Mpeg-DASH is a streaming technology that is codec-agnostic.

You're talking about it as if it's the same as switching codec, but what you're really saying is akin to "I just don't see the point of using wifi when we have good old fashioned TCP/IP, so unless this "wifi" format can be used everywhere that TCP/IP can be used then I can't see the point of replacing one for another."

Holy shit. The Guardian has turned into buzzfeed. How far have we fallen?

They use more than just solar PV. You should probably do some research before you "get annoyed" about a statement that you have not checked up on in detail.

Maybe start here?

http://www.apple.com/environme...

Apple have been environmentally conscious (as much as a multinational business can be - they obviously have a large impact) for a long time, since before it was fashionable to be - they removed BFRs and PVC and reduced packaging volumes long before it became a big talking point. They just didn't tell anyone about it.

Either way, investing almost a billion dollars in a single PV project seems to not be enough for you. Pray tell, how much of a company's cash reserves should go towards impressing you? I'd say that investing 800 million dollars was doing a little more than just "advocating", or does it not count when the company is very wealthy?

However, Samsung's panel will inject adverts into your power stream and record everything you say while you're using it.

So wait, you're trying to claim that the hipster position is the one where you use a GUI for your media player instead of the command line?

Ah, the "it's snowing, so much for global warming!" argument.

Models are tested and continually refined - some are obviously more accurate than other, depending on the systems you are measuring.

You seem to be implying that scientists simply make a model that fits data we already have and calls it "accurate" without actually doing anything to verify that it works, which is not how it works at all.

You don't think that the models have generated accurate predictions? Goodness, now I know you're talking out of your ass.

The models have been tested and compared to actual data. That's part of model design.

It's not like we don't have a large amount of data to be able to test these sorts of things.

You clearly don't understand the evidence then.

Vaccinations are effective. This is not controversial or difficult to find evidence for, unless you specifically seek out quacks.

How is something fishy going on?

No one (especially not scientists or doctors) claim that the measles vaccine is an immunity shield. This is basic science here. It's no surprise to anyone and it's the main reason that herd immunity is a required part of the vaccination system - precisely because the vaccine is not 100% effective (just very effective), and because certain people cannot be immunised due to other medical reasons.

There's nothing fishy about people who have been vaccinated catching measles.

Because they're protecting the ones who make the vaccines.

Kids have to ride on school buses (unless taken by car) - do you think the manufacturer of the bus should be liable for any lawsuits resulting from injuries sustained due to an accident there, given that the safety of the bus and the criteria for its manufacture are set by the government?

The government has determined that the vaccines it mandates are safe, albeit with the very slim chance of adverse reactions, and it has set up a system to deal with that.

Oh, and nice assumption. Suburban soccer mom? Nice one kid.

I wasn't aware that I'd grown ovaries and acquired children and a decade in age overnight. Who knew!

Time to pop some kids out and buy some mom jeans because I disagreed with someone on slashdot. Man, you have to be careful about this shit.

Wow. Who pissed in your chips?

Your argument was that you'd be "too busy checking your speedometer" (quote) to look out for children. I'm saying that if such a task is so distracting that you can't look at the road ahead then you're a poor driver and would likely fail a driving test.

If the speed drops by half on a road, with posted signs, and you think that's dangerous then we're clearly not on the same page at all. These sorts of things are common in the UK, for example, (and I'm sure in many countries that have roads) where an arterial route goes from the high speed limit (60 mph in the UK on non-motoways) down to 30 mph when passing through a small built up area. The signs are clearly marked, and there's plenty of warning.

When you see those signs you change speed. The obsessive checking of your speed to the exclusion of all other road perception is just nonsense. Roads have speed limits. Being able to drive your car at or below those limits without tunnel vision on the speedometer is one of the primary skills necessary to operate a vehicle safely. If you cannot do this (such that you feel you wouldn't be able to look out for children in a crossing while also being able to drive at the posted speed limit) then you have no business driving a car.

Of course what you're really angry about is that cops bust people for speeding.

If you can't drive a vehicle at a specified speed (designated by road signs) without being so distracted by the speedometer that you might crash then you should not have been issued with a driving licence and have no business operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

In the UK all the money from speed cameras and speed traps is used exclusively for public safety; digital speed warning signs, traffic calming, improvement of crossings etc. It's not used as a general police revenue source.