Careful. They were processed in a facility that processes nuts.

What's the difference between a screen displaying operational data (like navigation) or any of the various gauges that you use to operate the vehicle?

For instance, I find myself very distracted by constantly looking down to my speedometer when going through some of the areas around my home where the local police will nail you for 35 in a 25. I'm so (necessarily) fixated on the speedometer, I can't actually *drive*.

GPS devices are FAR safer than the alternatives. I don't know if you remember what the world was like pre-GPS, but it wasn't at all uncommon to have a map unfolded on a seat next to you that you consult from time to time when navigating through unfamiliar territory. A quick glance at a GPS which shows me a 3D representation of the route I need to take hands-down beats several seconds of scanning a map to figure out where I am and where I need to be.

I'm confused; why wouldn't you already have that information?

The US does indeed have a CIO.

What Facebook has over all of the other players is the network effect. Metcalf's Law tells us that everyone is on Facebook because... well, everyone is on Facebook. Yes, when Facebook upset its user base back in September, lots of people created Google+ accounts which are now dormant. BUT... those people now have Google+ accounts. They're not going away. Every time Facebook does something to irritate its user base, more people will create Google+ accounts out of frustration and a desire to "stick it" to Facebook. This has the potential (but is in in no way guaranteed) to iterate enough times that it could reach a tipping point. I don't think it would tip without two things happening: 1.) Google+ changing its experience to make Facebookers feel more at home, and 2.) Facebook doing something boneheaded that infuriates lots of people to vocally switch (after the critical mass has been assembled on Google+).

I think it's very possible, albeit not terribly likely, for us a few years down the road to say: "Facebook who?" Who would have thought that Myspace would have been unseated?

No, you really don't. Your vote won't put Obama in office OR keep him out. So use your one vote to vote for someone who both believes as you do, and has the credibility and history to back it up. (Not to sound like a broken record, but this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.)

Are you people not reading what I write? Oh right; of course not. I forgot this is Slashdot... Silly me. Let me respond to your statement by quoting what you replied to:

As I said, there will be plenty of candidates out there besides the nominees of the two major parties.

To help you get started, the venerable Wikipedia has a list of some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

Some of them are screwballs, some of them look fairly compelling, particularly for single-issue voters. None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014. :)

Why, oh WHY on earth? Maybe it's because my experience with American is largely limited to flying into Haiti and coast-to-coast, but it's invariably a horrendous experience. Especially when compared to carriers like Southwest, who actually "gets" customer service.

In fact, I flew American back in January, and my Facebook status briefly said: "I am not in any way surprised that American Airlines is in bankruptcy."

I'm sorry, but if you were foolish enough in 2008 to see him as anything but what he is -- yet another (Chicago, even!) politician, you're kinda gullible (or, at least, insufficiently cynical.) (Don't worry, I fell for Bush 2000 myself, so I'm right there with you in the gullible camp.)

Well, you could start by figuring out how to vote in the Republican primaries and voting for Paul. If Paul isn't palatable for you, there are plenty of other parties and candidates; chances are very good that you can find someone that you pretty well agree with out there somewhere.

To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous. There are plenty of candidates for president who actually make a *credible* claim that they'll fight to restore our constitutionally-enshrined rights. Yes, they aren't likely to win, but I swear I'll go all medieval on you if you claim that I am throwing away my vote by voting for someone who believes as I do instead of voting for someone who I disagree slightly less with but is more likely to win.

Can't immediately find the Slashdot story, but this was mentioned a few years ago:

http://www.i-shovel.com/

If it's so self-evidently logical that the OP is wrong, why did you feel the need to enlighten us with an explanation of why he was wrong? Was it a waste of time, or did you possibly impart some knowledge that wouldn't have been passed on if the original statement had never been made? You did EXACTLY what should be done, instead of moderating an opinion into oblivion and leaving it unanswered, you replied and refuted it. THAT is the way that Slashdot comments are fruitful, not by abusing the moderation system.

For the record, I don't believe YOUR post deserves to be modded down, either. I'm sorry to see that it's been done, and I fear it might have been induced by my reply.

In my opinion, Flamebait and Troll are actions of intention. When I moderate down, I try to discern the intention of the poster -- were they attempting to incite something? Did they or should they have known better? Even if they were trying to incite something, do they have a legitimate point that CAN be replied to in an informative way?

Of course, more often I more try to find a good point-counterpoint thread and upmod both sides.

And we've all learned something from that conversation, right? That's why we should be encouraging opinions that differ from ours, not encouraging moderators to silence them. It provokes good discussion.

No, he doesn't. He deserves to have a logical and thoughtful refutation of his opinion posted in reply. I'm so sick of (-1, Disagree).