The NHTSA ratings are not subjective, they are based on scientific experiments performed on the vehicle measuring structural integrity of the vehicle and force of impact on the test dummies which is a function of force absorption achieved by the vehicle's structure and its active and passive safety features. There were five other vehicles made by four manufacturers (Ford, Honda, Subaru and Toyota - no Volvo, by the way) that also received five star ratings in all categories. NHTSA provides more detailed data, but they digest the data into coarse "star" ratings for easier public consumption. However, the detailed data showed the Tesla Model 3 achieving the lowest probability of injury of any car they ever tested.

Those are the facts. All the other comments about subjective ratings, poorly designed and distracting controls, driver attentiveness, etc., are just spin - mostly by people who have never driven a Tesla Model 3 or who own a Volvo and can't accept that even Volvos don't score as well in safety tests (hint: it's because of the unavoidably massive chunk of metal sitting under the hood).

The thumb wheel on the left side of the steering wheel controls volume (up/down), track skip (right/left) and pause (press in). The thumb wheel on the right side of the steering wheel controls the cruise/autopilot speed limit (up/down), following distance (right/left) and voice commands (press). Turn signals are on the left stalk, wiper and headlight controls on the right stalk. The controls are perfectly efficient and work more or less like any other car. The climate controls are on the touchscreen and are simpler and easier to adjust than on any other car I have ever driven. I rarely touch the entertainment or nav system while driving because the voice controls are more convenient.

Everyone here talking shit about the controls who doesn't own it and drive it every day, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone else read the arrogant comment attributed to some unnamed source at Intel, stating that Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV so it's going to do it themselves and do it right." ?

So, not surprisingly, Intel has now run into "delays" in securing agreements with content providers (in this case, the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever). Why on earth would Intel believe that they have the consumer electronics clout to pull this off where Apple and Google continue to fail?

And who in their right mind at Intel decided to blast the media with their arrogant claims before they actually secured the elusive content agreements? Are they this completely incompetent as to think that Internet TV has anything at all to do with their fabulous semiconductor technology, instead of realizing it has everything to do with negotiation and leverage?

The kool-aid must run strong...

A few points..

1. Most hyperscale server applications are memory and/or I/O bound, not CPU bound (and "memory bound" meaning frequent memory accesses, not memory size bound)

2. Typical applications are search, web serving and data mining. Anything that requires Apache or Hadoop where the processing is highly parallel (and memory or I/O bound...)

3. For those types of workloads, there are often frequent idle times for any individual CPU, so individual CPUs can frequently enter a low power state while only the active CPUs are operating full bore. It's more problematic for large, monolithic CPUs to be power efficient with these types of workloads.

4. Because the applications are typically I/O bound, hyperscale servers have (or will have) more sophisticated parallelized I/O subsystems that provide lower latency access to distributed datasets.

Hyperscale server = I/O engine
Hyperscale server != computation engine

Streisand effect for would-be bioterrorists?

"We took something from the music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans."

Here, I'll fix that for him...

"We took something from the INDIE music industry, which was to stop treating the customers as users, and start treating them as fans."

Assuming you are referring to Linux as in "Linux on the desktop", it's because the masses prefer the friendly confines of a walled garden over the freedom to run a lot of half-baked free software. (Sorry, I had a bad day a few weeks ago when the latest kmail2 that ships with Ubuntu 11.10 ate all of my mail, prompting countless wasted hours reinstalling older software, restoring from backups, etc).

If you're referring to Linux in general, the reality is that Linux is actually way more successful than Apple, if you measure success in terms of deployed instances. I have no less than 9 embedded machines running Linux in my household if you include my and my wife's Android phones. Even if I chose iPhones over Android, the score would still be 7 to 2. I suspect even the households of Apple fan-people typically hold more Linux products than Apple products - they just don't realize it.

No, you missed the point. Read the Groklaw article that is referenced by TFA.

"If, as Barnes & Noble claims, Microsoft and its allies are using them (the patents) primarily as a legal instrument, it can take the matter into the area where patent law and antitrust law meet." ...and all the text that follows.

This is no longer about Microsoft defending its patents, legitimate or not. This is now an antitrust case in which MIcrosoft is accused of overreaching the domain of its patents in an attempt to illegitimately control a parallel market.

At the present time they are doing something with it other than lending it out.

...if he adds some frickin' laser beams.

Try 39 years ago, at least. University of Illinois PLATO IV terminals connected to a Control Data mainframe. We used to do our physics and chemistry homework on these things, and I can tell you from personal experience that they worked great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Platovterm1981.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

Which makes this discussion a pre-prepare post-mortem?

Sadly, SAS SSDs will probably never be mainstream (i.e. cheap and ubiquitous). I'm assuming that's what you mean by "Give us fucking SAS already."

On one hand, Romley with its integrated SAS ports may help seed the market for SSDs using SAS protocol.

On the other hand, NVM Express (http://www.intel.com/standards/nvmhci/) is pushing SSD designs toward direct attach on PCIe. The reality is that Intel doesn't care about all the beautiful things that SAS brings, such as long cables, hot plugging and multiple initiators. They're happier just getting the intermediate protocol controller out of the way and pushing the protocol stack into software running on an x86, thereby reducing cost and keeping more margins for themselves.

Don't hold your breath for SAS, unless you want to pay enterprise storage prices.

I think we should all just start calling her "She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named".

I really need a bigger notebook.