Android is sufficiently powerful for certain tasks, and TV's typically have a good (easy and intuitive) UI.
We've been hearing for a while about how casual games are the new norm, at the expense of the serious gamer/console market. We're also seeing "internet TV" functionality on high-end consoles. So this seems to fit that niche perfectly. It's less expensive and power hungry (as if anyone really cared about that - do they?).
I could see this working nicely for someone who wants to replace cable, and likes casual games more than OMG Graphics or Super Violence V, as long as the games are good. If the games are crap, then it's just an expensive Roku or Chromecast.
I'd recommend 240+. My work PC has a 120GB drive; and Win7, four versions of Visual Studio, SQL Server, and a few other apps pretty much fill it up. I've had to continually shuffle data including some source code to my secondary platter drive (slower compilation, boo) just to keep some space free (currently 3.3GB).
One of my favorite sounding cars is the BMW M1 Procar.
And a manual can be obnoxious in traffic (or parallel parking on ice), but in many other instances is more fun. Especially racing. There's a practical reason for a manual in racing, too, in that you get precise control of the engine speed, which is necessary to maximize traction.
Hulu+ is $8/month. You've got a bit of a wait if you've using that money to pay for a PC.
Nine months and you've already covered the cost of a Bluetooth remote so that you can reuse an existing PC that has HDMI, DVI, or VGA output.
If you have an Android phone, you can install Gmote and use your phone as the remote control. I've used it successfully with our Win7 laptop on the TV.
Technology is the foundation of all of society. It is the wheel, it is hospitals, it is the phone, is is electricity. Losing fervor about technology is like giving up on life and the betterment of society. Communications is the backbone of all technology, without the sharing of ideas, nothing would be accomplished.
That's right, you have a moral obligation to buy the fastest internet access available to you.
Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm going to try this argument on my wife. If she doesn't let me buy an ultrabook, she hates humanity.
I'm sorry I haven't followed your arguments on this topic.
It sounds like you're in favor of equal taxation regardless of marital or parental status. Ok, that makes sense from a tax burden fairness standpoint. What would you say to the argument that people that have kids are contributing to society by producing future taxpayers in addition to paying taxes (which would be a net positive assuming a people in aggregate contribute more than they draw from society)?
I disagree with a couple of your views on marriage: 1) that they inevitably break down. This is true in many cases, but not all. Nearly all marriages I've known (anecdote alert) were long, happy, and faithful. I understand the divorce rate is high (50% in the US?), but this failure is simply not inevitable. 2) that the family unit is artifical. I think both the nuclear family and tribal units are natural, based on the psychological effects of sexual coupling and parenthood. I'd be curious to see your references on this idea. Isn't there some sort of marriage-like institution in every human culture? The number of wives or other details may vary, but it seems that something like the family unit is a constant across the human experience, which would indicate it's not artificial.
Unless I'm missing your point, you're not for gay marriage, but for the removal of any sort of incentive or recognition for marriage and parenthood at all. So my question still stands. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Excellent questions that are central to this issue and somehow don't seem to get addressed often. I'm not sure I've heard an argument in favor of gay marriage from the perspective of marriage's role in society and government's role in recognizing marriage. It's possible it's out there, so if someone's got a link I'd like to read it, because all I hear seems to be "they want to do it so it's their right" which doesn't necessarily follow.
I have heard many conservatives suggest the government just shouldn't be involved in marriage at all; it should be strictly a private affair, which obviously would leave everyone free to accept gay marriage (or any other form) or not.
Terrible! Which is why it's so frustrating that even when Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever, nothing much changes. Although technically, the system works: people have the government they repeatedly chose.
I'm 'claiming' to see strong parallels here with those who can't allow others to just live their lives the way they want, all the while not harming YOU at all.
no doubt at all that this is the same exact thing as women's rights and racial rights. no difference at all. how could it? how could you defend your position that this is, somehow, 'not the same' as these long-ago fought for and won rights?
btw, the only ones who don't want to see equal rights are those that were told 'god hates gays'. there is just NO other reason. can you state an intelligent reason why you think that person A marrying person B (and you are not A or B) at all affects YOUR life? why do you insist on telling others what they can do with their lives? its none of your damned business.
there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.
