The questions can get more complex, though... repeating numbers an infinite number of times is problematic simply because infinity is problematic - at least to wrap your head around, as it's not quantifiable. I.e. you can't say 'infinity - infinity == zero'.

My aunt is a substitute teacher and I've seen her throw this one at kids in 'basisschool' (elementary school, of sorts, ages 4-13 or so.. yes, the demonstration (not proof) that 0.99(9) == 1 was given to kids back then) just before the summer recess ('zomervakantie') as a parting gift to torment their minds if you will...

If 0.99(9) == 1.. then what happens if you add 0.00(0)1?
Or spoken out in words, as the notation above may be incorrect (similar to the notation "0.000...1")
If you have the value zero point nine nine nine nine nine nine and so on an infinite number of times, and you add a value of zero point zero zero zero zero and so on an infinite number of times -followed by- a 1.. what value do you get?

You might see a bunch of kids trying to argue that 0.99(9) is in fact not 1 (completely discarding the proof offered just minutes before), but that it simply approaches 1, and 0.00(0)1 is not zero but just approaches zero, "and thus.. uhm.." and their head explodes ;)

For what it's worth.. I was as confused as those kids, discarded the question swiftly, and resumed packing my aunt's stuff in the car for her vacation.

Mouse and/or keyboard for those things that just don't work so well with the fancy remote, external HDD to play back content from (instead of a media center thing that plays back over HDMI and needing an HDMI switch), camera/card reader (presuming it doesn't have a built-in card reader)... yeah, those 4 could end up being used simultaneously just fine.

And here I thought it was a vampire cellphone and the video was shot from the mirror world.

being the DD then finding out the bar you're at has La Fin du Monde on tap and tonight's dollar-off-imports night would hurt. Like, physically.

I guess I'm probably coming off like a party animal or an alcoholic in this thread,

Ya think? ;)

That said.. true - cities in the U.S. do tend to be more sprawling and, in part due to the ubiquity of car ownership and car-oriented transportation facilities, friends do tend to live further apart while still saying "Let's get together at $Bar in 10".. and having to drive people around.. at least if they're obnoxious when intoxicated ..wouldn't be much fun. But, again, where I'm from.. sometimes that's me having to deal with that.. the next time it'll be somebody else.. and that's while we do have excellent alternatives around :)

It'd be awesome not to need a DD (or risk a DUI)

I've seen this mindset before... The "feh.. I'll just risk a DUI".. usually defended by arguments like "just 'cos YOU can't handle 8 beers doesn't mean I can't - the law is injust! *hiccup*".. where does that come from? The same place as "I'll just risk getting an STD"? Why risk such things at all?

though I bet the MADD assholes will lobby to make it still illegal, somehow, and probably try to force a breathalyzer to turn the damn auto-drive on in the first place.

Probably. I don't agree with MADD's position as of late (i.e. since their first 'win', pretty much). On the other hand.. if this system does need human intervention in special circumstances... then why shouldn't it be illegal to be Under the Influence of alcohol/medicine/whatnot? At the point that your intervention is needed, you're the one Driving, after all.

Perhaps if the system was absolutely perfect, it'd be a different story.. but given the crazy things that can go wrong in free traffic (as opposed to monorails, trains, etc. on relatively fixed tracks - and see how often even those go wrong), I don't think that we'll be seeing that anytime soon.

because I know being a DD sucks and wouldn't impose on someone like that. [...] I'd be far more inclined to accompany other friends who go more frequently if the transportation weren't an issue.

Honestly? You think being the designated driver is such an atrociously horrendous thing to be that you wouldn't 'impose' on someone that they be the DD? We just rotate or volunteer over here.. every once in a while I'm the DD, every once in in another while somebody else is the DD. I guess if you don't have a good time unless you get intoxicated, or if your friends make you feel like you are no fun unless you get intoxicated; yeah.

As for his pets, those were his fault. They were his responsibility and he failed them.

Harsh. What if it was some babies/young kids? yeah, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!", I know - but tons of common sense changes as soon as it's no longer animals, but humans, and the laws reflect this.

