Number 3 (no Adobe Flash) is a reason to love Apple products though. They got that bit of the list wrong. It's forced website owners away from proprietary Flash towards truly multi platform html5.

Not only is does it have negative value in the phone marketing, it's confusing and disappoints people - they think because it's Windows it will have more compatibility with their PC and will run PC applications and then find "yes it's Windows but it doesn't run Windows apps". Apple didn't call the iPhone the Mac Phone for a reason (even though it reputedly runs the same OS kernel).

Microsoft would have been better off just calling it Metro instead of Windows. Or pretty much any other easy to pronounce name.

And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.

You never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or conduct an illegal search. You may have just bought the car. It may have absolutely NOTHING personal in it. You still don't consent to a search.

Period.

COBOL is just as disadvantaged in dealing with an SQL database. All that DATA DIVISION syntax is about reading and writing flat files, not interacting with a database engine in a separate executable. (It's a while since I've done any COBOL so perhaps matters have changed now, but COBOL was always about fixed width record flat files).

My Java code needs no changes if table formats changed (things like added columns) because I try to use the supplied classes and the JDBC properly (and also take the time to make sure the database is designed right - such as using views, so the underlying data format can be changed without requiring all the things that depend on it to change).

SQL didn't exist until long after COBOL was a major thing. What COBOL is good at is dealing with fixed width record format flat files, which was a common way of storing stuff when COBOL was first invented. When you have a large complex system that's been going for decades, is fully debugged, and just works there is a huge cost in rewriting it that may just not be worth it.

Well, cost and interest. As we both touched on, the tech just isn't that interesting. That plus the cost pretty much covers this story.

If companies really want the smart watch to take off, they'll have to drop the cost and increase it's interest factor.

Can you really have a "war" when you no one shows up?

Don't get me wrong, some of these smart watches rate as "neat", but not for several hundred dollars. I could see dropping 100 bucks, maybe, on something that tracks health telemetry, but honestly? It'd probably have to be a gift before I got it.

This is kind of like saying 3D TV companies were in a war with each other. While that may have been true, consumers didn't notice because the tech just wasn't that interesting to them.

The first two are easy... but the last one? Yikes!

I reach at least 35 mph every day I cycle according to the Cyclemeter GPS application. It's pretty easy to reach that speed downhill.
On the level I can sustain pretty much all day long 17-18 mph.

I'm a utility cyclist, but cyclemeter tells me I sustain about 17 or 18 mph on the flat (I live in a rural area so cars are not impeding me). I commonly hit 20mph for stretches, and there are some downhill parts of my ride where I hit 35 mph. I don't wear any lycra at all either.

In cities like New York and London, it's usually that the cars cannot keep up with bicycles (not the other way around). I live in a rural area, but whenever I've cycled in congested urban areas, I've often been MUCH quicker than car traffic and usually the cars are slowing me down. Car traffic in cities is slow because there are too many cars, not because of cyclists (or little duckies).

There's even an episode of Top Gear where they prove the bicycle is the fastest method of getting across London. And that's a TV programme unashamedly biased towards the car.

That's a troll, right?

On the flat (and I'm not a lycra clad person either) I can easily keep up 17-18 mph all day. In a city, this is usually as fast (if not faster) than cars. In no way are cyclists doing this speed compatible with 3mph pedestrians. Cyclists belong on the road. (In fact where I live cyclists have a right to be on the road - cars do not, cars need to be licensed, car drivers need to be licensed).

Motorcyclists are also vulnerable road users. Should they be on the sidewalk too?

It's also human nature. We know we're slowly buggering things up, but it'll take a while. To fix it means a large change in the way we run our world, and it will be difficult and may cause mild discomfort in the short term. On the other hand we can simply deny it's happening and continue with the business as usual which is far easier and the path of least resistance. People don't want to feel guilty for driving an SUV either, it's easier and more consistent to deny that anything is happening rather than admitting that you're (an albeit tiny) part of the problem.

Temperatures have increased in the last decade. The problem is you've cherry picked one particularly warm year to use as a reference point. However if you zoom out on the graph you'll see the temperature increase trend has been relentless.

This is true but there is an underlying motive to dismissing the consensus in climate science (particularly AGW). The scientific consensus would require a significant change from business as usual. It's far easier (and you feel less guilty for doing it) to simply dismiss the consensus or try to rubbish the consensus and continue with the current business as usual, than make a meaningful change. It's just people following the path of least resistance.