You've come this far without ever encountering a non-religious argument against gay marriage? I'll assume you're not trolling and take your claim at face value.
There are lots of arguments, and a google search for "secular opposition to gay marriage" will yield many results. The short answer is that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage, it affects society in a significant way, and since I'm a part of society, it affects me. I encourage you to read this column. It lays out the arguments in a clear and concise way.
Gay marriage is totally unrelated to suffrage, and comparisons to interracial marriage don't quite work (for the reasons laid out in the above article).
And let me just say as a religious person, "God says so" is NEVER a sufficient reason for legislation.
... I automatically should've been equally "tolerant" of (that is, refrain from objecting to) the actions of the bigots...
Not refrain from objecting to his actions, refrain from objecting to his being a CEO of a tech company. All these objections about his views and how they relate to his qualification as CEO would be completely valid if he were a CEO of an organization that advocated for gay rights, but there's nothing inherent in what Mozilla does that necessitates a different viewpoint. It's like saying "someone who believes in Palestinian statehood shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs Jews" or "someone who opposes abortion shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs women who may have had an abortion." My point is it's not relevant.
They deserve the same rights & respect that I have simply by default -- including being able to go to work without having a leader that tried to make them second-class citizens.
It should be obvious to everyone that the supporters of Prop 8 don't see it this way, because they don't see "gay marriage" as the same thing as "marriage". They don't recognize it as a form of an existing right, but a different and newly claimed right, that the state shouldn't recognize due to the nature of marriage and the state's role in protecting and promoting that institution. The crux of the issue is whether it's a right or not, and the side advocating for it hasn't demonstrated to the other side why it is. People that supported Prop 8 aren't necessarily bigots, homophobes, or any of the nasty labels that get tossed around so much (although I'm sure many of them were).
For an analogy to interracial marriage: if you believe it's bad because members of race X are inherently of less worth, then you're racist. If you believe it's bad because for some other reason it would be detrimental to society, you aren't necessarily racist. In the case of interracial marriage, though, there's nothing about race that's relevant to the institution, even as it was practiced in segregated regions. Sex, however, is relevant to marriage; this is why I think the comparisons to the civil rights crusade of the '60s are not apt - serious opponents of Prop 8 aren't really claiming that gay people are "less human." I'm a little too young to have been around during the civil rights era, though, so if anyone knows of arguments made during that time that are more applicable I'm open to correction.
(Wanting to do it, or believing it should be the case, is one thing; actively trying to make it happen seems a whole lot more hostile.)
It shouldn't seem more hostile - if someone has an opinion on how some aspect of society should function, I expect them to advocate publicly for that position, be they the Klan, neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Christians, the "gay lobby", or anyone else. It's not somehow "worse" for someone to try to enact the social changes they think should be made.
those who are against the right of free individuals to seek out their own happiness in a relationship WILL find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who thought it was 'against god' to let blacks and whites marry.
I hear this "will be on the wrong side of history" comment a lot - are you actually claiming to know the future? Or are you merely expressing your belief that your ideas will prevail? If so, good for you, you should believe in your cause; but presumptuousness is not an argument.
this is not debatable. its equal rights and we should not be spending so much time on such a simple and obvious thing.
Clearly, it is debatable and non-obvious, since there is currently a massive social debate on the topic and not everyone immediately agrees with your view.
its only non-obvious to those brainwashed by religion. and FUCK THEM! their views are usually on the wrong side of history, as well!
A curious statement when many of the leading advocates of the causes you mentioned earlier did so because of their religious beliefs. It's almost like... not all religious people are the same.
It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors? Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you? Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?
