I think the generally accepted term is "Beer koozie." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_koozie

I really do believe "you get what you paid for," but then, I'm reminded of the story of golf ball finders a British con artist was selling as "bomb detectors" for several thousand dollars each.

That's the opposite of "you get what you paid for." It's called "Marketing."

...those birds will look TWICE as angry on a Galaxy S 4 as they do on an iPhone 5? IN!

Okay, so how about this for a better headline: "Two-headed mutant killer cyber-rats plotting world domination: they share a mind, but may-or-may-not-be-on-different-continents-but-are-at-least-4000-miles-apart. Nothing to contest in that statement now. All happy?

TWC has a *near* monopoly on my area (Cincinnati), so it is what I use. The moment Cincinnati Bell Fioptics or Verizon FIOS is available on my street, I'm outs.

...is that its cold outside, and there's no kind of atmosphere. You're all alone, more or less.

But not nearly as funny as "I for one welcome our new irate horde of lost phone seeking Overlords..."

Nothing changed. As always, you can turn electronics back on after a certain altitude, though you need to keep them in Airplane mode if they are cellular devices (no attempting connection to cellular is allowed at high altitudes). Most phones allow you to manually turn on WiFi while in Airplane mode to accommodate this.

Maybe because one is $500 and one is $25?

The word you are looking for is not irony, it is hypocrisy.

Hybrids would have the same higher pollution pointed out in the article due to the batteries, without the potential benefit of charging those batteries with renewable energy resources like electric cars since Hybrids charge their batteries through fossil fuels. Some say that the lower emissions from the substantially higher fuel efficiency offset the higher pollution caused during manufacturing (http://donpettygrove.blogspot.com/2012/05/howstuffworks-pollution-caused-by.html), but this can be offset if the battery needs to be replaced / recycled over the life of the car, something that has yet to have good statistics due to the relative youth of the hybrid car market.

Funny with a touch of truth, but it doesn't work so well in the world of multiple platforms and languages competing with each other for adoption. For instance, if am am the manger of a company writing a mobile app, and the iOS manual is clean and easy to read with no issue, and the Android manual is cryptic and would take gobs of trial & error to get working, iOS is language is the platform the app will be written for first and best, and we'll get around to the Android one later, if at all. I'm not saying the above example is true, just using it for sake of hypothetical example. Not everyone's manger has the patience to let you learn nuances of each language and platform. The manual almost needs as much effort and attention as the marketing materials, and probably more.

I think this is the crux of why this article needs to be taken with a grain (or larger dose) of salt. After reading TFA, it is obvious that a math professor listed a bunch of actual competitive threats, but surveyed a brand new and relatively unknown new class and based his assertions on that.

From TFA: "Based on my review of the Udacity Introduction to Statistics course, I see some compelling strategic advantages for live in-class teachers, that will not be soon washed away by massive online video learning." He goes on to say things like "you get what you pay for and this is a free class" and so forth, but never really gives a compelling reason why his experience at Udacity is representative of every massive online learning coarse. In TFA he calls out online schools that are "sponsored by top-name schools such Stanford, Harvard, or MIT," but he doesn't review ANY OF THOSE, nor give any sense of how many people attend the school he reviewed vs. the ones he called out earlier, or how they might be similar or different.

Sneaky.