I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.

This would be ideal for certain situations where you need to contact the police but where it would be ill-advised to draw attention to yourself by making a phone call.

It's also amazing the number of things that are horribly unsafe if you factor in the chance of human error. Gas companies don't talk about what can go wrong with their work but neither do airlines or construction companies.

I'm not sure the reason, but there's a golem near Morristown, IN.

All of these subsidies may cost the carriers some money, but they are costing you money as well. The carriers pay for smart phone subsidies with the price of their plans. Rather than laugh at the carriers' misfortune, you should consider this article to be an insight into why your bill is so high. People love Apple for the iPhone and hate the carriers for their ridiculous fees which is exactly how Apple planned it when they required the carriers to subsidize $450 of the iPhone 4S in order to sell it.

You may have been using a 4G phone in an area without 4G coverage. I have a 4G phone in an area with 4G coverage. The difference is huge. In case anyone wants numbers, I'll run a speed test:

Speakeasy.net going from Indianapolis to the Chicago test location. Using a Droid Bionic phone through Verizon.
4G: 35Mbps down, 12Mbps up
3G: 0.48Mbps down, 0.47Mbps up

Without going into long lists of examples, I'll just say that I can envision some situations where this would be useful and others where it would be detrimental. I think that a "smart search" ... one that uses data from browsing history, Google+, and maybe other places... would be a good optional filter. It should be something that's easily accessible from the main page, sort of like filtering by date. It should not be default though, and it really needs to be able to be toggled on/off easily.

I think that the problem is with WHEN people decide to use their phones while driving. It's not dangerous at all to glance at your phone at a stoplight, and I think that it's minimally dangerous to use your phone on a familiar road while driving straight in light traffic. The problem is with people who are talking on their phones while trying to aggressively change lanes in rush hour or with people who are looking at their phone to text or dial in stop-and-go traffic. I think that if you are reasonable about when you choose to use your phone, it negates most of the danger. The problem with the studies is that subjects are tested in situations where they shouldn't be using their phones anyway under normal circumstances. You don't have to worry about missing an exit or crashing into a car in front of you when you know the area and you aren't following closely to begin with... ie: situations where it's safe to use your phone.

It sounds like he's trying to market to hipsters.

So what if Siri is just now starting to collect speech recognition data for Apple? Google has been doing it for years with Google Voice. All of the calls that it handles and voicemails it transcribes give Google a huge amount of voice data. When you include that along with voice/context data that it may get from Google Voice Search and context data it gets from regular Google searches, I don't know that Apple really has a "two year" advantage.