I understand that gay marriage is a contentious issue right now, and it's far from settled (and probably won't ever be). People on every side of it need to extend toward their ideological opponents the same courtesies they expect themselves - that's how it has to work in a free and equitable society.
Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.
We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?
We're swerving pretty far off-topic here, but has anyone made a clay tablet computer? Seriously even a clay tablet case with cuneiform writing on it would be neat. I can't find anything on teh googles.
I plan to clone my hard drive on April 8th and just restore from that backup whenever I get hacked. No fail in this plan!
In all seriousness, I've been gradually transitioning to Linux Mint as my primary OS, with XP as a dual-boot option (basically for games). I also have a XP VM running under Mint that I'll be able to use if I need XP and don't want to reboot. Everything's installed on a single 1TB platter drive so I really do have 2 cloned backups (on- and off-site) available.
I hadn't planned on getting a Windows OS after XP due to draconian DRM, although I haven't had a problem with XP licensing since I bought it retail in '04; I'm considering getting Win7+SSD since that's what I have at work and it's actually quite nice. That being said, most of the programs I use are cross-platform FOSS, so it's not a strong need (notable exceptions are rFactor and Visual Studio).
Planck length is the only rational measure of distance.
Indeed, unfortunately SI prefixes run out before we can really do anything useful with it (unless you're into particle physics). Therefore, I suggest we standardize on the yotta-planck-length (YPL, pronounced "yoople") as our base unit, utilizing SI prefixes on top of that:
-Intel's new Haswell architecture utilizes a 1361-yoople process. -I am 117 gigayooples tall. -The Earth is approximately 2.4 exayooples around. -The Earth is 9.26 zettayooples from the sun.
As you can see, we run out of SI prefixes again for astronomical scales, so we should use the yottayoople (YYP, pronounced "yippee") for that:
-The Milky Way galaxy is about 59 megayippees across -The size of the observable universe is about 26.9 terayippees.
I'm sure everyone can get behind these new units. Time to rewrite the textbooks!
-almity "I can't drive 8.2e-7 yooples per yoopit" dave
"Not one hour after the announcement of the the acquisition of Oculus Rift by Facebook yesterday, Markus 'Notch' Persson has announced that he has ceased all discussions about bringing it to Oculus Rift."
It? WHAT is 'it'?
Steven King novel. Frankly, I'm not entirely disappointed that a homicidal supernatural clown isn't being brought to virtual reality. Those are nightmares I'd just as soon do without.
There is absolutely no point in using your left foot to brake in a road car. If you ever get back in a manual and split-second forget so in an emergency, you'll be pressing the clutch instead of the brake. If you're a professional driver (karting, rally, Formula etc) then that's different, and you as a driver are different, but normal road drivers should never ever left foot brake.
Total BS. I almost always brake with my left foot (in automatics). When in traffic, it allows much faster reactions to surprise changes in conditions and is safer. It's also much smoother for normal transition between brake & gas when you don't have to pick up your whole leg (or even just foot if the pedals are close). The whole "you might forget which foot you're using" is nonsense. That's never happened to me ever in 14 years of driving. That's like saying you might forget which way to turn the wheel to go right.
And no, there's no confusion when I'm driving a manual, either. I do race at an amateur level (very amateur), and the car's I've raced were manuals, but I don't heel/toe; I'm not a "special" driver of any kind.
I am kind of surprised to see that the majority of posts are railing against this phone, mostly over the display resolution being so high. I'm thinking most people never made it past the summary. On top of what the summary lists, it has 3 gigabytes of ram, 32 gigabytes of internal storage, micro SD that can handle 128 gigabyte cards, 5 megapixel front facing camera, 50 (sorta) megapixel rear camera, 3000mAh removable battery. Rapid charging technology - going from 0 to 75% charge on a 3000mAh battery is pretty sweet.
At a $599 retail price point? That's pretty remarkable.
Well, it's the same sort of revolutionary as all of Apple's iteratively revolutionary products. As the newest model, it raises the bar slightly. I think what's most noteworthy is that it's neither Samsung nor Apple. It's good to have other manufacturers in at the top of the market.
