This runs under the assumption that the batteries will be roughly the same size as they are in the cars. If pickups had the same size gas tanks as cars, they would run into the same problem, but it turns out that some people came up with the idea to make the gas tanks bigger, thus extending the range. And some people, unhappy with the range provided with the gas tanks built into their trucks, purchase additional tanks that fit in the bed of a truck (and they even pipe those into the regular tanks so they can fill from one tank to the other with a flip of a switch while driving!). Isn't it amazing how people come up with solutions to problems instead of just writing off the whole concept?

I don't actually know the answer, but I don't see it as such a big issue. Extra batteries. Solar panels on the roof. Fold out solar panels for when you're stopped. Maybe they have a cord with a turbine on the end that you can drop in a river right next to where the deer come for a drink. I think there are plenty of possibilities.

Especially if you want them to explode. I'm not saying they did or didn't perform tests using sub-par equipment or design the guns specifically to explode after a certain number of rounds are fired, but they sure didn't provide enough information about their testing procedure to reproduce the results or confirm they were valid tests.

I don't know a whole lot about guns, but I'm pretty sure that if someone wanted to build a conventional gun that would reliably explode after the first shot, they could do it pretty easily, so I've got to assume that the ATF can build a 3D gun that would reliably explode as well.

didn't find any excel sheets, but found two pdfs with full bank statements including CC# and sample checks with bank and routing numbers.

However, some people say we have already passed "peak coal", especially with the fact that newer plants burn the crappy, lignite coal as opposed to better grades.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. Lignite is more expensive to move because it's heavier (due to moisture), so most plants that burn it are built near lignite mines so they have easy access. Since lignite is big in Texas, it makes sense that some new Texas plants would burn lignite, but I don't think most new plants in the US burn lignite. Power River Basin sub-bituminous coal is the primary coal used in the US with 40% coming from that area. Lignite, as a whole, isn't close to just the PRB area's production:
"Approximately 7 percent of coal mined in the U.S. is lignite."
http://energy.about.com/od/Coal/a/Lignite.htm

Yeah, people should only have to pay for what they use, just like with other services from Comcast and the like. It's not like I have to pay for the 200+ channels I never watch just to get the 3 that I do...

Just saying, but height is only one factor in what will break a device - rotation and impact angles play a large role in whether or not that force is distributed in a way that cracks the screen. You can drop a device from 3' up and crack the screen and then drop the same device from 12' up without doing any damage.

Just sayin, because people tend to use the "Well mine dropped from this height and so " as if that's a good barometer for ruggedness. Forgetting about that being anecdotal evidence, it's really not evidence at all since it's only one variable in a larger equation.

But yeah, I'm with you that if a school wants to provide something like this to students, they better make sure the device is pretty strong. Especially because you know people (kids especially) generally don't take care of free things as well as things they had to pay for.

IANA-whatever, but the two things that jump out at me are inflammation and endorphins.

The article says that the drug "influences fat and sugar burning in the liver, production of fat cells, and the body's inflammatory response." A lot of research has been linking inflammation to cancer, so depending on whether or not the inflammation is similar to or at a higher level than that caused by the equivalent amount of regular exercise, it could be a problem, or maybe it would lower it and be safer. Also, there's no mention of whether or not the brain thinks it's exercise and releases endorphins, so while your muscles might get the same benefits as exercise, your body as a whole might not.

If my math is right, at 4.5M copies sold as of 12/2011, 0.06% of people in the world play at least Starcraft 2 (and that's assuming all 7B people in the world have a computer). So no, "99.99% of people who don't play any of those games" isn't true.

As far as the advertising is concerned, I was just trying to come up with an example of how it might be used. The point wasn't to give a perfect way to advertise, but merely to show that some of that data might be useful. That point still stands, regardless of whether or not my example really works. I do believe that there are people far smarter than myself who would use that information to increase their company's sales, which was the real point.

I hear what you're saying, agree with many of your points, and respect your position. However, there are parts I don't agree with. I don't agree with about who you think has a right to data. Yes, it looks like a lot of people in the EU are taking the same side as you, but I don't think it's the right stance (and by the way, it has nothing to do with my job or developers, that's just honestly how I feel as an internet user). I think that if you're trying to prove that what you want is possible, you've succeeded. I don't disagree that it's possible, but I don't think it's simple. Not because implementing it is difficult, but because deciding on what to implement and then agreeing on it is.

First off, I said "not feasible" and not "impossible". Those are not synonyms. But your comment is a very shallow view of the problem. I understand your concern with the tracking bugs, and I agree with you there (although it's a difficult problem to police what kind of tracking would be allowed and what wouldn't since some is beneficial, but that's a whole other story).

So let's focus on just one small part of this issue to illustrate why it is difficult. Take your example where you provide credit card information and address for purchase and delivery of a product. Sure, it's not unreasonable to expect that to be deleted after a certain amount of time, and that isn't too hard to accomplish either. However, that's not the only thing that going into the database...

The time of day, the page you clicked on to get to the page, the other items you looked at before this one, where the item was on the page, etc are all collected, but they aren't necessarily associated with you and your credit card information. These analytics are used to redesign pages, decide which items should be put on sale, etc. Is that reasonable information for a company to hold on to? Furthermore, what about your location? Isn't it reasonable for a company to know that Product X sold really well in one area but not in another, so maybe they market it more heavily in one area? They shipped an item somewhere, and they want to know where that item went. I don't think any of that is unreasonable, but that's information about you in some ways. So a non-rhetorical question: should that be included in user data that needs to be removed?

And then you get to places like facebook. The simple question is, if I post on someone's wall, and then I want to delete my account, should my post be deleted from that person's wall? Does that person have any rights to preserve the comment's on their wall?

It's not so much that it's that difficult to erase the data, but the problem is in deciding what to erase. How do you decide which data you have a right to, and which data I have a right to, and which data the company has a right to, when they all overlap? I think that's a really tough question.

All that is fine and true (except I'd say the closer analogy is if you set up a camera in your bathroom and then I showered in it, in which case it would still be illegal to sell the pictures I think), and I like the idea of knowing that my online presence could be erased, but from a developer's standpoint, it really isn't feasible. Sure, people want to have privacy, and corporations want to hold onto every bit of information they can, but the developers in the middle realize that both are a little absurd.

You have no idea who you're dealing with... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rwsTYQ26QDQ#t=100s

Yeah, and since the summary is actually longer than the teaser from the paywalled article, there isn't a lot of info to talk about here. Are the "foes" in question even angry with Amazon or are they really fighting back against ICANN? I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with Amazon TRYING to get the domain names; the problem would be if ICANN actually gave them to Amazon.

The Thing

I love consoles. I like the fact that when I buy a game, I know that I'm going to be able to put it in that little box and play it without having to worry about if my box meets the system requirements of the game or if I have a strong enough cell signal to log onto the games servers or if my software version isn't compatible.

I love PCs. I like the fact that it makes it easier to download lots of games and has more function than just a console. I like 25" 1080p widescreens, but I really like hooking my PC up to my 1080p 52" TV in my living room.

I don't want either model to die, and I don't understand why so many people think that there can be only successful model. I think there are a lot of people who, like me, love consoles and don't want to see the box-with-controllers-and-some-way-to-insert-a-game-and-a-TV-out model die. There's a demand for this model, even if you don't fit into it.