It's better to look at your total bottom line, not individual profit centers. This is actually part of the problem at MS. It is OK for one business to lose money, as long as it supports something else. Note that iTunes used to lose money, or barely break even, but they make money on devices. Amazon gives away the hardware to make money on content. Google loses money on search, gives away hardware, so they can make money on ads and selling data on its users. All 3 sound strategies. If they broke everything into a profit center that has to make money like most companies do, they would not be leading in their perspective fields.

Ford is worried more about competition from Chevy than Mercedes. Google is worried more about competition from Microsoft than Apple.

Besides, Google makes more per iPhone than they do per Android.

If your going to link to one of the hundreds of articles out there on this, could you not choose something more credible than Gizmodo? *sigh*

If there are not windows, its a no go, this solution forgets that you are moving people.

A mere 300mph is fine if it has car like comfort, Instead build:
    - Some type of track that can handle a small 2-4 passenger pod at 300mph, and transfer energy to the electric drive.
    - Elevate track for reasons given by Musk
    - Build canopy over track covered in solar cells to get as close as possible to zero net energy
    - Track canopy protects track from most weather
    - Cars that can handle a 300mph crash without killing occupants (big crumple zones)
    - Side windows, and a big screen in front for entertainment and possible operator interaction
    - On / Off ramps and terminals about every 30 miles. You are never more than 6 minutes or so from a terminal.
    - Computer can space cars for airflow efficiency (think Nascar drafting), and make gaps when cars need to switch tracks.
    - Build a hub and spoke network across the US, with the first track from the East Coast to the West Coast.

Select a route with an app on your phone or touchscreen in a terminal. It shifts the nearest empty car to you (think elevator). You get in, select your in car entertainment. If you need to stop for bathroom just let the computer know, or perhaps push a button, and your car will stop at the next terminal. When you are ready you get back in and continue your journey. All the while watching something close to low level flight out the window.

This is doable today.

The truth is we don't know. Big groundbreaking ideas are rare which is why it is amazing Apple has had 3-4 in the entire history of the company (Not every year as media for some weird reason expects), Google 2-3 maybe, and Facebook 1. These companies simply refine existing ideas over and over and make them into great products. For example Google search was groundbreaking, but gmail was taking an existing idea and cleaning it up and making it something you might want to use. Google Earth was purchased from independent developers. Until someone reinvents the phone again we will likely never see a new product that takes off like iPhones and Android again, there is simply very few things almost all of the billions if people in the world wants to own. Breakthrough innovation is really rare, but it will continue to happen. In the mean time Google and Apple will refine like crazy (sorry, just can't bring myself to put Facebook in here) and continue to make great products.

The shape of many of today's planes has a lot to do with buildability. This is a great start, but I hope once they a happy with the printing, they move on to more creative plane designs. To those asking "why", the correct answer is to learn. Baby steps.

Much easier to reduce the price than raise it. start slightly high, adjust to the market.

Jobs actually talked about this in a keynote somewhere along the way (too lazy to google it). He said it was a terrible user experience, and that is why they created touchpads.

The bigger question is, how the hell did one company get to create a monopoly on taxi service in a major city?

I'd like a tablet about the size of a piece of paper or legal pad. Build this in a 13" size (7.8" x 10.4") and I might just buy it!

At one time hooked to our TV was a DirecTV box only. Today we have (in order of usage):

- Apple TV. This is what the kids hit first when looking for something to watch. Mostly Netflix cartoons, our Vimeo home videos, and our Photo Stream. We have never purchased or rented a program from Apple!

- XBox with Kinect for a gaming fix.

- Old re-purposed Dell. This is full of all the DVD's I did not want my kids destroying (locked safely away, and yes we do own them), and a way to access anything on the net the first two don't.

- A real antenna. Sports look horrible on my friends HDTV with all the compression! (needs fed through the computer... someday).

I would be OK with just the first two if Apple would open the interface up for more content. I would happily pay a small ($1-5) monthly fee for channels such as Discovery, Science, etc. I'm guessing this will only happen once these channels are replaced by new content producers that are 'net only.

Our house has a device made by Joslyn labeled "secondary surge suppressor" and "lightning protective device". It simply bolts to the main breaker box, and wires to each main supply line.

If I remember it was rather cheap ($35?). A google search of the model number finds only ebay hits, so apparently superseded.

I believe it is similar in function to this:
http://www.surgepack.com/transtrack-lp.htm

No idea on effectiveness, but perhaps something to research.

I'm confused. I thought the purpose for MPEG-LA was a cross licensing of all patents required for h.264 (with payment)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Standardization_committee_and_history

Most license requirements have exemptions for common use cases that have a reason to exist, and are not actually practicing, such as teaching or news coverage. For example you need a license to give financial advise, unless doing it as an instructor or as a member of the media. Imagine if every news person, blogger, and high school life science teacher had to have a Series 7 license to do their job.

This should be the same.

He did not take evasive action to avoid Venus, but did point to Venus and briefly discussed if it was an aircraft when he first woke up. He later made the evasive maneuver when he misjudged the position of another aircraft. The two events are only connected by the fact the pilot was entirely too exhausted.

Shiny discs in 2012? No thanks.