Yes, normally you tap the side. Unfortunately, due to the nature of capacitive touchscreens, you can't just rest the finger at that spot and push harder to press

Dear God, how did you survive when you had to actually turn a page?

What exactly are you wanting to do with these reports that isn't allowed? Ever hear the expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth?"

That's like saying vintage '94 web design was a step back from menu and keystroke driven application design.

So they want to do away with an easy way to type in a url that at the same time displays the current page's location so you can copy it to send to others, while at the same time adding a LARGER gaudy description of where you are inline to the page so you have to scroll down to see as much as you would have before?

Some people have mentioned it, but the discussion seems to have concentrated on blank or writable media. The article focuses on consumers who generally don't care about that, however the article utterly fails to mention the price difference between movies on bluray and dvd! The difference in production costs is negligible, yet the list price for a new release bluray movie is $40! The list price for DVDs of the same movie is only $30. The special features for both versions of the King's Speech appear to be identical and the sale prices are $20 and $15 respectively. Why buy a new player and pay an extra 30% per movie when the quality difference is minimal?

Two years and still a startup? Maybe he should have tried .NET to get things done more quickly...

If you buy VS2010, you'll be spending from $799 to $2,169 (MS MSRP). Then you need a Windows server to go with it. That's $469 to $2,999 (MS MSRP). Oh and the DB. MSSQL server is $3,500 to $54,990. Since you've gone that far, you'll want your Exchange server to go with it too, for $699 to $3,999.

It depends on what you are talking about. I assume you are talking about a development house with multiple programmers because an independent developer can use Visual Studio Express and SQL Server Express to get started for free. For deploying a web site you can get a good dedicated server for $100 a month.

As for the development house, why not use Google apps instead of exchange, I think it works great. If you take all your other licensing for a developer AND server, that's $5000. That's about what you spend on a developer for two weeks. The right tools can save a lot more time than that. Personally I would never hire a C or Perl developer to build a website nowadays, would you?

Instead of researching the possibilities of this new data, possibly giving us insights into how life evolved on Earth, why don't we just clasp our hands in prayer and thanks for the wonders of Intelligent Design?

Imagine the sun (1.39E6 km) is as big as a square on a sheet of graph paper (1/4 inch). The Earth would be 100 squares away (about 2 1/4 sheets taped together the long way). The Earth is about 1/100th the size of the sun, so it would be much smaller than a period. What matters for Kepler is the angular size of the star. That is because on the scale with graph paper, Kepler would be 6,770 MILES away. Basically we could see any planets whose orbit takes them into that one square line of graph paper pointing out to Kepler from their star.

Bigger planets are easier to detect because they block more of the star's light. Smaller planets block less light and their transits between Kepler and their star might be lost in the noise. Their size doesn't matter much for whether they actually transit or not however because their size is small compared to the size of the star. Imagine in the example above. The Earth will transit if it is inside the row of squares on the graph paper. If it is in the center of that row, we can move it up or down about 0.268 degrees (0.53 degree viewing angle) before it will not transit. The Earth is only 1/100th the size of the star though so at the edge we have only a margin of 0.00268 degrees between seeing it completely or not at all.

Now imagine there is a planet at half the distance (50 squares) and at twice the distance (200 squares). As we tilt the orbits 0.133 degrees, the far planet moves out of the square and can no longer be seen. If we keep tilting past 0.268 degrees the middle planet moves out of the row of squares and can no longer be seen. If we keep tilting past 0.536 degrees the closer planet moves out of the row of squares and can no longer be seen.

The distance does matter. At 1 AU the planet's orbit has to be within about 1/2 degree of the viewing angle for it to be seen. At .5 AU that doubles and at 2 AU it is cut in half.

Yes, lets let Microsoft compete in a spreadsheet disign competition using Excel as a base against other "frameworks".

From what we know, liquid water is required to sustain life. For observational purposes we have a sample size of (1) planet which resides in the habitable zone for life to exist, and that one planet contains life. The sample size is small, but it is at least as good a bet that life exists on one of the millions of other planets in the same situation as ours that exist in our galaxy as it is to bet against it.

The oldest undisputed evidence for bacterial life on Earth is 3 billion years ago, but other evidence points to life existing 3.5 or 3.8 billion years ago, not long after the Earth cooled enough for liquid water to exist on the surface. We've found water on Mars, the moon, in the atmosphere of Venus and on other moons in our solar system as well as in comets that visit the inner solar system from the Oort cloud. Since water is made up of two of the three most abundant elements in the universe that is hardly surprising. I think it would be a very safe bet that some of the 80+ million Earth-sized planets in the right orbits for water to exist as a liquid would have it on their surface.

As far as life coming into being, we don't know. But again, we have a sample size of 1 and 1 positive result. We have 80 million candidates to choose from in our galaxy and 100 billion other galaxies to look at. To assume that life wouldn't exist anywhere else would be a much less tenable position than the reverse.

What we need to to is find a way to take the spectrum of those planets' atmospheres as they pass in front of their star. If we can do that, and we find that their atmospheres contain a lot of Oxygen, that would be almost certain proof of life.

The Sun won't extinguish life on Earth for billions of years. 6 million years ago we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees. If you think the dominant life form on Earth in 2 billion years will be "human", you are mistaken.

Kepler is only looking at Sun-like stars, which only account for 13% of the stars in our galaxy. Also the mission has only been going on for two years and they need at least two transits to say they might have found a planet, so this wouldn't count planets much further away from their star than Earth is from Sol.

Using the figures here I come up with 78 million in our galaxy: Kepler found 5 Earth sized planets in the habitable zone. They searched 156000 Sun-like stars. 13% of the stars in our galaxy are sun-like. There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Kepler would only find Earth if the axis of rotation of the system was within about 1/2 degree of the viewing angle. The relative angles are random. Sorry I only came up with 78 million, but if you take into account that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, that means there are about as many Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone around sun-like stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand in ALL the beaches on Earth...