Your facts are wrong. Intel developed this technology and the code name for it was Light Peak. Apple registered the trademark for Thunderbolt but transferred the rights to that trademark to Intel two years ago. Thunderbolt is not proprietary to Apple in any meaningful way.

Thunderbolt is just PCI Express and Displayport with DC power baked in. Both PCIe and DP are well supported and widespread. A Thunderbolt port can be used for PCIe or Displayport devices. It's accurate however that Thunderbolt is not widely used outside of Apple products at this time.

Light Peak was the code name for Thunderbolt which was developed by Intel and Intel owns the full rights to the trademark. It uses an Apple developed connector and Apple was the first ones to put Thunderbolt on their machines but it is unambiguously an Intel owned technology.

Apple transferred the Thunderbolt trademark to Intel about two years ago.

As well as 9 other corporations that hold essential patent rights to the technology in IEEE1394.

Since virtually all your facts are wrong you might consider taking a less adversarial tone.

"Prices in my area went up 15 cents overnight for no damn reason whatsoever other than the sun happened to rise in the same place as it did the day before."

This is because you allowed your elected officials to let gasoline become a traded commodity. if you were do demand they not allow it, price stability would return.

"Pretty much all your luxury cars should be running that, and many regular cars."

Ahh yet another uneducated car owner.... Unless the car is turbocharged, supercharged, or high compression you are a moron to run anything but the low grade "regular unleaded" gas

Higher octane burns SLOWER to reduce knock. this is used for Forced induction engines and high compression engines. Both of which are RARE to find in cars. less than 40% of all cars sold meet this need.

Sadly many uneducated drivers fall for the marketing of "premium" gas being better or having more additives.. They don't. It's just marketing to get people that don't know any better to buy the overpriced fuel they do not need.

"If you're billing hourly then commuting in an SL600 at 120mph" dare you to constantly drive like there in the states.
Reality your SL600 is going 45mph as you are stuck in traffic on I80 because some moron could not merge.

"The final step is going to be to have all car manufacturers agree on a certain standard, "

Hell will freeze first. we cant eve get the Gas cap on the same side of the car.

After that procedure of mapping her brain, did she recover well? were there any side effects? When will we have the first interviews?

you will find that idiots that drive SUV's will park at them. Just like all the charging stations around town.

What's the appeal? -- you need to RTFA

You need to read the fine article. The locations in Brooklyn are subsidized, both through actual rent subsidy, and temporary tax exemptions being extended to tech companies: NYC wants these businesses moving in, and they want it in a rather large way, since they don't see bodegas, taxi companies, or a lot of other non-tech businesses as being a growth industry for increasing the tax base.

Without a huge investment in a redevelopment effort to knock down buildings and grow things up, about the only thing they can do is try to increase tax revenue by incentivizing higher income businesses to locate in the area -- and right now, that means tech companies.

The article specifically complains about these types of companies being preferentially subsidized.

About the only things worse that NYC could be doing to itself right now, besides reducing the caffeine intake for software engineers by limiting cup sizes, I mean, would be to be extending these subsidies to the Wall Street folks instead, or passing something like California's Prop 13, and having it apply to non-residential, non-parking structure commercial properties, as it does in California right now (thank you, Kaiser Family Trust -- NOT). There's a reason that San Francisco has built up huge numbers of un-rented high value per square foot commercial properties, and is knocking down older buildings an parking structures everywhere they think they can get away with it.

Actually, it's $52.35 in California, if you go to one of several Bay Arco stations not in San Francisco or Los Angeles. So even in California, it's between ~$8.00 and $28.00 higher than filling up a 15 gallon gas tank. So swapping out the battery pack can be up to 150% the cost, if it comes in at the high end of things. I guess electric vehicles are only cheaper to operate if you build some more nuclear plants to make cheaper electricity.

Yes, blurry image when compared with LCDs. All CRTs have a (slightly) fuzzy image. Calibration helps (though it is almost never done in practice) and it can be minimized to the point you probably won't notice but CRTs do not produce as sharp an image as an LCD.

LCDs consume 50-70% less energy when in use than CRTs of a similar size. The precise amount varies but any argument that CRTs are competitive on power consumption is easily refuted in almost all cases. I'm sure you can probably find a corner case where some CRTs are competitive with specific LCDs but such examples would be rare at best.

Right. Millions of people have just hallucinated that CRTs flicker. [/sarcasm] Seriously, don't even start with this one. CRTs flicker and most were never set at sufficiently high refresh rates. A CRT at 75Hz is usually bearable but the flicker is still observable to many and uncomfortable for some. Personally I can still see flicker in some conditions even at 85Hz though it no longer is uncomfortable for me at that refresh rate. I can't remember the last time I used a PC that the person using it had set the refresh rate higher than 75Hz and most seemed to leave it at 60Hz which would drive me crazy.

CRTs are now a niche product. For most applications they are inferior to other available display technologies. They have their advantages but their disadvantages are legion. I don't miss using them even a little bit.

I'm curious: would you also abolish differential penalties for juvenile offenders?

One of the primary motivations for older gang members to indoctrinate juveniles into gangs in the first place is that the differential penalties means a juvenile offender can commit a felony, and as long as it's not serious enough to get them tried as an adult, they face much smaller penalties that adult offenders, with exactly the same profitability to the gangs. So as a 25 year old gang member, I'm highly incentivized to recruit 15-17 year olds to do things like trafficking narcotics to weapons violations. They get paid better money that they could get flipping burgers, usually by an order of magnitude, I get the rest of the profit, and hey, if they get cause, a year in juvie is something hey can do standing on their head, and be well rewarded for taking the fall.

This is about the stupidest thing for inventors.

In most countries other than the U.S., where you have a year from first public disclosure to file for a patent, disclosure automatically nullifies your ability to file for patents.

That is NOT what christian churches teach.
And don't even try to tell me that the bible has not been used for the justification of murder. See the history of the Roman Catholic church for a plethora of examples.

I know intimately what Christ said and taught, that has nothing to do with what Christians believe and do. And his teachings are certainly not being followed in any large organized churches.

If you are truly paranoid you write it yourself.