I don't know if they were aware of the animals' presence or, even if they were, whether the seriousness of the fire would have even permitted them to try and rescue the animals. But if they were and could have, they should have.. and then let the house burn down if they must.

Letting people, or animals, die in a fire just to make a statement is way up there on the effed up list.

But it's not actually 'doing BitTorrent' anymore than your remote control is 'doing TV reception'.

Then you need to review your password policies?

You're making the flaw most defenders of the "BAH! GIMME A GOOD PLOT INSTEAD!"-posts make..

I'm not saying you can't make a good movie -without- 3D, CGI, HD, surround sound, color, etc... of course you can.

I'm not even saying that using that tech available would make a movie that was already good even better.. that's just not a given.

I'm saying there's no reason that these should be considered mutually exclusive.
Would Forrest Gump have been a lesser movie if, instead of digitally inserting Tom Hanks in existing footage, they got some look-alikes to re-enact those scenes instead? Probably not. Does that mean we should decry the Forrest Gump moviemakers for using CGI to insert him and automatically dismiss the movie altogether? Heck no.

Conversely.. if a movie has a crappy plot/crappy acting, making that movie in 3D isn't going to make that any worse, or any better.

Well, personally I think the aesthetic thing is hogwash... sure, there will be the cheap cardboard things, just as there will be the rather bulky ones required for current shutter glasses... but the RealD glasses I get at the theater now are already reasonably good looking.. sure, they're not Oakleys or RayBans or whatever is 'in' these days in the sunglasses market.. but I've seen worse on some fashionista's faces. The best part, at least where it concerns polarization, is that this could be added to practically any (sun)glasses.

As far as parallax goes.. absolutely! Keep in mind that implied with this is a sufficient number of viewing angles to give a smooth progression as you move your head (at the moment, that means you're likely to be limited to real-time generated content - which could be processed from stereo pairs to an extent) and even a small movement of your head is going to give that '3D' illusion by way of changes in parallax and surface appearance (wet surfaces, oily skn, reflections in eyes, etc.). Although I don't think people would be bobbing their head from side-to-side to get this effect continually, it is present even with just subtle head motions.

Don't you check what links are before you click them?

Just plugging a FireFox add-on related to that...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3199/ - Link Alert

I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?

No magic way, no.. but there's certainly other forms of 3D display.

From stacking a bunch of LCDs behind eachother to projecting images onto a rapidly spinning disc.

Or, even, drop the stereoscopic aspect and exploit other 3D visual cues - such as parallax when changing the observing angle ( remember that youtube wiimote headtracking vid? )

Thing is.. they all have problems of their own. Stereoscopic 3D with glasses is simply the most efficient with the least problems at this point in time; but as people have such an aversion to them for aesthetic reasons (see comments regarding 'silly, 'goofy', 'stupid-looking', etc. glasses - sometimes thinly hidden behind other arguments), I do suspect it will remain a niche use.. a niche I'll gladly help fill.

Mostly because it's a simplification of the problem at hand.

yes, you can search for content only
but does that actually return the results that it should?

The question is "which results -should- it return?"

Windows 7's Windows Explorer fancy search basically determines this based on indexing options, search options, folder and file options, and a slew more things; suffice it to say, it won't return -all- possible results.

i.e. if you have "hello world" in a file that hasn't been indexed, the search service is going to throw a big fat nothing at you.

On the other hand.. if you have it in a Word document that it has indexed, it'll find it.. while a lower level search tool might not (if the Word file was packed in such a way that the string would not exist as 'plaintext' or as a simple "h.e.l.l.o. .w.o.r.l.d" regex match in the file).

I'd imagine there -is- a way to tweak things so that all instances would be found, but the thread referenced in the follow-up post here currently moderated as Troll seems to suggest otherwise.

Now personally I don't care.. I use Total Commander for that sort of stuff under Windows, and the aforementioned thread points out Grep for Windows which tends to largely solve the issue for those who just need to search.
For those who need to search and insist on using the Windows Search thing... well.. that thread is still open to further - justified, mind you, ranting.

gah... and what probably doesn't help Microsoft either is its constant renaming of the darn thing. Windows Media Photo -> HD Photo -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR