Wow! It's been a while since I've seen an FDIV joke.

I don't know how you could call that 'arrogance'. Thinking you know what is best for the majority is a prerequisite for setting sane defaults.

For my primary system:
UCSD P System -> DOS -> Windows -> OS/2 -> NeXTstep -> OPENSTEP -> Mac OS 8/9, Mac OS X Server -> Mac OS X

For servers:
OS/2 -> NeXTstep -> OPENSTEP -> Mac OS X Server/Linux/Windows/FreeBSD/Solaris

For virtualization:
VMware -> Parallels Server -> VirtualBox -> XenServer/VMware

For tablets/mobile:
Newton -> Palm -> Sharp Zaurus (Linux) -> Nokia 770 (Linux) -> Windows Mobile -> iOS/Android (mostly iOS)

Never did get BeOS/Haiku running for more than an hour to poke around, never did dabble with Amiga, C64, or Plan9.

Thanks for letting us know you watched An Inconvenient Truth.

Speaking as a social democrat living in Norway, a country which (like most socialized health care systems) beats the hell out of the US and most privatized health care systems, I have to say that granting everyone "the exact same level of care, regardless of ability to pay" - is a goddamned feature, not a bug.

Believing in market forces does not mean having to abandon belief in human dignity, for goodness' sake.

Comprehensive health care should be just as much a fundamental human right as the comprehensive justice care afforded by the legal system.

Tolkein? Is that you?

That article has been completely debunked because of outlandish starting assumptions. The amount of metal they modeled for a car electric motor was orders of magnitude off. Even a brief scan of that study reveals just complete and utter incompetence that I wonder if it was a high school project.

As for electricity generation, the beauty is that the mix of energy sources for electricity generation can change over time. It can be oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, solar, biogas, tide, wind, or more. For a gasoline car, it's basically oil + a bit of ethanol for the entire lifespan of the car. Even as it stands, where coal and natural gas are the primary sources of fuel, electric vehicles have lower pollution levels and lower greenhouse gas emissions (mainly due to a shift to natural gas as the predominate producer). It also matter where the pollution occurs, and power plants are typically not downtown. Further, in the U.S., a larger percentage of the energy mix for electricity is domestically produced and not subject to the pricing whims of other governments that are not friendly to the U.S.

Slander/defame anyone, and they might sue! Including you! I bet there are scenarios where you would be willing to go to court for redress. No need to pretend you wouldn't do the same thing in a similar situation.

Your embarrassment and association is completely in your head. Whether or not someone is a jackass is their problem - there are plenty of jackasses out there with any number of issues. It might even be you at times.

I don't know what you mean by the term "the wireless standards", but both the 802.11 WLAN standards and H.264 et al. are open standards, and are well-documented in public archives.

Whups, lol, year fail.

I hear this fallacy a lot.

When I work from home, I'm still pairing up with another developer over skype/tmux, and I am super productive doing it.

It's 2012, there's no reason remote working should incur a penalty in collaboration.

Why does everyone wonder why locally produced food costs so much, instead of wondering why the over processed megacorp garbage is so cheap?

Pointers are pretty essential to a kernel.

As a journalist, we have high expectations that Mr. Broder would reports impartial facts. Since he wrote it in the New York Times, we have expectations about the journalistic integrity of the writer and the facts within the article. The article at best, is misleading and plays loose with the facts. At worst, it is a hatchet job just on the side of possibly escaping legal culpability.

First of all, he has to decide what he was trying to accomplish. He if is trying to test Tesla's supercharger network and that is the primary motivation, then Mr. Broder exceeded the test parameters. It is not that hard to successfully travel where he went using only the superchargers. However, if he wants to exceed the test parameters, then by all means he could have chosen to plug in at any number of other EV charging locations, had chosen to charge fully, or chosen to plug in overnight. The closest analogy I can think of is if a journalist is trying to verify mileage claims of say, a Prius. The mileage claim is provided given certain test parameters. If you drive too fast, you won't get that mileage. If it is too cold or too hot, it won't get the same mileage. So if you want to see if you can get that mileage, restrict yourself to only fueling near the limits of that resulting range, and then drive fast *and* choose to not fuel all the way up, then yeah, you didn't get the mileage. Whose fault is that?

Mr. Broder on several occasions noted temperatures and speeds that were not indicative of what he actually experienced throughout the drive. His writing clearly exaggerates the situation, most of which is his own doing. Further, it's nearly impossible to not see the ability to charge further. As a long time energy reporter for the New York Times, can we reasonably expect that he is this incompetent? Mr. Broder didn't need to be so loose with the facts, since the current generation of BEVs are not really ready for most people. They do need to be plugged in. They are fantastic for those that can afford it as a daily driver, mostly commuting and 2 hour round trips. Cost of ownership has dropped to roughly equivalent of gasoline power cars (battery replacement costs gas costs, probably less repair needed for BEV vs. gasoline car over time). But for road-tripping where multiple back to back full energy transfers are necessary, it isn't as convenient as a gasoline car at the moment. Mr. Broder, as a journalist writing a piece that is expected to accurately portray the facts, could have pointed this out while sticking to the facts and competently operating/handling the vehicle and he failed to do so.

Does that quote imply Doug Stanhope believes in God and free will?