what about throwing your weight into a party that might break the duopoly? The Tea Party is possibly the most viable since they are super strong, have the push of the Republican party, and have a building incentive to become a 3rd party at the state level to force more Republicans out. Any party that can collapse the two party partay that's happening now is a winner in my book, even if they hate women and gays.

The volt is an amazing car, like driving one of those slot track electrics back in the day. I wasn't somewhere I could get the pedal down, but the power is perfectly smooth and unlimited from stop. I think it also fixed what Toyota had messed up by running a gasoline engine constantly.

Apple still gets points because their position is correct: if this makes 20% more people put an actual lock on their phone, it's a win for everyone. This isn't about how you can possible get around it, it's about the fact that 40-60% of phones have no security on them and let you go straight to sensitive information, just like carrying your filing cabinet around with you unlocked and small enough to be forgotten anywhere. Any lock is better than no lock and the reality is that 99.9% of the time that these fingerprint locks are found on a "found" or stolen phone, the person finding the phone isn't going to get through the security. By making the lock a high-visibility feature of the 5s it increases the percentage of phones that are going to be secured . . . probably. . . okay, possibly.

One of the best reasons to use aluminum is because it's so easy to reuse mill waste. Most plastics can't be melted down into the same plastic again, that's why recycling doesn't produce new soda bottles and copiers. Aluminum recycling is almost 100% efficient in material and Apple is plenty big enough to not have to worry about tooling for aluminum since they already build the macbook from it. looks like they are moving to Liquidmetal possibly though, which is really a plastic alloy. Should be the best of both worlds.

pretty sure it also has to do with pushing people towards online storage, especially for people who think that they need 128gb of data available all the time, which are usually the same people willing to spend $10/month for cloud storage.

Both FF and Chrome have decrypted access to your passwords. Just that FF doesn't for the first 3 seconds you start the program, before you punch in your Master password. I see why Google would simply let be visible, since it's there anyway, but I really do believe that Elliot's core statement is right: the people that hack into your computer or get around your security aren't the people who are going to be using your laptop or desktop. It's the soon to be ex-husband or your daughters friend or your son in a fit of anger after you cut off his cell phone. simply requiring your google account password to access that page would be more than enough to dissuade an entire sector of would-be opportunists. I don't lock my office, but I do close the door and Google doesn't see how there's a difference because in terms of security there isn't, but in terms of actual property loss over 15 years, there is a real world difference.

My Live Gold yearly is $35 recurring through M$. I got a deal through Amazon and when I called in about it, they M$ rep matched the price for me on a recurring basis. Def. worth it if you do anything more than Netflix. If that's all you do, why do you have a xBox? It's true that the offline gamers are going to get screwed.

Slines won't trust it, unions won't build it and states won't support mass transit. Other than being a political death trap, a Teamsters killer (like trains before it), and way too "socialized" to be acceptable by even the most progressive Republican, it's also just way too much like the Jetsons to be taken seriously until it's more than a really great idea for an amusement ride. Imagine a 375mph roller coaster.

Even easier headline: The purpose of HR is to prove that HR has a purpose.

It will be interesting to see how fundamentalist christians will avoid the facts and stick to abstinence-only sex education.

His physics is funny though, almost like the round cow. It's an oversimplification that is born out of our need to understand the world in terms that can be held in our simple meat computer all at once. Like the round cow, it's nice and easy, but just not practical. Maybe it's more complicated. Like for instance his assertion that you lose 1oz for each hour of activity. Other studies have shown that even at less than 1 hour of activity, you change your metabolism for more than 24 hours. That readout on the treadmill has almost nothing to do with the benefits of working out since muscle requires more energy to function, your body believes that it must be more ready for future activity and your entire system stays at a higher level for hours. Plus, when you work out you also decrease your appetite overall and you increase your mood, which reduces emotional eating. It's also been shown that a depressed mode, even when adjusted for lethargy, increases fat deposits and weight gain. So working out, feeling better and reducing depression may also lead to decreased weight and have nothing to do with how many joules of work you did on the stair stepper.

but there is also good evidence to show that people eat less with big forks and big spoons than with small ones. Following your method, you'd think that smaller forks would mean more mouthfuls which would seem like more. So I wonder why there are these two, separate patterns, one for plates and one for forks.

Isn't it strange that no diet nor scientist wants to study the caloric content of poop, instead we just assume that calories in is the important factor. What I want is a way to make my digestive system less efficient. I had intestinal parasites for about 2 years and I could eat whatever I wanted and still lost weight. The idea of calories in - exercise = weight gain/loss is just crazy unless you check on how my tapeworm and feces enter in to the equation.

And we know that a bunch of people have put $400 consoles on credit cards and payed a lot more than 6% interest on them over time. $99 + monthly subscription fees are a lot less. I just don't know why they force people to get the monthly XBL account instead of 2 12-month subscriptions.

Many people can go 1 year without buying into the smartphone category and save up the $200 difference. If you save even $15/month you can easily pay out of pocket for any smartphone after only a couple years. Or, better yet, get one used to start with and then actually save the difference you pay for not being in a contract with a subsidy. After 2 years, you should have plenty of money to buy whatever you want. Sure it's a lot up front if you suddenly want to walk in to a store and walk out with a $800 phone.