Most likely, that's because -- like the majority of iOS coders who release Android apps, or at least it seems that way -- you've gone for the laziest possible port, forcing iOS interface paradigms on Android users, and ignoring the Android guidelines and paradigms.

In which case, good riddance. We don't want your lazy apps, we want apps designed by and for people who understand Android. We happily pay for those.

That whooshing sound was me missing the joke. Although I can perhaps be forgiven, bearing in mind the levels of rabid Tesla fanboyism around these parts.

My god, one person's battery failed completely? That's truly shocking! I've never heard of a battery failing before.

That is clearly a worse problem than every single Tesla Model S ever made sucking down 4.5KWh per day, every day, for months on end while Tesla sit on their fingers and do nothing to fix a problem that can apparently be fixed within hours of a single Tweet to the CEO.

And the fact that the "fixed" Tesla still sucks up enough power to drain the battery in any other car overnight, every night, for the rest of recorded time -- well, that's just the price of having a shiny car with no doorhandles or keys, right? Pretty trumps energy efficient and intelligently designed every time!

So you also didn't read my post, either. I didn't say that Australia had expensive broadband. I said it had *inexpensive* broadband, compared to the US. (But then, most places do.)

Grandparent suggested the US as a model for Australia to follow. I pointed out that the US is a cautionary tale, not a model to follow.

You didn't read your own article, did you? Google have nothing to do with that request for proposal, and the only mention of Google at all is that of Los Angeles Information Technology Agency GM Steve Reneker, who flat-out says what Google are offering with Google Fiber wouldn't be of interest as a proposal, even if they did offer it. (And they haven't, nor likely will they, as they've flat-out said they have no interest in a widespread rollout.)

"while google in the US is rolling out gigabit, and the private sector in UK is doing the same...."

Google are not "rolling out gigabit". Google have realistically done nothing more than a very small-scale trial. Add together the population of everywhere Google Fiber covers or has promised to cover -- that's Kansas City, Austin, Provo, and one neighborhood in Palo Alto -- and make the erroneous assumption that every resident is covered, and you still have a "rollout" that touches only 3.3 million people in a nation of 313.9 million.

That's one percent of the population if you make an erroneous assumption, and far less than one percent in actual fact. More than 99% of the population has no access to Google Fiber, and is unlikely to have access to it in the next decade.

In fact, the vast majority of the US would *love* to have access to anything near 100mbps, because that, for most of us, would be a HUGE upgrade from what we have now. And even if it is available, it's typically accompanied by a ridiculous pricetag.

I'm in the 64th-largest metropolitan statistical area in the US, and I'm lucky to have 100mbps internet available to me -- but it's priced at US$115 per month (AU$127/month) BEFORE equipment charges, fees, taxes, etc. And that price tag also assumes I am paying at least another US$20 (AU$22) per month plus equipment charges, fees, and taxes for TV service, whether I want it or not. Last time I checked, the penalty for not having the TV service was higher than the cost of the TV service.

So realistically, just getting 100mbps internet in the US will set you back US$150 (AU$165) per month, if it's even available to you -- and chances are, it isn't. Gigabit in the US? It's a pipe dream for almost all of us.

This line in the photo caption at the top about sums up Saunders response, for me:

"Adams, appears to be a rare example of someone who has largely but not totally, recovered from Spasmodic Dysphonia, a mysterious disease in which parts of the brain controlling speech shut down or go haywire."

This, obviously has completely nothing to do with the article. It's a bit like if the Victoria Kennedy caption had noted she was divorced, a condition in which people are unable to properly relate and appropriately respond to one another's feelings -- and which she still seems to be suffering from. It's there not for the fact of the matter, but to try and cast an aspersion.

The implication is that Adams' commentary should be read and understood in the light of somebody who doesn't really know what they're saying.

It's a cheap shot, and it's pretty pathetic of Saunders or whichever editor inserted it into the piece.

No, it isn't. No intentionality is implied or required in bringing something somewhere, as we have learned to the detriment of our own species more than once.

Google "diseases brought to the new world", and note the many references even from university research using the word "brought" in the sense that I used it. Unless, of course, you believe early explorers practiced intentional germ warfare.

Survived three years, but we haven't been there for how long now? And that's on the moon, which is a relatively benign environment compared to the places unmanned probes have been sent to and thru.

And it's arguable that the "surviving" bacteria weren't anything of the kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reports_of_Streptococcus_mitis_on_the_Moon

It's also flat-out wrong on the first point. No, it is not the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body, even if by life you read an implication that they mean non-human life.

We've brought all manner of microscopic life with us -- much of it inside or on the surface of us -- when we were on the moon previously. Doubtless at least some amount has been sent as microscopic residue even on unmanned missions. OK, the vast majority of the lunar passengers also came back with us, and it's unlikely any of what we've unintentionally brought along has survived, but to say that we've never brought life to another planetary body? Demonstrably not true.

Thanks for the tip. I'm going to assume this ends up being an extra expense, though, and one that the insurance company then denies as frivolous, meaning we foot the whole bill for the ultrasound ourselves. That being the case, gritting one's teeth and bearing it sounds preferable to an extra few hundred bucks.

You wouldn't be so quick to dismiss us as whiners if you went through it yourself. And it's worse for my wife -- I've seen her have to be stuck a dozen or more times before they could hit a vein. In fact, her doctor's office sent her to the hospital to have somebody there do a stick, because several nurses at the doctor's office tried multiple times in multiple places and couldn't get one.

Yeah, not so much. I'm white, the nurses were both white. Try again, flamebait.

...that they don't have to play "Go Fish" in my arm every time I get an IV in, I'm all for it, unintended consequences be damned.

Had to go into the hospital for the first time in ages the other day, and it took about five or six sticks -- including the kind where you can see them feeling around for anything once the needle's already in you -- before they hit the vein. And I'm skinny, as well, at least in the places where they stick me. Can't begin to imagine what it's like if your veins are invisible.

Well, I regularly (like, many times per day, every day, for my job) open many PDFs, almost all of which are extremely complex (hundreds of pages of graphically and textually rich user manuals, product spec sheets, etc.)

There is no comparison at all in my mind: Google's engine is slower than *any* PDF reader I have used in the last five years. And it's slow at the initial download, is the ridiculous thing. Download the exact same thing as a file in Chrome, it does it in a matter of seconds. Wait for it to download and render, and it takes multiple minutes. And I'm very conscious of this because the stuff I need is usually right near the end of the file, so the whole thing has to download before I can get to it.