if ( Person.HasAccent(Accents.British)) {
                        explanation = 'plausible';
};

Yep, I also use mine (Not the one I linked to) for working on the car. Gone are the days of propping up a torch. Love it!

That was just a cheap example, in case OP responded with "Not paying that much". I have others, but that would suffice for taking the dog out for a crap.

Try one of these, they are great for this kind of stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/Energizer-Industrial-Headlight-Batteries-Included/dp/B00352O79U

I may look a tool wearing one, but since discovering it, i'll never turn back to handheld torches for poking around the garden.

Me too. I came here to post this :)

VALIDATE ME!!!

Surely it would just look like light (with a different 'colour'). Things that block it would not appear to give off light, things that allow it to pass would appear to glow, and things that reflect it would just be visible if there is already some ambient wifi 'light' to reflect.

Is this actually how things work at these lower frequencies? Or would it work completely differently in regards to how it refracts/reflects etc?

THIS!

Excuse me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHepKd38pr0 (Bladerunner)

Bitch, please.

What medium are you throwing it in, treacle?

or you will GOTO Mech hell!

Explained perfectly. It's kind of what I *thought* in a fuzzy kind of way. Good to see it explained :)

Ta.

Congrats guys.

This pretty much proves that a human athlete has enough power to provide enough thrust/downforce for lift. So my question is, would it be feasible to generate this same level of thrust in a smaller area using the same amount of power?

I'm guessing that by having such large rotors with low air speeds and low thrust per unit area, that efficiencies are kept high and this is why it works.

Would there be that huge an efficiency decrease if the same amount of thrust were generated on a smaller area? If that's what it boils down to, then we will never be able to make this work at 'reasonable' scales :(

I'd still be inclined to call this 2.5D or 3D at a stretch. Use of the terminology 'dimension' usually implies the ability to make use of that dimension an arbitrary amount. So X & Y can be as big as you can make the surface. That is your 2 true dimensions.

The Z, in this case, is only '3 layers'. Maybe in the future that can be an arbitrary size, but for now it's just 3 layers. Not really a full 'dimension'. Once they can go arbitrarily large in Z, then you can call it 3D.

As for 4 & 5 (size and orientation), there can only be a certain number of sizes and orientations that each bit could represent. Really this is just changing the storage from Base 2 (Or Base 10 to be /. pedantic) to Base N where N = number of orientations * number of sizes. Certainly a good idea, but it should, in my opinion, not be called a dimension. We could have really big values of N, but then it would be more analogous to analogue storage. I guess you could consider it as a dimension at that point, possibly, maybe.

Bah it's all just marketing anyway, right?

I will make one with dot colour as a factor. SIX DEE STORAGE!!!!

I remember reading about this a while ago when I discovered SPDY, and from what I understood is that in SPDY/HTTP2.0, the multiple transfers can be multiplexed. So rather than Connection A requesting resource 1 and then requesting resource 2 etc, it could theoretically request 'all resources I need to render this page above the fold' or something. Then those resources come down simultaneously. When the last one is finished, the page can display.

This would definitely save some overhead for re-requesting resources in the same connection.

Sure, you could help currently by inlining as much as you can and using CSS sprites to reduce image resource requests, but this way would keep things more modular/separated...

Yep, the static IP is nice, though it has to be said that I am getting on just fine with non-static and the dynamic dns services work just fine for me. The ~1-5min outage when it auto-updates is only a mild annoyance, but not a huge issue to me as I only use my home server for personal stuff and testing. I have a few servers 'out there' for production stuff.

And I hear you on the momentum thing. It's one reason I still have cable. I think their retentions dept is too good lol. But the moment I can find a legit way to watch F1 live, bye bye Rogers!

If you do decide to try out Teksavvy and laziness/momentum is an issue for you (it's an issue for me too, I have not upgraded to my cheaper-but-faster or more-expensive-but-much-faster-VDSL service yet and I am still on legacy 6/0.8 :( ) then do be wary of the switch-over process. Though I painted them in a very good light above, they are ultimately at the whim of Rogers/Bell. One reason I have not yet gone to the 15/10 service is that Bell have been known to turn around and say, after the work order has been done, "sorry, you can only get 3Mbit/s up, so we'll put you on 15/1 which is not VDSL". I'm scared of that happening to me and there is nothing Teksavvy (or any other reseller) can do about it. Reality is, if my line only qualifies at 15/3, I'd rather get that and pay for 15/10 ($35) than get 15/1 ($33). But it's Bell/Rogers, what can you do?

There is also a VDSL modem fiasco holding me back (Thanks, again, to Bell).

Sorry, I'm babbling :)