Your test is a little invalid. you're using it to determine whether it should be considered a phone or a tablet here, but in order to use it as a PHONE, you don't need to be able to reach the whole screen with your thumb while holding the device in one hand. You only need to be able to reach the dialer buttons which only occupy the lower half of the screen at full size, and only one corner of the lower half of the screen when you enable the one-handed operation mode for people with smaller hands.

Diesel hybrids aren't really practical due to the way they work. Diesel engines just aren't suited to being started and stopped constantly like that, and because of the high compression ratios needed for diesel to work, it wastes quite a lot more energy every time the hybrid system has to restart the engine (then there's the heat and lack of heat problem-- my Prius often has to waste a bit of fuel just to keep the combustion system warm enough to control emissions as it is). I think that's one of the big reasons Toyota decided to use their modified pseudo-Atkinson cycle engine instead for their hybrid systems-- they spent a ton of time and money researching and developing it, and it's the most popular system today because it's so well designed. The variable compression ratio makes them a lot more efficient than diesel would be in the long run too, although the efficiency is relatively close in most cases. But I suspect that the main reason is that of emissions. You can keep the emissions much lower with gas than with diesel if that's what you tune it for.

You're right about the (ancient) notions of diesel in the U.S. though. I've seen a lot of modern Mercedes diesels here in the U.S., and unless you know what the Blu-tech badge means, I think most Americans wouldn't have any idea they weren't running on ordinary gasoline. The technology has come a long way since the old days, although since American trucks are about the only diesels most people here see, they probably believe the smoke-belching, noisy behemoths are the only way diesel can run even today.

It's less of an issue, but it's still an issue because that's the way physics works. There are many benefits to diesel engines-- and consumers here in the U.S. should be more aware of them-- but for whatever reason, we're not. I've always wondered why that is. Any idea?

I'm confused about getting stranded looking for a charger on a back country road with a gas/electric hybrid. I've never once needed a charger for mine and don't know of anyone else who has either.

In terms of work done per fuel consumed, gas engines are much more efficient under heavy load than under light load, so the increased efficiency here is partially an illusion. That's why cars like the Prius always try to run the ICE at a higher load at a lower RPM, which the e-CVT works brilliantly for.

Best Slashdot explanation comment I've read in years!

But what you can do with a locked phone, whether subsidized or not, is smash it, burn it, destroy it, sell it etc., all without breaking any laws. You just can't unlock it.

You're absolutely right that it would be different if they were white Christian or Jewish, I don't deny that. What I do deny though is that the attacks themselves are because they're brown. They're only less objectionable because they're brown. Welcome to racist America. :/

The U.S. so far has been using them in conflict with terrorists. Hackers/terrorists would be using them for crime or terrorism.

I know the arguments-- why is it different when the government does it? Why is it OK for the government to do it? Why is it OK that they're killing civilians? Women? Kids? And so on, ad infinitum.

The difference is that they're (currently) being used in a "war" against a non-nation state. There are civilian and innocent casualties in all conflicts, but the casualties so far have been less than in more conventional warfare. Never before have we been able to target specific individuals in a conflict except on the most limited scale (i.e. Saddam or Usama). I think it's important not to lose sight of that fact, just as it's important to continue to try to reduce civilian/innocent casualties either with or without drones, and to avoid conflict where possible in the first place. The government using them for legitimate (as far as governments attacking people is legitimate) purposes is apples to oranges compared to hackers potentially using them for whatever they would use them for.

I see where you're coming from, but it's not entirely valid. And it has nothing to do with skin color, race, religion, nationality etc., it has to do with the actions undertaken by the targeted individuals.

Because drones are just one of many human interfaces to cyber-weapons? What happens when one of those is hacked? Especially when the difference between one and a hundred is how many hosts you connect to. Far-fetched definitely, but a drone is almost by definition a hackable weapon system.

There are a lot of things in place around the world that generally work better than what we have, but bringing those things here by themselves would probably not make a significant difference. It would likely just shift around the pieces on the board for a while. Our problems seem to be more to do with our national culture than any particular system. Americans today are so tolerant of ignorance and corruption that we often fail to recognize them as such, or worse, even admire them and put them on a pedestal.

I facetiously feel the same way sometimes about some arguments I hear, often by strict constitutionalists. The document was created to adapt to changing needs, so I don't understand the almost religious zeal some people express that we should go back to it without updating anything as though the last 230 odd years never happened. I think we should follow the founders' example instead, and borrow all the best known ideas and adapt and adopt them to work for us. But this would require a cultural maturity that our country seems not to have.

To the best of my understanding, as expensive as the fertility treatment is, adoption is even more expensive. I think I remember reading that the average U.S.-based adoption costs around $40,000, and overseas adoptions run about $120,000. If someone can't afford a $20,000 fertility treatment, they're probably not going to be adopting anytime soon.

Of course a modern conservative or Ayn Rand-ian libertarian could make the argument that no one is "entitled" to have kids if they can't conceive naturally, but that's just being petty.

Because that approach has worked so well on the war on drugs....

But don't you have to actively defend your patent or you lose the right to? You can't just let some people get away with "stealing" it and not others. Or can you? :(

Surgeons don't wear scrubs outside of the O.R. As soon as they step out of surgery, the scrubs come off and they're back in their nice preppy clothes. The reason for their scrubs is because they're cheap and sterile which is required to keep their patients alive. Airline pilots wear officer's uniforms which signify rank and authority. I seriously doubt that the management intends to give the helpdesk guys ultimate power to dictate over everyone else in the building. So neither of these applies in this case. This is much more comparable to a janitor or fast food worker.