You have your numbers wrong. There have been zero spontaneous Tesla fires. All three Tesla fires were a result of a crash. Musk is denying the issue exists because there is no issue. When you impale a car, things like fires are going to happen. That's not a defect that warrants a recall.

This Ford issue though, is a defect. Cars may catch fire spontaneously during normal operation without any accident having occurred. That's a defect that warrants a recall.

And exactly what is wrong with preventing the death of your people (including 2.7 billion children) when discovering a better way while still destroying the enemy?

There's nothing wrong with it from the Doctor's point of view, but that's not what Kjella was getting at. It's bad from a story-telling perspective. A character without limitations is uninteresting. The Doctor used to have limitations. They are slowly being taken away, which limits future stories.

It's like the problem with Superman. He started out as super-strong, and they made him more and more infallible until eventually he was so overpowered that it became difficult to write stories for. If Superman has every power imaginable, then nothing can pose a problem for him and there can be no dramatic tension. You can't put Kryptonite into every story. They ended up having to scale back his powers to more manageable levels.

Likewise with the Doctor. If they keep removing his limitations, there won't be anything that can be a real threat to him. If the Who writers have any sense, they'll bring back the Time Lords next year and make them a significant roadblock for the Doctor to stop him from doing the more exotic things like crossing his own time stream.

I would have thought it would be obvious from context, but I was referring to The Moment whilst flippantly acknowledging Day of the Doctor's structural parallels with A Christmas Carol.

I don't understand why writers feel it is necessary for them to retcon an established story's past.

I don't understand why people complain about retconning things in a show about time travel. Changing the past is an intrinsic part of the show.

The Zygon framing story set up the solution to the Time War - the Warrior Doctor said as much when he remarked that the Ghost of Christmas Future didn't just take him to any future, it took him to the future he needed to see - i.e. it led him to the solution by specifically showing him the Zygon event. The Zygon framing story showed the audience how a stasis cube is used to freeze something in time (via the paintings), and it showed how the Doctor can take advantage of his multiple incarnations to perform a task that would normally take centuries (via the door unlocking), which were used to a) end the Time War in a different way and b) to provide an excuse for involving all of the Doctor's incarnations.

Operating extremely dangerous machinery in public, when the slightest mistake can kill somebody, is a privilege, not a right.

If you believe it's a right, then on what basis do you justify driving licenses? Which other rights require you to take tests before you are allowed to have them?

The First Amendment is not relevant here. The First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech. It doesn't restrict people from making contracts to restrict freedom of speech. That happens all the time and is perfectly legal.

The problem I have with Bill Gates is essentially the broken window fallacy. Microsoft had a stranglehold on the computer industry. They held back the computer industry by years. A decade even! In the web development industry alone, we're still shaped by the impact Internet Explorer 6 left - which was released in 2001, twelve years ago. What economic value would Be Inc. have brought? What charitable donations would have resulted from that company? Or Netscape? Or any of the tens of thousands of companies Microsoft had a deleterious impact upon?

He has since spent some of the money he earned holding back some of the most important industries in the world trying to help people. That's good. He didn't have to do that. But people judge that work as if it stands alone. It doesn't. The work he does with the money he has comes at the expense of the tens of thousands of companies that were held back or destroyed by the illegal and monopolistic actions he took.

I think it's unlikely that, economically speaking, the actions he took were a net win for society. Yes, once he had the money, he did good things with it. But the cost to society for him to obtain that money is far too high in my eyes. Higher than the value he brought.

Essentially, he took it upon himself to be Robin Hood. He stole from the rich - Western society - to give to the poor. However I don't see any reason to believe that the theft he perpetrated - the value he stole from society - was less than the value he brought to society. And I don't think it was his right to commit those crimes to do those things.

By all means, judge him for what he has brought to society. But you should not do that without judging him for all that he has took from society as well.

The sucky app management I was referring to was that every installed app is automatically on a home screen. That's a shitty thing.

For you perhaps, but it's exactly the right thing to do for most users. Average users don't install hundreds of applications. When they install an application, it's better for them to have it immediately available than tucked away somewhere they have to go find it. If they do use a lot of applications, they can easily move it out of the way.

Folders don't help.

Why not? You have your most frequently used applications on your home screen, and the rest are available when you tap on an icon. How is that different to what you are doing with Android?

Removing applications has been this awkward on every Android device I've owned. Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, Sony Xperia Pro, HTC Desire Z, and Google G1. Another phone too somewhere in the middle, but I can't remember off the top of my head which it was. This isn't a problem that is limited to a single manufacturer's customisations, they have all been pretty shitty.

Nope. As soon as I start dragging the icon, it shows the home screen. There's a "Remove" target I can drag it to, but it doesn't work because that's for removing stuff from the home screen.

I'm curious what you mean by "sucky app management". One of the things that really bugs me about Android is that the standard way of removing an app from a device is to go into Settings > App Management > Pick the app > Uninstall, which then pops up a dialog box confirming deletion. On iOS, I just have to tap and hold the app icon, then tap the x, which makes the app disappear instantly. iOS seems to have the clear advantage there.

not have every damn app as an icon on a home screen

Put your apps in a folder. It becomes the functional equivalent of the app drawer on Android, except you can have as many as you want and give them names.

And of course, once you take into account normal use patterns not Slashdotter use patterns, iOS seems to have even more of a lead. When you install apps, they appear on your home screen by default, not hidden away in the app drawer. That's far more sensible for normal users. And you do realise that downloading torrents on your phone is an extremely niche use pattern, right?

There's lots of problems with Facebook, but let's not pretend you're completely helpless about other people's photos of you.

If you're tagged in a photo, you can exercise your privacy controls over it. If you aren't tagged in the photo, a prospective employer isn't going to see it when they look at your profile.

judging from the number of accounts you have with Big Data Aggregators, I'm afraid you might be blind to it.

My company develops Android, Facebook and Twitter applications. Exactly how do you propose I avoid having Google, Facebook, and Twitter accounts?

Every account where you have an authentication from somewhere else serves only to increase your vulnerability to having the account hijacked.

My Google, Facebook, and Twitter accounts are all configured to use two factor authentication. The simplest way of hijacking them is to have a) my password, b) my phone, and c) my fingerprint. A username and password for Feed.ly doesn't make me safer, it's just an inconvenience.

That's $99 per year, to even be able to try coding for iOS.

That's not true. It's free to download Xcode, free to develop applications, and free to run them on the iOS simulator. You don't have to have a paid account to learn how to develop for iOS. The fee is to publish applications in the App Store and on devices.

Plus, you need a recent/current Apple computer running the current MacOS to run the dev tools on.

The multi-platform thing, I'll grant you. As for recent, well you need a Mac from 2007 onwards. The oldest I've personally tried was 2008, and it was a bit slow, but perfectly usable for professional purposes. Try running the Android emulator on a six year old computer - it's incredibly slow on brand new ones.