The only thing the article does not discuss in the graphics chip set but I'm willing to bet it's nothing to sneeze at.
Actually, the only way they were able to meet the $599 price target was by using an S3 ViRGE chipset. Sorry.
See cryopreservation and suspended animation. Not only is it possible - it's been done. It's not the temperature itself that kills cells, it's the effects of lowering the temperature that causes damage. If you can mitigate these effects (such as the formation of ice crystals), you can prevent cell death.
And you might want to turn the temp down in your fridge.
Well, do be fair to Dr. Malcolm, I think he was referring to the phenomenon of life in general, not particular lives. Thus the extinctions that wiped out 99% (or whatever) of all life forms still resulted in the flourishing of the other 1% (or whatever), resulting in the planet teeming with life. No matter the circumstances, something finds a way to thrive.
Seriously, it could be a form a preservation for species that are currently endangered, plus for something that was alive as recently as mammoths (2500 years ago), the Earth's climate in total hasn't changed that much (current warming trend notwithstanding) since when they roamed freely. So why not?
When you see those skeletons of extinct animals in the museums, does no part of you yearn to see a living, breathing, specimen, just to see it and how it behaves? Don't you want to know?? I hope they do it. It would be so awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Android is sufficiently powerful for certain tasks, and TV's typically have a good (easy and intuitive) UI.
We've been hearing for a while about how casual games are the new norm, at the expense of the serious gamer/console market. We're also seeing "internet TV" functionality on high-end consoles. So this seems to fit that niche perfectly. It's less expensive and power hungry (as if anyone really cared about that - do they?).
I could see this working nicely for someone who wants to replace cable, and likes casual games more than OMG Graphics or Super Violence V, as long as the games are good. If the games are crap, then it's just an expensive Roku or Chromecast.
Steam, the distribution platform, is a closed garden. SteamOS, and the Steam Machines, are not. See http://store.steampowered.com/livingroom/SteamMachines/.
Can I hack this box? Run another OS? Change the hardware? Install my own software? Use it to build a robot?
Sure.
I'd recommend 240+. My work PC has a 120GB drive; and Win7, four versions of Visual Studio, SQL Server, and a few other apps pretty much fill it up. I've had to continually shuffle data including some source code to my secondary platter drive (slower compilation, boo) just to keep some space free (currently 3.3GB).
I don't get how people can "miss" the sound of a regular engine, and having to shift.
Because it's beautiful.
One of my favorite sounding cars is the BMW M1 Procar.
And a manual can be obnoxious in traffic (or parallel parking on ice), but in many other instances is more fun. Especially racing. There's a practical reason for a manual in racing, too, in that you get precise control of the engine speed, which is necessary to maximize traction.
Hulu+ is $8/month. You've got a bit of a wait if you've using that money to pay for a PC.
Nine months and you've already covered the cost of a Bluetooth remote so that you can reuse an existing PC that has HDMI, DVI, or VGA output.
If you have an Android phone, you can install Gmote and use your phone as the remote control. I've used it successfully with our Win7 laptop on the TV.
Technology is the foundation of all of society. It is the wheel, it is hospitals, it is the phone, is is electricity. Losing fervor about technology is like giving up on life and the betterment of society. Communications is the backbone of all technology, without the sharing of ideas, nothing would be accomplished.
That's right, you have a moral obligation to buy the fastest internet access available to you.
Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm going to try this argument on my wife. If she doesn't let me buy an ultrabook, she hates humanity.
Becoming content is the first step to becoming complacent.
How do you become content?
I've heard about providing content, but becoming content?
Facebook.
I'm sorry I haven't followed your arguments on this topic.
It sounds like you're in favor of equal taxation regardless of marital or parental status. Ok, that makes sense from a tax burden fairness standpoint. What would you say to the argument that people that have kids are contributing to society by producing future taxpayers in addition to paying taxes (which would be a net positive assuming a people in aggregate contribute more than they draw from society)?
