Ubi has also never happened. Believe it or not, things can happen that never happened before. Example: moon landing.

10g Ethernet is overpriced anyway. Ethernet is not a very good medium anymore for higher speeds. Direct attach copper or fiber are better ROI. That's why you don't see 24 port 10gig Ethernet stuff.

a lot of people say that, but then if you look at tinder, a great deal of the profiles say not into hookups, looking for dates.

in reality there are probably a huge number of men looking for random sex, and very few women, with very few actual 1st encounter hookups.
much like what ashleymadison turned out to be...

Apache, mysql, and php have all been supplanted to some degree with better alternatives

They are a pioneer in bringing hybrid powertrains including high energy flyweel systems to sport cars.

Hardly luddite.

I myself have some strong objections and concerns with a driverless car transportation system:

1) coexistence with regular cars will be hard

2) ceding control of a car to an outside authority means they are a huge attack target in the security sense. We should have 0 tolerance for improper access to a system that could create pileups on demand, drive people (like, say, 'enemies' of the state) into walls and so on. I'd rather not have my car operate under any external authority.

3) privacy is totally out the window

Do us all a favor and switch to Linux. Sure we'll have to put up with worse support and a stunted games library, but surely we can handle that for a little while, to send the message to Valve, ruler of PC gaming, that we are ready to move away from Windows, thus accelerating their push to get off of it.

Do everyone a favor and switch to linux for pc gaming. If enough of us do it, sure we'll need to live with a limited game library and poor support for a while, but you know Steam rules PC gaming, and you know Valve has eyes on those demographics. The more users they have on linux, the harder the push to get off MS Windows will be.

In order to find practical applications, I think it's important to quantify what it you've got through measurements, mainly by breaking them. You want to know what kind of torque the later stages of that 11million+ ratio gearset can actually withstand. I'd probably try hooking a dremel on the "fast" end and some kind of lever pressing on an obstacle or a digital scale on the "slow" end. I suspect that some stages would be prone to failure much sooner than others. Different materials and more precise construction could yield a part strong enough to do a lot of useful things, mainly apply a lot of torque with smaller, higher speed motors. (Which is very useful when you want to reduce weight, like on an airplane, car or space station.)

How fucking idiotic could you be?

Why would we create a world where a terrorist organization or other deeply flawed institution could take physical control of vehicles over the air?

There's no use speculating on whether it would happen -- if it can, it will and you won't be told when it does, because that would hurt sales or national security or whatever.

Keep the hardened firewalls. Keep it IMPOSSIBLE to do. Keep the fuck out of MY STUFF except with my permission.

It's really depressing. If anyone else out there is like me, learning how deep the deception runs --that our nation is not primary a defender of truth but a bastion of 1984-esque doublespeak, has not been good for their productivity or personal development... which is in turn bad for our country. It's sad to think that people in charge just see leakers and critics as the problem, to think that what I feel I'm losing in terms of freedoms was never there to begin with.

I have to refute your point #1.

There's no need to keep engines "in sync" when they each power their own wheel. the road does that.

The only thing to watch out for would be loss of traction on a particular wheel, but traction control would not significantly more complicated with two or four drivetrains instead of one. In fact, you could do away with the wheel speed sensors and rely on relative engine rpms to determine when one has lost traction.

The biggest reasons we don't have cars with multiple IC engines are:
1. Cost
2. Complexity (each would need its own transmission because as you mentioned, they work best at certain rpms)
3. Efficiency at high load (two 2.0l engines will eat more gas than one 4.0l)
4. It's unorthodox - you'd have to convince people its not stupid

Honestly, I think that there is a compelling argument for making cars with multiple engines, i.e. a transverse engine for the front two wheels, and another for the back.

1. you can re-use almost all of the parts from front to back, so while there are more parts, there aren't more UNIQUE parts.
2. Efficiency at low loads (ideally done with a stop-start kind of system, you could simply leave one engine off when the extra power and traction are not needed, thus doing away with almost half your frictional losses and reciprocating mass)
3. Redundancy - (if one engine is experiencing a failure of some kind, you have another one!)
4. Ideal AWD! perfect front/rear torque distribution when both are running. (All other methods of torque distribution have shortcomings, whether it's by viscous clutch, eletronic clutch, clutch packs, torsen, solid coupling, whatever. There is a trade off between slip and traction, and slip is needed for a car to turn without destroying gears.)

There's a big difference, and I'll give it to you: The pilot receives that information. They have the final say in what the plane does, as far as I know. If I could send a signal to a plane that caused it to change course automatically, that would be much different.

Cars cannot trust communications coming from other cars. It doesn't matter how many signed certificates and whatever bullshit you throw at the problem, there is no way that a car I'm driving should ever trust any information coming over the airwaves.

...on how to best create software. It seems really, really tough to get anyone finance-minded in the *business* of making software to understand that it's worthwhile to do exploratory development of tools and techniques to be much more productive later on. There is simply not enough money being invested into making better programming tools. The fact that free, open source software is so pervasive in for-profit companies is proof of that. Everyone would rather take what they can get, squeeze as much money as they can out of it in the near term, and wait around to benefit from everyone elses investments back into the technology.

That is a widely held opinion, but when you factor in the lifespan of the bulb, they are cheaper to operate than either cfls or incandescents. The only good reason not to make the investment, being that it has a 0 risk return, is that they get cheaper and better in quality as time goes on. Ive personally had all LED lighting for a while and the only frustrating thing is i have no need for the new models since not one has failed in 2 years, and they wont for a while.