I have been to Orlando (so DisneyWorld/Universal Studios) several times in the last few years. Last month I went to Disneyland for the first time and got to experience Star Wars Land.

I was not at all impressed with Star Wars Land. I turned to the friend I was with and said "Yeah, this is cool, but does not hold a candle to Harry Potter World" (in Orlando).

Harry Potter World is probably the best thing to compare it to, and HPW is completely immersive. Yes, you are in an amusement park, but it really feels like you are on set. There are several rides in HPW. The train between the two parks is amazingly well done. SWL, on the other hand, feels... artificial. It feels hastily put together, without any sense of flow or identity. You still feel like you are in an amusement park.

I am a huge Star Wars fan. That said, I would go back to HPW many times before I consider returning to SWL.

I worked Apple retail before going on to work at two different Apple Specialists (the highest level of AASP - Apple Authorized Service Provider). I now work for a another company and one of my tasks is the occasional job of taking Apple machines in for repair.

At this point, the number of Apple machines I have dealt with that were going through the AppleCare repair process number in the tens of thousands, I would guess. In all of that time, I have not once seen an AppleCare coverage denied because of third-party RAM installed by the end user. Not a single time.

Your statement is verifiably incorrect by the thousands of other people who have had the same experience as mine.

Get off my lawn!

I belive I signed up 3 Sept 1998. I have another 11 months until my 20th anniversary of my account. I had been reading for a bit before that though.

Every now and then there is an article like this and us two, three, and four digit UID users come out of the attic to yell at all the Johnny-come-latelys.

I have started declining to tell my current salary. I explain that my offer should be related to the value I bring to the company, not based on previous work at another company.

I went through a screening process a couple of years ago with an enterprise level company. A recruiter reached out to me about a position that looked appealing to me. One of my first questions to the recruiter was the salary range for the position. It was right in line with what I was expecting, and I replied that the range was satisfactory.

During the phone screen (done by the recruiter, not the hiring manager), I passed all of her questions. Towards the end she had some background questions, including my current salary. I explained that I was unwilling to divulge that information, but that I found the agreed salary range to be acceptable.

The recruiter explained that she could not continue the screen without that information. When I explained that I declined again, she hung up on me.

Since then I have spoken to other people that work for the company, and they have nothing good to say about working for the company. So I guess my policy paid off.

Yes, if only Apple had been making something like that for the last decade. What a wonderful world we would be living in...

So based on numerous descriptions I have read, the Google car was in a very wide lane and moved to the right side of the lane to make a right turn. It saw some sandbags blocking the very right side of the lane, so it tried to move back to the middle of the lane. A bus, coming up from behind in the same lane, did not yield to to the Google car and there was contact.

I think it is important to note that all of this happened in the same "lane".

While the Google car could have possibly avoided the accident, I am not sure it is to blame. It seems to me that the bus was attempting to pass a car ahead of it in the same lane.
The blame seems about 80% on the city for not properly marking the lanes, about 15% on the bus for not yielding to a car ahead of it in its own lane, and about 5% on the Google car for not stopping for the bus who was trying to barge its way through.

I have been running for 30+ years at this point.

Some points:
* There is not going to be a perfect device. As the saying goes, a Swiss Army Knife is no replacement for a well stocked toolbox. A few dedicated devices will do the trick much better than an all-in-one device will.

* While listening to music while running can make the time go a little faster, a running partner will be a much better addition. When it is dark and snowing outside and you are warm and in your bed, knowing that someone is going to be meeting you in 30 minutes is better motivation than anything else. Training should also always allow you to talk while you run (otherwise you are going too fast). Having someone there to talk to makes sure you are going at the right pace.

* Once you have some experience with them, a heart rate monitor can really guide training. Pace can be affected by ambient temperature, wind, inclines, and other factors. Your heart rate is a better indicator of effort.

* I have not had the Forerunner 15. I have had the FR60, the ForeRunner 405, and the ForeRunner 220. All of them have been able to get 3+ hours. The 405 was the worst of the bunch, but that was a relatively early GPS watch. Even then, it got 3+ hours for the first year or so. The 220 gets 6+ hours - I have honestly never gotten the battery down very low. Even after 3+ hour runs, it is showing more than 50% left. I generally use the 220 for 3-4 runs before I consider charging it back up.

* I never run with my phone. It is partly because of bulk, and mostly because I go running to get outside and get away from the always-on world we live in. I only listen to music on my long runs, and for that I have an older iPod Shuffle.

* As others have mentioned, http://www.dcrainmaker.com/pro... is the best review site out there.

* Based on your needs, I would consider Garmin's newest watches, the 230 or the 235: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/201... I would also purchase an iPod Shuffle. If wireless is a big requirement, I would look at the iPod Nano and BlueTooth headphones.

I think people are missing this company's solution.

The machine boots to Windows, and then this company's product randomizes everything in RAM. Even Windows has no idea where anything is in memory anymore. Every single bit is in a completely random location, with no relation to the bits it was next to previously.

Granted, the machine crashes at this point, but it has successfully booted and been rendered unhackable.

For long-term security, their follow-up product will randomize all data on a hard drive. It is completely un-hackable, even with physical access. Of course the data is also irretrievable, but there are prices to security.

A lot of people are complaining that they do not like the idea of sharing vehicles.

What about thinking about it this way - suddenly proximity of your parking spot to where you are is a lot less important. Your personal autonomous vehicle drops you off at your destination and then goes to find a parking spot. Then, when your waiter brings you the check (for example), you let your vehicle know to come pick you up in ten minutes. The vehicle checks current traffic levels and leaves for a just-in-time pickup.