I disagree with a couple of your views on marriage: 1) that they inevitably break down. This is true in many cases, but not all. Nearly all marriages I've known (anecdote alert) were long, happy, and faithful. I understand the divorce rate is high (50% in the US?), but this failure is simply not inevitable. 2) that the family unit is artifical. I think both the nuclear family and tribal units are natural, based on the psychological effects of sexual coupling and parenthood. I'd be curious to see your references on this idea. Isn't there some sort of marriage-like institution in every human culture? The number of wives or other details may vary, but it seems that something like the family unit is a constant across the human experience, which would indicate it's not artificial.
Unless I'm missing your point, you're not for gay marriage, but for the removal of any sort of incentive or recognition for marriage and parenthood at all. So my question still stands. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Excellent questions that are central to this issue and somehow don't seem to get addressed often. I'm not sure I've heard an argument in favor of gay marriage from the perspective of marriage's role in society and government's role in recognizing marriage. It's possible it's out there, so if someone's got a link I'd like to read it, because all I hear seems to be "they want to do it so it's their right" which doesn't necessarily follow.
I have heard many conservatives suggest the government just shouldn't be involved in marriage at all; it should be strictly a private affair, which obviously would leave everyone free to accept gay marriage (or any other form) or not.
(Same AC) Correction - I read most of the patent. I skimmed the detailed technical part at the end that explained the details.
Terrible! Which is why it's so frustrating that even when Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever, nothing much changes. Although technically, the system works: people have the government they repeatedly chose.
I'm 'claiming' to see strong parallels here with those who can't allow others to just live their lives the way they want, all the while not harming YOU at all.
no doubt at all that this is the same exact thing as women's rights and racial rights. no difference at all. how could it? how could you defend your position that this is, somehow, 'not the same' as these long-ago fought for and won rights?
btw, the only ones who don't want to see equal rights are those that were told 'god hates gays'. there is just NO other reason. can you state an intelligent reason why you think that person A marrying person B (and you are not A or B) at all affects YOUR life? why do you insist on telling others what they can do with their lives? its none of your damned business.
there are no reasons other than 'god'. if you have any, spill the beans now or just shut the fuck up.
You've come this far without ever encountering a non-religious argument against gay marriage? I'll assume you're not trolling and take your claim at face value.
There are lots of arguments, and a google search for "secular opposition to gay marriage" will yield many results. The short answer is that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage, it affects society in a significant way, and since I'm a part of society, it affects me. I encourage you to read this column. It lays out the arguments in a clear and concise way.
Gay marriage is totally unrelated to suffrage, and comparisons to interracial marriage don't quite work (for the reasons laid out in the above article).
And let me just say as a religious person, "God says so" is NEVER a sufficient reason for legislation.
... I automatically should've been equally "tolerant" of (that is, refrain from objecting to) the actions of the bigots...
Not refrain from objecting to his actions, refrain from objecting to his being a CEO of a tech company. All these objections about his views and how they relate to his qualification as CEO would be completely valid if he were a CEO of an organization that advocated for gay rights, but there's nothing inherent in what Mozilla does that necessitates a different viewpoint. It's like saying "someone who believes in Palestinian statehood shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs Jews" or "someone who opposes abortion shouldn't be CEO of a tech company that employs women who may have had an abortion." My point is it's not relevant.
They deserve the same rights & respect that I have simply by default -- including being able to go to work without having a leader that tried to make them second-class citizens.
It should be obvious to everyone that the supporters of Prop 8 don't see it this way, because they don't see "gay marriage" as the same thing as "marriage". They don't recognize it as a form of an existing right, but a different and newly claimed right, that the state shouldn't recognize due to the nature of marriage and the state's role in protecting and promoting that institution. The crux of the issue is whether it's a right or not, and the side advocating for it hasn't demonstrated to the other side why it is. People that supported Prop 8 aren't necessarily bigots, homophobes, or any of the nasty labels that get tossed around so much (although I'm sure many of them were).
