Except that the cable company CAN add more hardware to increase their throughput, the cell companies have a fixed amount of bandwidth to slice up at any given time. In higher density areas or at peak usage times, more towers wouldn't help.

About the only advantage I see in this is the possible efficiency (which doesn't really make sense unless the car is electric). I mean, bright is bright. Screw "modulated for safety". If the point is it's brighter, then it's brighter at both ends. This just means that when they come over a hill, they can blind you from a mile away. We don't even need high beams anymore.

Could they maybe tie this into a range finder or adaptive landscape mapping or something? I'd hate to see what their laser headlight would do to a puddle of water, or god forbid a fog or rainstorm. It would look like an IO tower from TRON was slicing apart pieces of the sky.

The way I read it, 30 seconds.

So why not just mine the moon? I mean, it's already in a stable orbit, has some limited gravity to keep things from floating away, and is (hopefully) not going to "accidentally" come crashing down on top of us if something happens to go wrong. Do they even know that this passing asteroid has anything worth mining? Seems like an awfully big expenditure for something that could turn out to be a big fat dud.

You do understand that the coconuts are falling naturally, right? Whereas we are fracking ourselves. If you had people up in the trees dropping coconuts on unsuspecting tourists, wouldn't it be a good idea to tell them to stop rather than comparing meaningless statistics on death rates?

Wait, what? So we need to have a nice high tally before we can stop being stupid?

Actually, it might be more apt to say they want to have their cake... and my cake... and eat them both.

I suppose it makes their lousy network actually look as bad as it really is, but why else should they care? Didn't they do away with unlimited plans? If you're paying for the data, why should they give a damn how you are actually using it... unless of course, they CAN'T actually supply the data and bandwidth they are advertising. It's like selling lollipops but saying that you can't give one to your friend. If you run out of lollipops and want to buy more, ISN'T THAT THE WHOLE POINT??

Seriously. I mean why not skip the electrodes and simply DRIVE SLOWER.

While it is true that you can take someone's picture in a public place, USE of that picture is another matter. As soon as he publicly posts that picture associated with his name as photographer, then he opens himself to lawsuits regarding personal likeness. This is why the press has you sign wavers. They don't want something coming back at them later for any reason.

And did he also get permission from every singe person the camera captured? If he didn't, he's screwed.

That's because they only have to pay for the hosting once (or once a month/year/whatever) and not by the hit. How many spammers would stay in business if they were charged $1 per email address they spammed?

Google is successful because it has managed to hold onto being the premiere search engine and then selling the keywords that it sees are the most popular. "Word of mouth" has literally almost *nothing* to do with it.

By "reading reviews" you mean in regard to ebooks, certainly, but SOMEONE is going to be first and is going to have to fork over the stupid $.99 to find out if what the author claims is super amazing awesome ZOMG!.. is really just crap. It gets more complicated because the author can log in with a different account and post 5 star reviews and praises to muddy the water. If a spammer only gets one or two sales before someone posts a negative review, then they still win because they are doing this on a massive scale. They've got like a thousand crap books out there, all getting 2-3 sales. And those books don't go away, they just sit there in the listings wasting people's time and bandwidth.

Interesting, because the spammers are making money by putting out 1000 useless "books" that may only get downloaded 3 times each before people catch on and post negative reviews. But that's still 3000 "sales" at $0.70 each (70% profit), or $2,100. But if Amazon absorbed the first $10 of *each book*, the spammers would get nothing and the industry would be a far better place. Of course, that will encourage comment whoring, but that's nothing new to the system.

Amazon does not simply "promote" and market goods and services. They get PAID to promote and market goods and services... and paid quite well. The fact that you don't understand this shows a complete ignorance of the industry. User reviews may push you up in a list of similar products, but you still have to be seen first. How many click through's do you think you would get on the 50th result page from Google?