Before you go to bed you let your autonomous vehicle know what time you want to get to work. Your vehicle looks at the average commute time for that time of day and lets you know when it will pick you up. It leaves its parking spot with enough time to get you.

The drawback to this that you are spending money to pay for gas or electricity while your vehicle drives (empty) to a parking spot. I would say this is the price you pay for wanting your own vehicle. The alternative is a taxi-style service.

For everyone complaining that other people will make the car unusable, you might not have taken a cab recently. More often than not it seems like you are video recorded. In addition, the cab company (which I assume would be the same ones putting autonomous cabs on the street) would have a vested interest in keeping vehicles clean.

I used ZipCar for several years and reporting damage or a messy car was easy for the company to follow up on. The previous user had to have reserved the vehicle and paid for its use. The company has credit card on file already, it is easy enough to go after the user for damages.

I live in Denver, and just moved. My previous commute was about 3.9 miles via bicycle, with about 2.5 miles of it on bike lanes. My new commute is 4.5 miles, with about 3.5 miles of it on a dedicate recreational path (Denver's Cherry Creek Trail), and the other 1 mile almost all on bike lanes.

My new commute, while having a longer distance, takes me less time. In addition, it is a lot less stressful. The recreational path makes all the difference. It is limited access - there are ramps to the trail about every .2 miles - no motorized vehicles, and goes from my neighborhood (an urban residential-heavy area) to downtown.

I have commuted via bicycle in a wide variety of cities on the East Coast and can say that this new commute is about as ideal as it could be. I dread the days I have to drive into work. Even without traffic (which doubles the time needed), it takes me longer to drive.

A lot of US cities I have lived in see separated paths for recreational use only. They never seem to see that a trail going from residential areas to business areas can be a great encouragement for bicycle commuting.

A lot of smaller towns I have seen change stoplights at night. From 11pm-6am, for example, a stop light with two small streets will turn into flashing red all around, meaning a four way stop. A larger road intersection will get a flashing yellow on the major road, and flashing red on the smaller road.

Makes sense to me, and I doubt this adds any additional crashes.

Yes, because the terrible drivers we have all seen are not causing accidents as it is.

Every time I see a discussion about autonomous cars, someone chimes in that there are terrible human-driven cars on the road, and that an autonomous vehicle cannot deal with that. What they fail to mention is that no human drivers can really deal with them either, if the terrible driver is driving so badly that an accident is bound to happen.

Bad drivers causing accidents because they are on the cell phone? Yep. Bad drivers causing accidents because their vehicles are not properly maintained? Yep. Bad drivers causing accidents because the do something unpredictable without looking? Yep.

In all of those cases, you are right - an autonomous car will probably be no better than a human driver. You have yet to convince me that it will be *worse*, though. As more autonomous vehicles are on the road, though, accidents caused by bad, distracted drivers will go down. So at worse it is no improvement, with an almost assured big improvement as time goes on. Or we can just stay with the status quo.

You are right, though - replacing the entire infrastructure is not going to happen. I am guessing the Vehicle to Infrastructure communication they are talking about are things like red lights (why have a camera in the car to determine the color of the light when the intersection can just broadcast directly to vehicles?), train crossings, and so on. An autonomous vehicle should be able to deal with these things as they currently are, but if a town's red lights are due for replacement, why not replace them with autonomous vehicle friendly versions?

I have lived in numerous major cities, and have not owned a car in about 10 years. I bike, I walk, and if available I take subways/trains. I try to avoid buses as much as possible.

Why? They are the worst form of transportation I can imagine. They are slower than driving (since they have to stop more often than a car on the same route), and only go on pre-determined routes. Subways and trains, while limited to a certain route, at least are quicker than driving. Taxis and other forms of automobile transportation are more expensive, but are faster than a bus. Making a bus free does not change its limitations.

I believe that all pubic transportation should be free (where "free" is defined as "no admission charge") to encourage public transportation. Asking why people do not take buses, though, is not a financial conversation, in my opinion.

Getting people to take public transportation is much more about making it convenient and fast. Does it pick up near where I am beginning my route? Does it drop me off near where I want to go? How much longer will it take than driving?

If you want people out of their cars, solve these questions satisfactorily. Make more and better bike lanes - and even dedicated bike paths. I would even encourage dedicated bus lanes with enforcement. I lived for a while in Boston, where "Bus lane" meant "double park lane".

Having gone through the hiring process a couple of times in the last couple of years, HR and recruiters are the biggest hinderance to companies hiring talented individuals. For a tech position, HR has become a gatekeeper to the hiring manager. Unfortunately they have no knowledge of the position or the technologies.

Certificates get you past this gatekeeper. They are fairly useless otherwise, but since HR has wedged themselves between the candidate and the hiring manager, they become a bit of a necessary evil.

I definitely think there are games out there fitting my needs - as I said, I place the blame partly on me for not wanting to do the research to find them.

I do agree that there are a lot of casual "Play this game on the bus on the way to work" games out there for mobile devices. Mobile device gameplay is a whole other ball of wax, though. I would prefer to sit down in front of a large screen and use physical buttons. I suppose I am just old like that. I can see the appeal of mobile gaming, and have played a few over the years.

I suppose one drawback to mobile gaming is the lack of socialization. I am not one to sit down and play a video game on my own very often. I would much rather play in a group. The few games I keep on my iPhone are mobile versions of board games that I play against other people via Game Center.