Yeah, no. Any audio content can be distributed on CD that (at least 3 9s) of human ears can hear. I have yet to see a band, from Radiohead, to Phish, to bands that only play local ~100-person venues, that doesn't have a CD of everything they've ever made.

I love live music, but unless you have a massive and/or high-quality PA system, expert mixers who've tuned to the venue, bartender, and at least 20 friends to enjoy it with you, CD is just plain better, usually even when it's a live show. And it's always available. Maybe there's a niche where that's not common, but that niche isn't going to kill the CD.

50's and 60's mastering was objectively terrible. I don't think there's a single frequency or intensity that record can reproduce that a CD can't. I might be wrong about that, but if I am it's a frequency you can't directly hear. If you think CDs suck, you're a victim of the Loudness Wars. Listen to CDs mastered in ~'92 to ~'96 ('93-'94 was the peak)--some of the best, clearest music you will ever hear, and I challenge you to give a single example of an alternate format that captures the live sound better.

CDs are dying because you have to go to the store or get them delivered. That's the entirety of it, and there's no reason for concern--compressed music will eventually get a no-comprimises engineer combined with a band intricate and talented enough to make it worth it, and incredible speakers are so cheap these days somebody just needs to make one that's Bose-compatible, Base-boosted-monitor-quality, and Apple-easy, and HiFi will be the new rage.

Your Youtube anectote makes me worry I might be wrong, that's straight fucked that anyone could listen to Youtube music and not be annoyed, but I've been right since cassettes, so I'm going to bet on this one as well.

You're thinking way too small.

If this is real, and stable (given that they didn't even bring up the question, and that the article is at the traditional Slashdot-level of understanding, I'm guessing it's not, because these articles are never anything excition), it'd absolutely transform our understanding of quantum mechanics. Things we think are impossible would become easy.

But it's not, and it's not, and it won't, and they aren't, at least not in any way that will ever show up on Slashdot.

Also... really? Electricity is already pretty easy to get like 90% efficient from hundreds of miles away. 2x electric would either be 95% or 180% efficient, depending on how credulous you are.

Hahaha holy crap, came here to post this. It's like it's a re-enactment of Nazi Germany... I mean other than the fact that we have way, way, way less reason to go crazy than they did.

Anyway, I dunno, is this real? Can this be real? What the FUCK?

This is absolutely wrong, and would violate the C++ standard if it wasn't. http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/array/operator_at

Slow, gentle acceleration at low RPMs is about the least fuel-efficient way you could possibly do it. You're wasting gas, and annoying.

PHP!

Ugh, give me a shifter that actually grinds if you screw up the clutch. As it is, it'll let you go to neutral without clutching, but then you can't get back into gear without clutching with no feedback at all--the lever still moves into gear. So you think you're in gear, but you're not. Once you realize that, your forebrain is fully into figuring out this thing, and good luck making up that time.

Google large ISPs' refusal to upgrade peering or install free Netflix caching hardware. The courts were/are inadequate because it's not illegal.

Yes, those are two examples of failures to replicate Windows. Maybe someday!

Soooo.... what's its name?

Yes, how hard can it possibly be to get millions of lines of code written over a span of decades by thousands of authors to interoperate close enough to flawlessly to parse some simple text in hundreds of grammars through the use of a couple dozen basic operations executed billions of times a second? Geez.

Whenever a computer problem arises, the first thing to remember is that it's not strange that it doesn't work.

Why is your security code depending on undefined behavior? And why would you port to other architectures to serve as canaries for the architecture you're presumably running on? How about a test suite instead? Do you you tie your shoes in the morning, or do you have an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine try to will them onto your feet?

Maybe you should have checked those limits more closely. Class 2 are the ones that are blink-safe (if you're the trusting sort), limited to 1mW. Class 3 is 5mW, and the description of that is, to paraphrase; Hey, be careful, this shit can blind you before you can blink.