Let me be one of many to point out that robots are not people. Politicians... well, they are lower than robots in my book, but fine, if one of them wants to call me *personally*, I'll tell them everything I think about them.

  And more importantly, the 1st amendment bars *Congress* from limiting speech. The federal do-not-call list is *opt-in*. Which means it's *I* who expresses the desire to limit speech I hear. Totally my right to scream "nananana, cannot hear ya" any time I want! Nothing to do with Congress. They are just providing the tools for me to exercise my right to not be bothered.

Even better. Buy the phone, open it, use it and then return stating specifically that you returned it because it lacks the feature you expected it to have (audio jack in this case). It hurts the manufacturer much more compared to simply not buying. Make sure you can return it of course, but generally you have 2 weeks to return a phone in US for example, as far as I know.

If a single 21-year old can write an operating system kernel from scratch in about 5 months (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel), surely a group of 100 experienced senators should be able to accomplish, well, about 100 times more. Right?

You can also create an empty Google account just for silly apps like that, separate from your important stuff. Let them read emails from each other.

So an alleged criminal is in prison awaiting trial and when questioned he says "no, never mind, I did not really do that criminal act you are asking me about that can add years to my jail sentence, I was just kidding earlier". And you just believe him, no further investigation needed? I guess when it benefits Hillary, then yeah, you just ask him to pinky swear and trust his every word.

If this was said by their local version of FBI anywhere in Russia, China, Brasil, etc., everyone would be crying foul how that country is corrupt and how FSB, PSB, "FBI", etc. is clearly intimidating prosecutors not to bring any cases against an oligarch, even though there is evidence they violated the law (gross negligence). And how "important figures" in those countries are above the law. I'm so glad USA is not one of "those countries"!

And 100% of torrent users already do.

In v3.0 they'll add a check for huge trailers too, I hope?

I don't think when someone is saying "charmless, loud-mouthed ____ twat" they are trying to sound particularly intelligent. That's the whole point. OP is sufficiently upset about the choice of the new Top Gear host to use fairly insulting words like "twat". Also, if we didn't have enough triggers already, a color of someone's hair is off-limits too now? What's next, I can't call someone "that bold fuck" or "that blond bitch" any more? How am I supposed to refer to Donald "The Hair" Trump then?!

"Long-term support" only means 5 years now?! Even Windows XP had 12 year life. I guess it's on par with Windows 10, so it's ok, eh?

And? Nobody was expecting Tesla to calculate the trajectory of the trailer and take an intelligent detour around it via a side street. It is well within the autopilot features to stop the car if there is an obstacle in the road in front of it. The size of the fucking trailer, mind you. Yes, it's not meant to be a full-featured self-driving car. But stopping before hitting an obstacle is very much expected.

Also, who tested autopilot at Tesla? It's not like tractor trailers are rare on the road. You just take all types of common vehicles on the road and you test the car against all of them. How hard can it be? Are we going to learn next that Teslas don't brake for cyclists??

So Tesla says the auto-pilot actually detected the trailer, but thought it was an "overhead sign" that was hanging high enough. What?! So it appears the sensors on Tesla are not precise enough to tell if the car can safely pass under something if it hangs over the road? I mean, come on, I'd be fine if the auto-pilot couldn't tell if the clearance is 10 feet or 12 feet. But a trailer? As far as I can find the standard floor height of a tractor trailer is 48". That means the clearance under is even less. It didn't occur to Tesla to test if the car can detect solid object hanging 4 feet off the ground?? I don't care if the driver was asleep, Tesla should have handled this.

Also, didn't we already have a Tesla hit a trailer in "auto-park" mode a few weeks ago?

What I know for damn sure is that next time I'm test driving a Tesla, or any other car with auto-pilot mode, I'm bringing a two by six with me.

How can we be sure that the driver did *not* notice the truck?! The fact that he didn't step on the brakes, you say? Maybe he noticed it, but thought "whatever, my Tesla is smart enough to stop if it needs to". And by the time he realized that it's not stopping he just didn't have enough reaction time to lift the foot off the floor and apply the brakes? Every time I see a demo of the smart cruise control, where the car can stop if there's an obstacle, drivers are told to resist stepping on the brakes and trust the car to slow down and stop in time. Or are we supposed to hover our foot over the brake pedal and second-guess the car all the time? What's the point of having an auto-pilot if you can't relax and let the car take care of the brakes?

As much as I like Tesla (my next car was going to be one until this happened), I think they should suffer enough for this, so that every other automaker out there makes damn sure their auto-pilot can handle situations like this. And I'm waiting another 5 years before getting a car with auto-pilot.

Could never understand the appeal of the original WRT54G router. I think I actually have one sitting in storage that I haven't used in years (just in case). There are literally hundreds of modern routers with much higher speeds and more memory that support the same DD-WRT firmware:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/ind...
I'm using one right now, and it has 802.11ac and 5 Gigabit ports. Has been rock solid ever since I updated the stock firmware to DD-WRT.

On one hand, I admire a leader who listens to their constituents and adjusts their position according to the majority's view. That's democracy. On the other hand, something tells me that Hillary's definition of "constituents" and "majority" includes large sums of money donated to her campaign, and "unless it is against her self-interests". I know, I know, every politician is like that, you'll tell me. Bernie isn't though. And that's the sad part.