My physics class in high school taught me that the rolling coefficient of friction is higher than sliding, thus stopping you faster. 23 years of winter driving in Maine has taught me that ABS (or pumping the pedal if you don't have ABS) will stop you in a shorter distance.
American liberalism: You can do whatever you want so long as it's the popular thing.
American libertarianism: You can do whatever you want.
And if you're right about what everyone else's liberalism is, maybe I'm a liberal. I haven't seen evidence of that though.
I have a flip-phone at this point and it's held up reasonably (Samsung Convoy 2), but it costs more to replace it with another rugged flip-phone than to "buy" a new smart phone now. Give me a rugged smart phone with reasonable reception and I'll consider it, but right now the only choice (sharing minutes with family on Verizon) is that Casio that can't pick a signal no matter where you are.
"Can't yet move?" There are an awful lot of people out there living in areas without high speed internet by choice who still like to watch a movie now and then. Not everybody wants an urban or suburban lifestyle.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie version of Ender's Game, but agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer's take on what succeeded and what failed. In fact, I probably enjoyed it so much because I expected much less. The glaring failures were all necessary to make a successful movie, but they still managed to indicate the most important philosophical points. Yes, Graff was harder than in the book (and Anderson's softness was used to make up for this), Bean was introduced too early and wasn't adversarial at first like he should have been, and what were they thinking with the romantic overtones with Petra... But we know why Ender did what he did and how it affected him, and that didn't change from the book.
My one sadness about this movie is that it didn't inspire my son to read the book (he started it last year, read the first paragraph of Graff's pre-chapter conversation, and decided he didn't want to read it). But at least my copy is now on loan to one of his friends who was inspired to read it.
Maybe it's just the area I live in, but I know absolutely nobody who owns anything larger than an F150 (or equivalent) who doesn't use it for things that a smaller truck wouldn't work for*. Unless you count the SUVs being used as family haulers. Even then - kids are more involved these days in travel sports with lots of equipment requirements. Being limited to a sub-compact doesn't work with more than one kid anymore. Granted, most could get by with a wagon or minivan, but the SUV isn't as ridiculous as people make them out to be.
* side note - I actually know several people who don't want a larger truck so they're hauling 8000+ pound trailers with trucks rated for 7000 or less. I'd rather have them driving the 350 even though the 150 (certain models without the trailer fully loaded) would do.
Ever tried to plow a yard with your Ranger? Haul a 5th wheel? Run a construction company? You might not need a 350, I don't need a 350 (though I'd like something bigger than what I've got to handle a bigger trailer and get me plowed without relying on a hired plow guy), but many people certainly do.
By that measurement, smartphones, themselves, would not be regarded as innovative because they all used existing technology.
Well Mr. Schmidt - from where do you think governments derive their legitimacy?
It worked decently well.