For an analogy to interracial marriage: if you believe it's bad because members of race X are inherently of less worth, then you're racist. If you believe it's bad because for some other reason it would be detrimental to society, you aren't necessarily racist. In the case of interracial marriage, though, there's nothing about race that's relevant to the institution, even as it was practiced in segregated regions. Sex, however, is relevant to marriage; this is why I think the comparisons to the civil rights crusade of the '60s are not apt - serious opponents of Prop 8 aren't really claiming that gay people are "less human." I'm a little too young to have been around during the civil rights era, though, so if anyone knows of arguments made during that time that are more applicable I'm open to correction.
(Wanting to do it, or believing it should be the case, is one thing; actively trying to make it happen seems a whole lot more hostile.)
It shouldn't seem more hostile - if someone has an opinion on how some aspect of society should function, I expect them to advocate publicly for that position, be they the Klan, neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Christians, the "gay lobby", or anyone else. It's not somehow "worse" for someone to try to enact the social changes they think should be made.
those who are against the right of free individuals to seek out their own happiness in a relationship WILL find themselves on the wrong side of history, just like those who thought it was 'against god' to let blacks and whites marry.
I hear this "will be on the wrong side of history" comment a lot - are you actually claiming to know the future? Or are you merely expressing your belief that your ideas will prevail? If so, good for you, you should believe in your cause; but presumptuousness is not an argument.
this is not debatable. its equal rights and we should not be spending so much time on such a simple and obvious thing.
Clearly, it is debatable and non-obvious, since there is currently a massive social debate on the topic and not everyone immediately agrees with your view.
its only non-obvious to those brainwashed by religion. and FUCK THEM! their views are usually on the wrong side of history, as well!
A curious statement when many of the leading advocates of the causes you mentioned earlier did so because of their religious beliefs. It's almost like... not all religious people are the same.
It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Do you agree with every political, philosophical, or religious opinion of all your superiors? Do you refuse to work for anyone who disagrees with you? Do you ask everyone above or below you in the hierarchy to step down if they hold an opinion you don't like?
I understand that gay marriage is a contentious issue right now, and it's far from settled (and probably won't ever be). People on every side of it need to extend toward their ideological opponents the same courtesies they expect themselves - that's how it has to work in a free and equitable society.
Well, employment law prevents discriminatory hiring/firing practices (based on religious and many other factors), and if the guy is qualified for the role, his beliefs and political advocacy are irrelevant, as are those of the employees who disagree with those beliefs. People who preach tolerance need to be tolerant, and if he practices what he preaches in his linked blog post, there shouldn't be a problem.
We've had blacklisting based on political associations before, and I thought we all agreed it's a bad thing?
And our desktops were clay tablets.
We're swerving pretty far off-topic here, but has anyone made a clay tablet computer? Seriously even a clay tablet case with cuneiform writing on it would be neat. I can't find anything on teh googles.
I plan to clone my hard drive on April 8th and just restore from that backup whenever I get hacked. No fail in this plan!
In all seriousness, I've been gradually transitioning to Linux Mint as my primary OS, with XP as a dual-boot option (basically for games). I also have a XP VM running under Mint that I'll be able to use if I need XP and don't want to reboot. Everything's installed on a single 1TB platter drive so I really do have 2 cloned backups (on- and off-site) available.
I hadn't planned on getting a Windows OS after XP due to draconian DRM, although I haven't had a problem with XP licensing since I bought it retail in '04; I'm considering getting Win7+SSD since that's what I have at work and it's actually quite nice. That being said, most of the programs I use are cross-platform FOSS, so it's not a strong need (notable exceptions are rFactor and Visual Studio).
Planck length is the only rational measure of distance.
Indeed, unfortunately SI prefixes run out before we can really do anything useful with it (unless you're into particle physics). Therefore, I suggest we standardize on the yotta-planck-length (YPL, pronounced "yoople") as our base unit, utilizing SI prefixes on top of that:
-Intel's new Haswell architecture utilizes a 1361-yoople process.
