"Don't get Scroogled^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosofted!"
You must have only become familiar with cars after they got rid of non-integrated replaceable in-dash radios.
...TFA mentions at least one challenge. Kit in automobiles have to be built for extreme conditions (temperature range, vibrations, chemicals, dust, etc)...
Pure, unadulterated horseshit. There have been companies manufacturing aftermarket electronic components suited for automotive and marine use (and ones that typically exceed car manufacturers' gear) for decades.
I didn't bitch to Ford when (after 4 years in a lowered isuzu pup sitting on its bump-stops) my cd changer began skipping constantly. I understood that Pioneer did the best they could and Isuzu had nothing to do with me valuing ride height over suspension performance.
I'd love a return to DIN-sized dash openings (or even standard GM and Chrysler sized ones...anything that makes replacability an option).
Ahh, the good old days of IASCA and USAC competitions...
...so as long as it's a state-sanctioned group of people that have guns, you're fine with it? Most of those guns will end up stolen and on the street?
You're scaring the shit out of me, I'll admit, but not in the way you probably intended.
Those weren't just AR goggles, they were an assistive device for the severe vision problem the guy had and were semi-implanted.
If you're also walking around punching anyone with a cameraphone, then I guess that's consistent...not rational, mind you, but consistent.
For the benefit of anyone who's geeky enough to be on Slashdot and new enough to not know better (an admittedly small demographic):
Actually, it's more like "They built my Jeep with Chrysler parts...it *is* a Chrysler/Jeep"...not that analogies are a good way to describe why GNU/Linux is or isn't an accurate description of the typical Linux OS distro.
I don't actually recall RMS demanding that others brand their distros as "GNU/Linux", but he does indeed point out the relationship by describing them that way himself. So, the answer to your last question is "no", but I'm not sure why you asked it.
On the subject of Stallman and freedom, I'd have to say "Dude, you're an idiot" or "Are you trying to deliberately misunderstand the purpose of the GPL and the meaning of 'Free Software'?", but you posted AC and I have no idea if you'll see this reply.
Microsoft actually fixed some extremely broken things in IE after they realized that developers cared and that supporting standards enabled other browsers to do things that didn't work right in IE (I actually just got done reading some developer blurbs on their new Ajax Control Toolkit that mention functionality Firefox and Chrome but *not* IE).
Selectors are only this amazing "new" thing because designers have dumbed down their sites to work with IE and IE has had really crappy support for selectors (with the exception of some things related to anchor tags) for a very long time.
Bitching about the standards without understanding why they haven't been more useful is counter-productive (and whoever said that IE's box model makes the most sense is smoking some really expensive crack).
Why do you presume the use of parentheses was not as intended? I read it as if it was verbal conversation where the parentheses indicated an "aside".
What's an example of a statement where you believe parentheses would be indicated?
...They city pays for the entire infrastructure and then once the bond is paid off will have to pay Google for the pleasure of using the service they the tax payer paid for!
...because they're not paying anything to operate the (still unfinished) network now? The reason the deal went through the way it did is because the city is hemorrhaging cash trying to make the partially-deployed network function. If it was all peachy and everyone was thrilled with the return on investment and the service they were getting, then yes, I'd agree with you (but then the opposite of that is true, which was kind of my point).
Why does it suck for the taxpayers, though? IIRC (and if it's the same deal here), the lowest tier of pricing is $0 per month after a $30 equipment fee. Everyone in the city would get fast (presumably reliable) fiber-based internet and have an operator with a vested interest in providing good service operating it while paying basically nothing more than the original tax obligation (plus $30/household).
Sounds like a way to make sure the money *wasn't* wasted to me