Just "ads" is enough

Yes. This is more than "a small computer". The size of this device, coupled with its onboard WiFi is one of its basic properties. Although there have been smaller "computers": PIC devices would be a good example, the functionality of this is the game changer and could make it ubiquitous in pretty much any electronic gadget.

I would hope that the next version would focus on getting the power consumption down. A tiny little computer is no use if it needs a shopping cart to haul its batteries around.

It occurs to me that this is just the sort of device that the Raspberry Pi people could very well have come up with in the 2 or 3 years since since the Model A and B were developed. It's a shame they never took the concept further.

Unless you're Japanese:

Mozilla has ensured that unlike Google devices, non-US developers won’t be deprived of the devices. The phone will be shipped free of cost anywhere in the world except for Japan

A question I have been asking myself, too.

There are already far more books "out there" than one person could ever read. Adding to that pile is more of a marketing feat than it is filling a need (apart from the author's need to make money).

The same applies to TV programmes. We have many more channels broadcasting repeats than we get new material. In percentage terms most programmes have been broadcast before - either a day or two before, or months / year before (and in the case of Friends or some other "channel stuffing" series, are broadcast on many channels, multiple times per day and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

So what's the point in making more? Either TV or books. The amount we have seems to be sufficient for our needs, and if we ever get bored with the constant repeats on TV, we could always pick up a novel ... a 50 or 100 year old novel. AKA "a classic".

So long as ALL the official figures are equally inaccurate, the ranking still feeds into the choice of which cars are the more fuel-efficient and which are less so.

Therefore it makes little difference whether the figures are exactly what one would expect (though nobody is ever that naive) or out by a factor of two. You'd still expect that the little runabout with a 80 MPG "official" figure would be cheaper to keep topped up than an 30 MPG gas-guzzler.

As it is, few people take much notice of figures: official or not. It plays a small part in the overall choice (somewhere below what colour the car is) and is only part of the overall consideration of running costs + servicing costs.

If it has user (let's not call them "drivers") accessible controls, it's not fully autonomous. In that case there would always be scope for blame to be assigned to the user. So either you sit in a box with no controls, or you you should be required to have at least full driver's qualifications and insurance.

But there are so many forums - few of which are any better than any other - though some are more popular. So there would be no reason to start a new account on the same one (even if you'd got banned) you were on previously - and for forums with thousands of contributors, I doubt that anyone would notice if you did. If people really do only post for their own entertainment (which might be a more truthful reason than the conceit that they have something IMPORTANT to say) then they'd just switch to a new forum and post their stuff there.

I can't speak about global warming, but I do have experience on some forums and (shock) I do get downvotes on occasion; Does it deter me? no! Does it encourage me? Again, no. Why not? Because I am not personally invested in the audience and I am not trying to "win" any arguments - or trying to convert any of those stranger to my own beliefs - just like I would never stand on a soap box and start preaching. Sometimes I post simply for LOLs and sometimes I post to "have my say" and other times I regard posting as just a way of carrying on an open conversation that others may join in - just like talking to people at a party. But I'm too realistic to think that anyone who reads my stuff is a "fan" or respects my views, or even understands what I say. I would suggest that most posters are similarly motivated and that if there was a hostile group who continually criticised them, they'd most to a more welcoming forum.

They aren't trying to impress anybody. Since nobody knows before they post whether any given post is going to be upvoted or downvoted (OK, it is possible: simple even to craft posts that will reliably achieve broad acceptance or anger on pretty much any forum), there's little incentive for trying to impress. It's also impossible to predict which forum members will see a post and which will choose to judge it by voting.

As it is, I suspect that a large number of up or down votes are obtained simply from the biases and beliefs of the voting population - and that hardly anyone is impressed or influenced by what they read on internet forums (any more) - and even fewer people care whether a bunch of people they've never met hold a strong opinion in agreement or disagreement with what they have said.

it's not uncommon for forums to record both up-votes and down-votes separately. While a lot of places - like slashdot - record only the arithmetic total (up-votes minus down-votes) there are places that do it properly - recognising that *any* vote can be considered a good thing. Just like in real life: the worst you can have is apathy.

So if you want to increase the number of posts to your forum, down-vote everybody?

I guess this is the problem when people try to apply the psychology of the real-world to entirely made-up worlds, or forums. Places where nobody really has any idea about the true identity (or identities) of the participants - and where reputation counts for little: since anyone can "press the button" and start again with a new identity - placing a value of zero on their forum-persona's reputation.

