and panels and widgets more easily, and didn't have to squint to be productive.

Or.... you could be Edgy!! Yeah let's go with edgy...

Do you have a reference for the coal rollers thinking this or are you going by your own experience? Be interested to hear more.

Speedtest.net used to be good at one stage. But when I tried them relatively recently, I found that they measure the speed once it gets going, and ignore the regular dropouts that may occur. Speedtest.net claimed about 1gigabit, but in reality it was a tenth or even a fiftieth of that.

I had more luck with the following:

http://speedof.me/ - HTML5 Internet speed test (no Flash or Java needed). It claims to be the "smartest and most accurate online bandwidth test".
http://testmy.net - Nice graph and intelligent picking of the size of the test file to download.

Because it's just so hard to cover that LED with a small piece of tape?

You're on the right track. This is the second or third time I've said this in the thread, and I've said it numerous times elsewhere, but it's worth emphasizing again.

Flying a car using AI to drive would be great, but how much more enjoyable would it to drive by yourself? A solution to the safety problem is to have a repelling motion inversely squared proportional (or cubed maybe?) to the distance between your car and another object (whether it be a building, or another flying car.), and also inversely squared proportional to the relative speed of the objects (so if you're going slow, you can be quite close to another flying car, and if you're going fast, then the repelling motion would be much greater, and if you're both going fast in the same direction, you can be quite close again, because the relative speed is almost zero).

This would allow for safe, and immensely fun, freestyle flying - we'd just need decent maneuverability from the flying car.

Just wait until Tesla / Elon Musk tries to create a flying car. He's the only person I'd trust to get the qualities the average person would expect in a flying car (pure electric, low noise/sound and excellent maneuverability control, as well as VTOL).

You would become that jerk if your lights failed mid-way through a drive, or you didn't check them every single journey.

Two flying cars needn't get close though. The higher the speed, the less a car will be able to get close to another flying car or object. The repelling force will be proportional to the distance from that other object, and also both of their speeds (so you could go at 5mph at be very close to another flying car, and that would be okay).