Time to fire up the old Nook Color and make a purchase.

First of all, I haven't kept up on EV technology as much as I probably should (ergo, please bear that in mind if I write something completely stupid...and please correct me). That said, to me, it doesn't seem that the connector should even be the real issue. What I think would be more meaningful would be for auto manufacturers to decide on some kind of standard to tell the charger how it wants its electricity. What comes to mind is possibly some kind of autonegotion mechansim between the charger and vehicle to determine voltage/amps/phase or whatever (I'm certainly no EE). The plug itself would seem to be less important, and, as someone mentioned below, various adapters could even be used (I'd think manufacturers would WANT a connector standard...at least if they had any foresight whatsoever). I think this way manufacturers could use whatever batteries they want (and even use totally different battery technologies in future vehicles as they become available)...just be able to talk to the "pump" to tell it what the specs are in regard to charging any given vehicle. Yeah, the stations would cost a bit more with the additional electronic components, but if EVs took off, the price drop for these devices would be insane (think of the number of gas (petrol) pumps you pass every day). Economies of scale would kick in almost immediately. And I really think some kind of auto-negotiating standard would be a huge step in the right direction, because the the startup costs of charging stations will be high (at first, anyway), but I think more station owners would be willing to make the investment if they knew they wouldn't have to rip and replace when the next generation of EV battery technology came along. The whole plug type thing just seems silly...the cost of dealing with varying plugs would seem to be absolutely minuscule compared to everything else. But, leave it to world governments to create issues out of the little stuff while ignoring the bigger issues (and lets be honest, many/most politicians only understand technology as far as their mobile phones and accompanying wall warts will allow).

Here's my workaround to the market not completing downloads and not installing them even if they appear to have successfully downloaded.

1) back all the way out of the Market
2) Go to Settings --> Applications --> Manage Applications
3) Click on the "All" tab at the top
4) Wait a couple of minutes, and then find "Market" in the list (list isn't always in order, so it can be hard to find if you have a lot of apps)
5) Click "Market"
6) If the "Force Stop" button isn't grayed, click it to force the Market app to end
7) Click the "Clear Data" button
8) Re-launch the Market app, click "Agree", and try it again.

I know it's stupid, but it does work about 90% of the time. If not, rinse and repeat.

Actually, he was using it as a metaphor, but that's beside the point.

And this is the real issue of all of this...the word "fairness". What exactly does it mean to be fair? The fact of the matter is that while there are indeed many lazy people out there, the real point is that people are NOT equal. This is caused by a variety of reasons, but I think we can agree that a few people were born with certain abilities that are more "valuable" in the market. But, that does not mean they are harder workers or even necessarily deserve to be paid more. They are lucky to be able to use their innate qualities and intellect for monetary gain that the average person is unable to do (yes...unable is the correct word). As far as I'm concerned, the mentally handicapped man who works in our packing department works just as hard (if not harder) than our company president. Is it fair that he makes barely over minimum wage while the president has a huge house and five cars? No, it's not fair, but it's reality, and this is exactly why people who are able to earn higher incomes should help to pay for the welfare of those less fortunate, both legally and ethically.

Like I said, lazy people do take advantage of the system. But, having nothing to help the poor is morally wrong. Any system will have its flaws and we should try to mitigate them. But in this case, the flaws do not outweigh the necessity of welfare...not by a long shot.

Just an FYI...From the Mozilla website: "The Mozilla Foundation is a California non-profit corporation exempt from federal income taxation under IRC 501(c)3. Donations are tax deductible for U.S. citizens. For donors outside of the United States, please consult with your tax advisor about whether your donation will be tax deductible."

I'd argue this. Competition is what scares these companies to death (and primarily for them, potential competition). Piracy might be one piece of the problem for them, but as far as I see it, they have a much larger issue: value. People will pay for something if its value is greater than or equal to the price. Think of Blu-Ray. To many, the value of having a copy of a movie was not the $25-$35+ the movie companies were charging for them at first. But, as is usually the case, the price came down over time, and now people are buying them for $15-20, or maybe $25 for a new release. Also, players are selling much better. It's true that those did come down in price as well, and it's hard to determine if the price of players dropping caused the price of the media to drop, or vice versa. However, I have talked to a lot of people about this, and from what I have been told, and I do agree, is that people couldn't justify paying an extra $10-20 per movie just to have the hi-def. In other words, they would have bought the player if the discs cost about the same as DVDs. So, basically, prices went down, sales went up, and value stayed the same.

Software, however has a completely different problem, even though it still stems directly from value. 10-15 years ago, if you wanted to do high end photo editing, Photoshop was the only real game in town. As time progressed, so did technology, and programmers were able to write photo editors with much more ease, and distribution of software matured. No longer did someone with a large program have to pay a company to do CD stamping, box design, etc. Now we even have quite good OSS to do many of the same things (GIMP, obviously). So, now the value of any particular piece of software is declining due to competition, not to piracy. Professional photographers, I promise you, will still shell-out for a legitimately licensed copy of Photoshop. If they don't need something quite like that but still want support, maybe they buy Paint Shop Pro or the like. GIMP is for those who want the freebie (don't get me wrong--if it was a closed product, it would sell at a decent price, assuming it is as well known as it is now).

So, I guess I just see it as simple economics, and piracy is nothing more than a barely discernible blip on the radar. What has changed the game is competition, but some companies just want to whine about pirates who cost them practically nothing in lost sales (maybe increase sales in a try-before-you-buy way). They are trying to scare the competition out of the marketplace in order to keep the value of their products high, because once you have multiple options for doing the same kind of thing, the value of all programs in the group begins to fall off a cliff do to competition. Seems pretty simple to me. Play the piracy card, scare away new entrants to the market, keep the value of your stuff high, and you have it made.

This isn't about open APs...this is about SSID broadcast traffic only. You can have a rather secure wireless network and still have it broadcasting its name.

...until you start seeing the "FCC be damned" ad varieties. GoDaddy FTW!

Well, in a way, Vista was absolutely fantastic for Microsoft. It's like having a few million people pay you for the "privilege" of alpha testing your code, telling you it sucks, and then letting you know what they REALLY want. That's brilliant! Plus, after you've pissed so many people off and have tons of people waiting/begging/pleading for an upgrade (hey, being a monopoly has advantages, right?), all you have to do is provide a product that is only slightly better than XP, and the masses will worship you like you like a god, forking out large sums for this miracle you have bestowed upon them. They had no where to go but up! And, to be fair, Windows 7 is probably the best desktop OS Microsoft has produced. All of this adds up to a HUGE paycheck for the sweaty bald guy, and with many more to come.

Thank you for the link...it was an insightful read. I guess I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, robotic missions are more efficient economically, logistically, etc. If nothing else though, I do think we need to at least maintain the ability to do manned-flights. I go back to the Hubble thing...it's had the life it has had due to being serviced by astronauts. Could the work have been done via remote controlled robot? Possibly, but then again maybe not...it's hard to say. Ultimately, as long as the research, science, and discoveries continue to accelerate, whether the data is collected by man or machine is really irrelevant. Heck, we know how use the retiring shuttles, so why not keep them around for occasional use? There is nothing terribly wrong with them other than the cost of launching the things, but this has to be cheaper than designing and building a new ship from the ground up. It's just too bad we pumped so much cash into something that will probably never get anywhere near a launch pad.