Hahaha. I know this feeling well.

I used to spend all kinds of time trying to load high as much as I could by rearranging the load order of drivers, etc. I was pretty good at it.

All these memories will be lost, in time. Like tears in the rain.

And good riddance, I say! :)

What *I* wrote very definitely and clearly WAS about recording someone at dinner.

So you are way out of line. Maybe you meant to reply to someone else?

I don't blame you. But I'm not one of those people. I'm not particularly impressed by Glass, but neither am I irrationally afraid of it.

I do, however, think there are standards of etiquette that would require you to not record things with it under some circumstances. But that's a behavior issue, not a tech issue.

It happened a long time ago.

Technically, "resolution" already refers to pixel density. People have come to incorrectly use the word resolution to mean size in pixels, but that's not what it actually means.

"Normal" TV viewing distance can be inferred by simple deduction: it is basically from the couch to the TV, which might be anywhere from 6 feet to maybe 10 feet. It's a pretty rough measure, but it's still a measure. 4 feet is significantly less than "normal", and 14 feet is more.

What is your screen size and distance? You don't say. And you see the difference between what? Standard definition and HD? Or HD and 4k?

I doubt very much you see the difference between HD and 4k, because while 4k TVs are being sold, there is almost no 4k media being sold. So any difference you might see is a result of artificial upsampling. You're fooling yourself.

Yes, it's being switched. The clapper itself is the switch. Find a picture on the Internet of the whole device, and you'll see that the clapper switches the current between the two batteries. TFA only shows the lower portion. You can't even see the "piles".

Microsoft is rather notorious for not releasing information about known bugs or malware until they damned well please. That means until then, it doesn't get added to Security Essential or Windows Defender until such time, even if the security community knew about it for 2 years.

While 3rd-party solutions can be problematic, as others have mentioned, at the same time they are likely to update their lists of malware considerably faster than Microsoft in many cases.

Please read again. I wrote: "... the number of new systems being built to run COBOL..."

And I am sorry to hear your wife works for a bank that is still using COBOL. Still, you are mistaken if you think I don't understand how companies use legacy systems.

Also, I didn't say anything bad about the language. I just implied it is slowly fading. Because... it is.

Where did you get the idea that I think anything of the kind? I certainly did not write anything like that.

I really don't know why, since once again that has nothing at all to do with anything I actually wrote.

Again I am compelled to ask where you got that idea. It seems to have sprung from your own mind. I certainly did not write any such thing, and I am not "afraid" of the likes of you, camera or no camera.

Yet again, I wrote no such thing. That's 4 times now. I don't think -- and didn't say -- they should be banned. I only mentioned that they should not be used improperly or rudely. Why do you seem to have such a huge problem with that idea that your mind made up all this other stuff I supposedly said? Maybe you should go back and read what I *did* write.

The discussion was about recording someone eating dinner in a restaurant, "not kiddie porn". The reason I don't see the two as comparable is because they are not comparable.

I don't even know what you mean by that, or what your motivation for writing it is.

Apparently you've never spent time around donkeys. They won't get off their ass for a stick unless that stick is a two-by-four. And you aren't going to be dangling carrots on the end of two-by-fours.

And I hate to tell you this, but the party with the Donkey is not the GOP.

Why do it? Because they received fucking Federal tax money to do it, that's why.

But instead, they illegally plowed their Federal money into wireless infrastructure.

This has been an issue for a long time now. Consult EFF about it.

In fact this was one of the first things about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that he and his colleagues realized: the implication that information could not travel faster than C.

But now we have yet another recent claim from the same old supposedly-discredited source that neutrinos can actually travel faster than light.

I suspect that eventually Special Relativity will go the way of Newtonian physics: it will be deemed a very good approximation under most circumstances, with certain edge-case exceptions.

Depends on your point of view. If you mean someone breaking your encryption, agreed that is no "single point of failure". But from the other point of view -- legitimately retrieving your information -- there are now TWO single points of failure. That is to say, two individual points at which any failure means total failure.

So that does not come without potential cost.

Not necessarily. There are legitimate kinds of audits, too. In fact the U.S. should be doing more of them.

We have already found foreign chips (guess where they were made) that were "backdoored", even in some military products. And others that were cheap forged copies of better chips.

Whenever we have electronics that are important to not just military security but even just citizen privacy and dependence (like phones), we should be doing thorough security audits.

I told you once.

I don't agree that the two things are even remotely comparable.