In the video there's a shot of the go-kart moving from a near stop, and it's obvious that the engine doesn't make nearly enough torque for that particular use. No surprise, low displacement, low rotating mass. Still a cool idea, and they're in my area. If I was younger and not so established, it looks like something I'd want to be involved in.

It's weird that the user experience is so different for two different people. I've noticed three things off the top of my head that have made it a downgrade.

1. Missing music. If I do an artist search, and look through the list of available albums. There are albums missing in YouTube music, unless you search for that album by name. It's the strangest thing.

2. Android auto, when being used you're unable to view the tracks in the current playlist. If you want to change to another track you have to just get forward and back one at a time.

3. Personal preference on this one, but since I use this primarily for music the extra focus on offering videos as well makes for a worse UI.

I've had a google music account since it was in beta, it's been the good enough alternative to pirating, and the "substitute" in youtube music is a step backwards.

Just like poor inbox, google has killed something good and given you a turd in it's place. Bravo Google.

I overhaul the Pratt & Whitney units used by a lot of utilities, and their use in high demand situations isn't uncommon, that's why they're installed.

Also, the choice of fuel on older units is predominately liquid fuel (jet a), with a mix of dual fuel (usually started on liquid and switched to gas for running) and straight gas.

So, unless you have a dual fuel setup on your units, you're stuck running whatever fuel you always use and you have no choice in switching based on the fluctuations in fuel costs.

I don' see how the two are contradictory. The name is fair, reasonable and non discriminatory. Not fair, reasonable, non discriminatory and exactly the same for everyone.

There's a value in patents, especially in ones standards are based on. Hence he FRAND agreement not to gouge people. Your claim is that regardless of how many of your patents I cross license in our deal, I can' consider their value in setting the rate I charge. So why would anyone ever do a deal other than cash only? It basically gives a much lower rate to those who have no patents to share vs those who would license them as part of a deal.

AC is troll.

But I disagree on your respin. Apple asked for a judgement that would only be binding upon MotoMobility, and not on Apple. The court decided it didn't want to make a ruling that would have no effect besides to act as a new negotiating point between the two parties and dismissed it because Apple was unwilling to abide the courts ruling (whatever that may have ended up being)

As posted above, a normal part of a FRAND license is reciprocal licensing of your FRAND patents. If you don't have enough (or any) to balance out what you want to license, then a higher rate is to be expected.

A point I've heard mentioned in other places. I guess the divide is between a company who has, and a company who doesn't have, FRAND patents.

I think the idea is that MotoMobility/Google are asking for a higher rate due to a lack of reciprocal FRAND patents.

I think this fits in fine with the American concept of pricing for vehicles in its class

Make no mistake, this is no chevy volt. It's a performance luxury sedan that happens to be electric

On the topic of the Karamas, they've had a series of fire issues. Including one recall that may or may not have solved all of the issues.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/29/fisker-officially-recalls-karma-over-battery-safety-issue/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/12/fisker-flambe-second-karma-spontaneously-combusts-w-video/
http://www.insideline.com/fisker/karma/uncertainty-surrounds-fisker-karma-fire-automaker-contends.html

http://www.top500.org/lists/2007/11
http://www.top500.org/lists/2012/06
Should be interesting to see them double the rate of growth over the preceding five years

For infringing on the patent for their new and innovative iSurface device. Tim Cook proclaims "Steve Jobs would want us to vigorously defend our innovations against those who would ride on Apples coat tails."

It's not about resistance to change, it's about need. I've got a much more capable device sitting in my computer room than I do in my pocket or on my nightstand. Why utilize an inferior piece of hardware when a twenty second walk will put me in front of my pc. I think it's more about convenience of use. We've got two smart phones, a touchpad and a kindle in the house. For casual forum reading, the phones or the tablet will suffice, For even something as simple as searching for information on a new topic, I much prefer he utility of a keyboard, mouse and multiple screens. People of future generations will utilize the best tools available to them, including dedicated pc's if available.