Fortunately, they have Alcatraz...

They'll hire someone locally to tow your car out to California so that they can then impound it. :^D

Seriously, one of the great things about SF and NYC is that you don't need a car! There are plenty of transportation options. Hell, even a cab isn't too horrible in the city.

The question is whether or not there is a reason that a final ruling has to be given right now.

How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately? How will a, say, 1 year delay affect you? During that year, are you likely to be deprived of your life? Liberty? A large amount of money?

No? Then it's probably worthwhile to let the system work the way it was intended.

Years ago, they had these things called "Gas Station Attendants."

Just sayin'...

First, I don't imagine that Malaysia Air is paying that $50,000,000. Malaysia Air is out the cost of a Boeing 777 and probably some death benefits. But I'm sure those things are insured. On the other hand, Malaysia Air would have to pay for this tracking system.

Second, I'd point out that the last big "disappearance" (i.e., nobody immediately knew where it crashed) was in 2009--five years ago. And it's not like it's that common that airplanes crash and are not found within a few days. So you're spending money on the off chance that an airplane of yours crashes somewhere difficult to find. You'll probably spend that money for 50 years before you ever take advantage of the system. So, yeah, it's not really worth it to Malaysia Air.

Third, let's say you add the trackers. You spend the money year in and year out and, eventually, it comes in handy. So what? You can look and say, "Yup! The plane just crashed in the middle of the Indian Ocean!" Now what? You're still out the plane. You're probably not going to have much for survivors on a plane that crashes in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It's not going to make a difference in your insurance premiums. You're adding costs for basically no benefit.

It's not quite so simple, as you point out.

This is the important part. You don't target based on the number of devices sold--the market share--you target based on the platform that your intended audience is using. It is the rare application that will force people to forgo the newest things or switch platforms. There were plenty of DOS developers who eschewed Windows. Where are they now? There were some Mac developers who ignored Mac OS X for as long as they could as well. Eventually, they either updated or disappeared.

Also, as an aside, it can depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Take Bungie, for example, who made a name for themselves on the Mac platform before going to Windows and eventually getting bought up by Microsoft. It was a heck of a lot easier for Bungie to make a name for themselves on the Mac platform than it would have been for them to do it on the Windows platform because there's a lot more competition and it can be tough to shout over the cacophony of other developers. So if I were developing games for Xbox live, for example, I'd be looking at Windows mobile to try to make a name for myself.

While I agree, I'd argue that I can get "The Android Experience" from Google's Nexus line of phones. I can get a "Motorola Experience" from Motorola, a "Samsung Experience" from Samsung, etc. This is different from the PC world where everybody has the same "Windows Experience." The problem is that it leads to a commodity environment where all you can really compete on is price in a race to the bottom that nobody wins. Needless to say, Samsung and Motorola don't really want to be in a market like that.

True. But if you, say, double the number of satellites you're tracking, you have a better shot of being in the line-of-sight of three of them...

The interesting question is did they need to be sent?

To me, exploration is about seeing what has never been seen. That can easily be done with robotic probes that have cameras and we would see what has never been seen on our screens at home. I've enjoyed the various views of Mars, Venus, Titan, and the Moon. There's not a great reason to send people out there to explore the Solar System.

However, if we want to learn about what we're seeing, I think people are a better choice than probes.

I know that's the common belief, but is it true?

Robotic missions are cheaper. But robotic missions seem to beget more robotic missions to answer questions that the first robotic missions weren't able to answer. And so on and so on and so on.

Did we learn more about the Moon from the 6 Apollo missions that landed than we did from the 18 or so successful Soviet Lunar probes?

Let's say it would take us 20 years to prepare a Mars mission. Would it be better to spend that money and have scientists on Mars who could answer all of these questions once and for all or to spend half that money over the next 20 years shooting probes at Mars and hoping we eventually get some answers?

Robotic missions aren't necessarily better. They are, however, cheaper, and can be done faster. Keeping the national will pointed at Mars for 20 years in order to receive funding would be difficult. The amount of money to spend would be even more difficult to come up with. It is politically easier to get less money to send a probe to Mars for three years. Which is why we do it. We can try for the impossible and fail or we can try for the doable and succeed.

I'm sure there isn't one NASA Geologist who would say that robots are better than he/she is. It's just that robots are all we're willing to afford.

It might also be the race to get the information out.

I don't know if USGS is involved in earthquakes off the coast of Chile, but I know that the USGS refines it's numbers over time. So you might hear about a 5.0 which turns into a 5.2 and then down to a 5.1. But in our info-driven got-to-have-the-news-now-and-damn-the-accuracy culture, timeliness is more important than accuracy. We don't like to wait for data.

So instead of saying "Big Earthquake in Chile", they throw the number in. The number doesn't mean squat to most people, other than "7.7? Wow--that's pretty big."

Well, I was attempting to be somewhat humorous, as a, "You kids today are so lazy. We used to have to walk over to the TV, up hill, both ways, just to change the channel!"

But I'll give it a somewhat serious answer, because it's an entertaining point.

Growing up, we had one of those TVs. We also got our TV via an antenna on the roof. This antenna picked up two networks--ABC and CBS. It also picked up a local PBS station. That was it.

So how often did we desire to change the channel? Not often. Back in those days, if you had two 30-minute sitcoms on CBS, say, ABC might counter-program with an hour-long drama. So changing the channel would put you in the middle of something. You might as well sit and watch the other sitcom. So in the evenings, you might change the channel once an hour.

Even when we stayed at Grandma's house--she had a Community Antenna so she could get NBC--the formula was still pretty much the same. You might change it once an hour.

So, if I had to get my lazy ass off the couch to change the channel, I probably wouldn't change it very often.

That was sort of the point. You're right--I don't often desire to change the light level in my room. But part of the reason for that may be that I have to interrupt what I'm doing, get up, walk across the room, adjust the level, walk back to the couch, decide it's still a little too bright, go back over, adjust it a bit more, go back to the couch, etc.

Even the direct On/Off can be a nuisance. My TV sits at one end up of the living room. My computer on the opposite end. There's a ceiling light that sits about three-quarters of the way back from the TV. When I'm watching TV, it's nice to have that light off. When I'm using the computer, it's nice to have that light on. So do I turn the light off and back on again whenever I move from the TV to the computer? Nope. I usually just leave the light on. I've adjusted the brightness of the TV to deal with it.

Now, imagine an automated system that could optimize the lighting in the room based on what I'm doing. If I'm watching TV, it might turn down the surrounding lights so the backlight on the TV doesn't have to be so bright. Saves energy. When I get up to grab a snack, if detects this and flips on more lights. If I walk over to the computer, it will optimize for that. Heck, even forgetting the whole automation thing--just having settings for "TV", "Computer", and "Other" might save some energy right there.

True. But what if the building is built already? Say, a building from 20 years ago.

And I'll also bet you're not so lazy that you can't get up off the couch to change the channel, either.

This makes sense--only generate enough force as you need to. The problem is, "How much do you need?"

The Centrifuge Accommodation Module would have helped answer that question as well as questions about exploring Mars and such. Sounds like a handy little device, huh? Pity they cancelled it.

Actually, I believe he's using it correctly: "Centripetal: moving or tending to move toward a center."

Of course, what he probably wanted was "Centrifugal."