Don't even get me started on the space program. What a waste of taxpayer dollars! In less than 50 years after we wasted billions to put a man on the moon, the much superior PRIVATE sector has already put a person into low earth orbit and promised us a rocket that will be delivered any day now that will be better than the ones we built in the 60's! And people wonder why everyone thinks the government is so inefficient and useless.

When you elect people who loudly and proudly proclaim to hate government or who want to "drown the government in a bathtub", why would you be so surprised when they do an absolutely terrible job at running things? You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror.

The Honda succeeded as reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. Yet the Tesla failed miserably as a supercar. That is all there is to it.

I can test drive and buy a Tesla today in something like 30 different cities around the world. Where can I buy a Honda FCX? Oh that's right, individual consumers cant really buy them at all. What was that about the FCX's "reliable every day transportation"? As far as I can see, the FCX fails at being an actual car, period.

If you watch Top Gear for responsible journalism, you are doing it wrong.

Gotta love how top gear apologists alternate between "the review was accurate" and "if you wanted accuracy, why did you watch 'top gear'?" seamlessly whenever the situation requires.

Personally, I'm glad Tesla is taking it to Top Gear, those disingenuous fucks need to be put in their place for their tabloid-level bullshit.

It's an iPhone, it's not designed to make calls. :)

LOL. You sound like the "IBM guy" in the 80's arguing that the IBM PC-AT will crush the clones due to its obvious technical superiority. Compaq *destroyed* IBM in the PC market, because they realized that great technology can be defeated with even greater business model. In other words, while technical flaws can be fixed, fundamentally self-limiting business models can't. This is not to say that Apple and Microsoft will not continue to be profitable, but that Android will eat their lunch for the same kinds of reasons that other flawed technologies won against their (temporarily) superior competition.

It is also worth mentioning that alpha-dog libertarian anti-environmentalist and the chief editor of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer, now subscribes to AGW. In his own words:

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

I was surprised to find that it had a USB input, and read from mass storage devices, (albeit only FAT32) and could decode divX, xvid, mp3 and ogg.

You shouldn't be. Most TV's these days have a full computer inside them, and a large percentage of them run Linux. Here's the list of Sony TV's that run Linux, for example.

Shouldn't a critique of web design at least be done by people who are skilled in the art? Just look at their site. I am no professional web designer, but even I know that you probably shouldn't be using heavy, bright, noisy headers and you probably shouldn't be putting such long articles into a single un-adjustable column that is what, 800 pixels wide?

By forcing Apple to issue updates specifically disable their device, Palm is capitalizing on the media hype maelstrom that is lavished on Apple, keeping the name "Pre" on the lips of people who would normally only ever talk about the iPhone. So when the media covers this "war", they are in effect establishing the idea of comparability between the products that would have been hard to get through had they just gone with traditional advertising and promotions. Between this and the new Microsoft ads, it is interesting to see Apple's competitors finally starting to ratchet up their competition with a brilliant marketing company.

It's great that Apple gives a little back to the command line code they lifted wholesale from NetBSD, but why no iTunes for NetBSD users? Why no Quicktime for NetBSD users? And why is it that there is this absolutely HUGE development community around OS X, but almost nothing that comes out of is ever written portably? The mailing lists for long standing Linux and BSD Open Source projects everywhere are full of requests to port code to OS X. The vast majority of projects are able to satisfy those requests because, as I pointed out, OS X is designed as a roach motel for code: Open Source checks in, but it doesn't check out. By comparison, the list of *novel* Open Source desktop software written originally on OS X and ported to Linux or BSD can be counted on one hand. Let's see, there's Transmission, and ... ?

Apple took good advantage of the portability and generous licensing of open source software and based huge swaths of OS X on long established projects such as BSD and Mach. Then by grafting on a tightly controlled series of entirely proprietary application interfaces, they were able to ensure that while code flows easily and readily from Linux and FreeBSD to OS X, it is almost impossible for them to flow back. That is why you see so few truly cross platform open source desktop applications that originated on OS X but also run on other platforms. It also explains the plethora of OS X-only forks of popular open source applications such as Firefox and OpenOffice.