current renaults have ... what? they are laggy, not reckognizeable by touch and if we take the driving controls into account, the accelerator has ridiculous lag and nonlinearity, at least on my twingo II 1.2 GT

I have a renault twingo II GT.

it is a horrible, horrible car and with horrible, horrible service ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4orHdycJl4 if you're in the mood).

i have no idea what they think this whole android-in-the-car idea will accomplish.

when you have a slew of devices, carriers, api versions, applications etcetc and considering android has become a really complicated deal

frankly, i think updates are *not* talking that long.

(16GB to compile ICS? jesus fuck why?)

translated:

do you know how to steal? (implied yes as an answer)

do you know how to *hide*?

you mean like, houses constructed from rock?

funny you should mention that, structures build from rocks are really really sturdy.

just stop using slide to unlock and use two quick taps in either side of the sliding (now "tapping") widget

It's self-regulating.

Or as the great 80's thrash band Nuclear Assault put it, "apathy creates despair"

neither :) he implies that the "only proper" way to enjoy a bike is up on one :)

democracy hasn't got to do with voting.

the main idea about democracy is that people DISCUSS the issues between themselves.

this is a point that is lost on almost everyone.

democracy is impossible when there are SO MANY PEOPLE in a community. That is why those who wrote the US constitution tried to offset this problem by creating the states. This idea draws HEAVILY from the achaean league http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaean_League which was the evolution of democracy, trying to offset the main proble of great populations

once again: it's not the voting that is of great importance. it is discussing the problems of the community. If that can't be done, it doesn't matter if you vote or not

i should have written "someone who is behind you *must* be at a safe distance to stop even if you somehow stop on the spot" but i decided not to at the last moment because

turns out, i should have. because it happened.

also: "Some might argue that I should have been far enough back to allow for even an instantaneous stop in front of me, but it's not really feasible to leave a gap that large during rush hour." I have yet to see rush hour traffic where you go fast enough that you can't stop in time. if traffic is fast enough so that you can't stop in time, it is not rush hour traffic. and yeah, if you want to be safe, you *will* keep on letting a gap big enough *even* with idiots getting in between. the alternative (approaching dangerously close) is not really a good option.

or you can pay attention two or three cars ahead of you