Most Casio watches are actually analog ( with hands, as apposed to digital, with digits ). Most here, including the article IMHO, are confusing analog with mechanical. I personally swear by analog radio synchronised watches from Casio.

Photons have mass, because they have energy. Furthermore, that photons have zero rest mass is still only an assumption in most models (ref)

Thank you for that comment; this is exactly what I came here to post. It's nice to see other people having the same opinion... I mean 'common sense'.

One of the selling points of the Google Nexus One phone was direct support from Google, and therefore the quickest updates. The phone is quite a bit more expensive than the HTC desire/incredible, which is practically the same phone.

Good question! I think it has something to do with the stretching of space-time. The galaxy was there 600 million years after the big bang, 13 billion light years from where we were going to be, but space-time (the universe) was smaller. In a way, the light-year was smaller than it is now, but that galaxy was still moving away from our location at nearly light speed.
What is interesting to me is that a galaxy could be formed at all in 600 million years!

You make a good point, but I don't quite agree. 3D is where there are three dimensions. A picture with a z-map (z-buffer) also has depth, but it is still a set of 2D pictures. A true (in mathematical sense) 3D image has infinitely more information stored in it than a set of 2D images. A discretised 3D image therefore has 3 resolution values, e.g. 2048*1080*512. Each pixel in a hologram, for example, has a color value for each direction in which it sends light, separately.

What I meant with "This" in your quote is the fact that people not sitting in the 'sweet spot' are getting the wrong perspective sent to their eyes, which has nothing to do with movement. The brain has trouble with things that don't match up, something similar to car sickness etc. The mismatch between focal distance and stereoscopic distance that you mention must also be an important part of it, I agree!

Using the term 3D for stereoscopic video is probably already so entrenched in the media that it's useless to try and correct them, but it irritates the hell out of me...
There's a huge difference though. A 3D image (the closest we have is a hologram) is one where you can change your viewpoint by moving your head. The perspective changes when you move away or closer. This means that no matter where you are relative to the image, the stereoscopic image that your eyes register is always correct. The fixed images of stereoscopic video don't change, and the perspective is only correct for one position relative to the image. This is what gives people headaches.
I'm holding out for holographic (worthy of the term 3D) displays!

Interesting to hear about that upgrade!

The phone has very good specs. It's fast, the screen is fantastic, and its dimensions are perfect for carrying in you pants' pockets. The only thing I'm disappointed in is the camera, in particular making movies (framerate).
The thing is, Android is what makes it incredible. You get so used to just about everything working perfectly, and to the fact that almost anything is possible, that when something isn't possible, it bugs you a lot!
Have to wait and see how HTC handles software updates...

That title is just a tiny bit sensationalist... I had images failed launch flashing through my mind. A final stage dropping to earth was a bit of a disappointment :-/

I would say that at Mach 1, the shock makes an angle of 90 degrees with the flow (theoretically). Subsonically, there is no shock at all (again, theoretically). At Mach 1.4 it's 45 degrees. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/machang.html)

LMAO :-D Reminds me of this guy on TV that was describing his reptile terrarium. "The air humidity is 90%, that is incredibly high, just imagine: a bucket of water has 100% humidity!"

I use gqview as my standard image viewer in gnome, and I also have good experience with the duplicate search function. Works quite well!

Did anyone notice a problem with the picture at the top of the linked page? The projected images on the (white) walls actually have darker parts than the wall itself in the ambient light. What kind of light does this projector emit?? Or does it spray paint on the wall?

Actually: NO; I thought the same thing...