Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).
A 29-hour coast-to-coast bullet train isn't competing with roads. It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel. The unpleasantness and other limitations and subsidies of air travel notwithstanding, a bullet train which takes ~6x as long will also need to have a price-per-trip that's at least somewhat competitive with coast-to-coast air travel for most people to bother considering it.
Notably, the extant US passenger rail system is not very competitive with air travel on most routes outside of the Boston-Washington corridor.
They've also got Fremont nearbyish (across the bridge) - it's reasonably affordable for the area, but it's all sprawling-suburbs and is very quiet. Palo Alto is the next town over the freeway; if you don't mind fighting rush-hour traffic for half an hour to go a few miles, it's probably the most interesting place to live. Menlo Park proper has limited housing stocks. Atherton is even worse (it's a series of sprawling mansions, though a pleasant drive).
If living near work keeps some employees sane, these apartments will be a godsend. Of course, the real question is "why did facebook put its headquarters in the armpit of the Bay?"
I'm in Brooklyn now. Subway to work.
"This is a pure case of upstarts rather than entrenched interests with political connections in California finding a way to make a profit and the state can't allow that."
Adjusted that FTFY of yours for you. (Because there are a few notable non-corporate examples from time to time.)
Besides which, I'm calling for being dubious of the regulators in addition to banks, not instead of the banks.
JP Morgan Chase lost about $7.2 billion dollars trading bonds (with its own private money, mind you, not depositors' money or anything). Then the feds decided this was bad and that they should fine them an extra $800 million. Even the Brits are dubious, suspecting that it's really because Chase has been publicly complaining about the feds and wondering when exactly it became a crime to lose money...
So if you want a laugh, sure, you can choose the popular-screed opinion du jour where banks are the bad guys. But I'd say, why limit your targets like that? We can be cynical about banks and regulators!!
I saw the Lady Gaga quip and Scott's fondness for effective ancient map-reducey techniques on unusual hardware platforms. It reminded me about things like discovering America. Did the Vikings discover it years before any other Europeans? Certainly. Did the Chinese discover it as well? There's some scholarly thought that maybe they did. But you know whose discovery actually effected change in the world? Lame old Christopher Columbus.
Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here from people who want to actually change the world with software and if we spent less time ranting about mmap-vs-scanf-in-Hive we could learn it.
Ha! As if. I suppose you're blaming house Republicans, but if those guys were making budgetary threats, they'd be pretty hollow. Or have you been asleep for the past year and a half of gridlock?
And you're not doing much yourself to provide a counterexample to the notion that climate-change is a left-wing conspiracy. So I have an idea for you. How about we talk science for a bit instead of political smears?
For the manufacturer, it's also a political maneuver. They can say "we made smart guns!" and maybe get some politicians off their back for a little while.
And it's obvious why people don't actually buy them. Pay $$$ extra for finicky biometrics which are at least as likely to impede you as they are to assist you? I'll get right on that.
And forget the interstellar-space angle for a moment, too: anyone for a decent picture of Pluto?
The main thing that the USA today piece gets at is this:
But his crime devastated the Vatican, shattering the confidentiality that typically governs correspondence with the pope.
Let's consider a similar privilege in the US: attorney-client privilege. It's really important that people can trust their communications with their lawyers are confidential, at least if there is any hope to maintain a semblance of justice in the justice system instead of federal prosecutors running roughshod over everyone. Likewise, it's really important for the Vatican that people trust their priests enough to actually go to confession for forgiveness of sins (important to Catholics, you may have heard) and to receive moral guidance - at least so long as people remain imperfect, which means more or less 'forever'.
There have been some big scandals recently which have compromised that sort of trust.