There are two majors costs to any burglary, what's taken and the damage done. From people I know who have been robbed, the cost of repairing the damage outweighs the cost of a stolen laptop or camera that was taken.

So, once a burglary has got in to your house most of the problem has already occurred. Even if your insurance pays there is a major inconvenience in making the claim, fighting the assessment and getting the repairs performed to your satisfaction. Best to prevent the whole possibility of that happening.

How do you keep bad people out of your house? Alarms, cameras (oh joy! you can watch the video of your home being wrecked), trackers - all irrelevant and with little deterrent value. If you want to stop people even trying to get in to your home, get a dog. A big, noisy dog.

If you can't get a dog (here comes the geek bit), get a recording of a dog. Hook it up to a PIR and an Arduino and have it play when anyone approaches the property. If you can arrange a stereo playback, process the soundtrack to make it appear as if the dog is moving around the house. If you want to go for extra "realism", rig up a weight attached to a motor that thumps the front door - the higher up the door, the bigger the dog appears to be - as if the dog had its paws on the door. You need LOUD and you need LONG. A recording that stops after a few seconds won't convince anyone. Especially if it replays exactly the same track each time.

Finally, keep the pitch of the barking low. Nobody's scared of a squeaky little mutt. But if you slow it down, the animal sounds a lot larger and scarier.

You don't travel much, huh?

On any public transport system, there is a significant number of people who spend the journey time applying makeup, nail varnish and other vanity products.

According to the device's website: shipping expected in spring 2015

So, essentially, right now, they have nothing except a website and some 3D graphics. Please re-run the story in a year or so if/when this thing gets off the ground and there is some actionable information to back it up.

I agree. Most lists and forums take a dim view of repeated questions, ones that are "obvious" and ones that the small minority of helpful posters feel are irrelevant. As you say, there is no guaranteed response time - if you get any response at all - and no guarantee that the responses you do receive will be correct or even on-topic.

Those are why people pay for support. Those are the factors that companies value and the time (equates very closely to money) taken to both supply the requested information, try out all the dead-end, time-wasting, misdirections or re-setting the question can run into $$$-thousands, especially when the replies given are wrong.

Contrast that with the support you get from a reputable organisation: "Oh yes, I'll just call up your configuration ... OK, The error log shows ... which means ... So you need to do .... to fix the problem. You can download the software to do that from our website, here's the link ... Goodbye".
Provided you have chosen your suppliers wisely, not based on headline cost, that level of interaction will be entirely familiar to you. Sadly, very few customers are used to, or expect, such high standards.

While reading the article I instantly recognised the situation the guy was describing. However, I believe he has misinterpreted the concerns of his employers.

Most managers who have had any dealings with a software rollout know two things:

First is that they won't actually get what they think they have specified
Second is that there will be problems (see point #1), overruns, differences between what's required and what's delivered and that getting the software functional is only a small part of the job. The rest is integration, training the users, supporting the thing for 5+++ years, implementing upgrades and bug-fixes

These managers also know that once a project has been signed off, the money has, just that moment, been spent. Companies don't think of money, they think of budgets - so once you have gone through the approvals process and got your budget and your go-ahead the project is effectively a sunk cost, but one that has not yet delivered anything. As a consequence the manager in charge of the project will be deemed to have failed if he/she needs to go back and ask for more, in order to deliver the project.

So, in their minds they want insurance - and indemnity - above all else. Even above cost savings. They want to know that in return for $<megabucks> that when things start to go wrong, their commercial relationship with "the vendor" entitles them to get support, advice, expertise, fixes, customisations, training, documentation and upgrades. Those will all form part of the cost-case and whoever approves the case will expect, maybe even require, that those items are included and form part of the contract. As they know that there will be the need to call upon those services. If all they get for using "free" software is a pile of code, then that is usually the smallest part of the project and often the least expensive, too. The real cost, over the project lifetime comes with all the extras and services they get from their vendor - but which "free" software is very poor at providing, and absolutely does not guarantee.

If you go to get approval for a project of any significant size, not having included those items will mark you out as, at best, a newby and at worse: completely unsuitable to be managing a project. It's like if you buy a car. The cost of the vehicle is only one aspect. The cost of servicing, fuel, taxes and depreciation are major factors that should be included in the plan. That they aren't is just an indication of how poorly most people approach a major purchase - and why they'd never make a project manager.