-I am 117 gigayooples tall.
-The Earth is approximately 2.4 exayooples around.
-The Earth is 9.26 zettayooples from the sun.
As you can see, we run out of SI prefixes again for astronomical scales, so we should use the yottayoople (YYP, pronounced "yippee") for that:
-The Milky Way galaxy is about 59 megayippees across
-The size of the observable universe is about 26.9 terayippees.
I'm sure everyone can get behind these new units. Time to rewrite the textbooks!
-almity "I can't drive 8.2e-7 yooples per yoopit" dave
"Not one hour after the announcement of the the acquisition of Oculus Rift by Facebook yesterday, Markus 'Notch' Persson has announced that he has ceased all discussions about bringing it to Oculus Rift."
It? WHAT is 'it'?
Steven King novel. Frankly, I'm not entirely disappointed that a homicidal supernatural clown isn't being brought to virtual reality. Those are nightmares I'd just as soon do without.
There is absolutely no point in using your left foot to brake in a road car. If you ever get back in a manual and split-second forget so in an emergency, you'll be pressing the clutch instead of the brake. If you're a professional driver (karting, rally, Formula etc) then that's different, and you as a driver are different, but normal road drivers should never ever left foot brake.
Total BS. I almost always brake with my left foot (in automatics). When in traffic, it allows much faster reactions to surprise changes in conditions and is safer. It's also much smoother for normal transition between brake & gas when you don't have to pick up your whole leg (or even just foot if the pedals are close). The whole "you might forget which foot you're using" is nonsense. That's never happened to me ever in 14 years of driving. That's like saying you might forget which way to turn the wheel to go right.
And no, there's no confusion when I'm driving a manual, either. I do race at an amateur level ( very amateur), and the car's I've raced were manuals, but I don't heel/toe; I'm not a "special" driver of any kind.
I am kind of surprised to see that the majority of posts are railing against this phone, mostly over the display resolution being so high. I'm thinking most people never made it past the summary. On top of what the summary lists, it has 3 gigabytes of ram, 32 gigabytes of internal storage, micro SD that can handle 128 gigabyte cards, 5 megapixel front facing camera, 50 (sorta) megapixel rear camera, 3000mAh removable battery. Rapid charging technology - going from 0 to 75% charge on a 3000mAh battery is pretty sweet.
At a $599 retail price point? That's pretty remarkable.
Well, it's the same sort of revolutionary as all of Apple's iteratively revolutionary products. As the newest model, it raises the bar slightly. I think what's most noteworthy is that it's neither Samsung nor Apple. It's good to have other manufacturers in at the top of the market.
The only thing the article does not discuss in the graphics chip set but I'm willing to bet it's nothing to sneeze at.
Actually, the only way they were able to meet the $599 price target was by using an S3 ViRGE chipset. Sorry.
See cryopreservation and suspended animation. Not only is it possible - it's been done. It's not the temperature itself that kills cells, it's the effects of lowering the temperature that causes damage. If you can mitigate these effects (such as the formation of ice crystals), you can prevent cell death.
And you might want to turn the temp down in your fridge.
Well, do be fair to Dr. Malcolm, I think he was referring to the phenomenon of life in general, not particular lives. Thus the extinctions that wiped out 99% (or whatever) of all life forms still resulted in the flourishing of the other 1% (or whatever), resulting in the planet teeming with life. No matter the circumstances, something finds a way to thrive.
Because it's not there.
Seriously, it could be a form a preservation for species that are currently endangered, plus for something that was alive as recently as mammoths (2500 years ago), the Earth's climate in total hasn't changed that much (current warming trend notwithstanding) since when they roamed freely. So why not?
When you see those skeletons of extinct animals in the museums, does no part of you yearn to see a living, breathing, specimen, just to see it and how it behaves? Don't you want to know?? I hope they do it. It would be so awesome.