Well, ok. But it sure looked like a general comment about IDEs.

In any case, isn't it surely the language and framework that's hiding stuff from you here, not the IDE? I don't know, I don't do any .NET.

I develop C++ using Visual Studio. What complexity is my IDE hiding from me? What stuff is 'going on inside', that I don't know about? I can break execution, examine a list of threads, the register contents, single-step over the assembly...It seems to me that all the complexity is right there, if I want to see it.

I think they probably made it up, which is even more reason to refuse to use it normal conversation.

Not so much, those guys looked like dicks then, and they look like dicks now.

I can't imagine a world where google glasses (no, I'm not going to call them 'glass') would be useful beyond very niche areas. Security personel might find them pretty helpful, maybe those guys who walk around airport runways waving juggling clubs around might appreciate knowing when the next plane is coming in so they can perform in front of them. But your regular guy on the street - I don't think so. Not ever.

Any technology that requires the user to wear stupid headgear is doomed to failure. There are no exceptions to this rule.

That's a pretty good question, and the only answer that I can come up with is that the engineers thought it would be cool. Everything has a camera these days, but I completely agree that it would be a better device without it. It's probably a shit camera anyway.

Can we please not perpetuate the usage of this absurd term? Not that I think the thing is remotely socially acceptable, just that we don't need a special term for it.

Hmm - I wonder about that.

I don't think that either pi or e contain infinite information. For instance, in the case of pi at least, there exists a recurrence relation that will compute the nth digit of pi. The formula isn't especially complicated, and I don't think that we can say that there's an infinite amount of information in it.

In any case, surely the fact that pi and e crop up endlessly in our mathematical models of the universe, there must be something to them. And if they aren't properties of the universe, then what are they properties of?

For instance. e can be defined as the number such that
d/dx(e^x) = e^x

That's a pretty simple definition, and it so happens that the number that satisfies that definition has an infinite decimal expansion. Does that mean it contains infinite information?

I'm disagreeing with

Because I don't think that the point makes any sense. Our representation of numbers, as in how we write them down, has nothing to do with mathematics itself. Or are you saying that in the system of integers, wherein the counting numbers lie, and what are what we generally refer to as 'whole' numbers, we should also place PI. And presumably e and all those other irrational constants, like every non-rational root for instance.

I suppose my problem is that I simply don't understand your point at all.

Defining x/0 as always equalling 42 is going to lead to contradictions though, so although you can certainly make that definition the mathematics you end up with isn't going to be terribly useful except for making smug comments on slashdot.

Arguments around the definitiveness or otherwise of mathematics are as old as mathematics itself, or possible even older, and aren't going to be resolved on this forum.

I find myself being a kiddo that's wondering what your point might be.

But you can't, for instance, have both PI and e as 'whole numbers' in our generic number systems. And in any case, this is just an argument about the representation of numbers using decimal notation - which is pretty much an arbitrary thing. You could in fact argue that PI and e *are* whole numbers, and we write them as Pi and e respectively. Looks pretty 'whole' to me.

That's because not lighting up doesn't prevent the endgame. My partner's Father, a fit and healthy man who never smoked a day in his life, died of cancer. What can you do? You're going to go from something, and not smoking is no guarantee that what you go of won't be extremely unpleasant.

Those accelerations aren't 'extra' - they are really happening to the phone and so would have to be taken into account too.

The problem isn't that the phone is moved around in the car, the problem is that the accelerometers and gyros of the class that exist in phones are orders of magnitude too noisy and imprecise to be used to dead-reackon for more than a few hundred milliseconds.

There is absolutely no way on earth that any cellphone that exists today uses any of its inertial sensors as part of its GPS solution.

Well partly at least it's the fact that I wrote a long reply enumerating seven specific things that I thought were terrible about the new design, and the comment was eaten by the site.

I wrote a long comment about all this, but the beta site ate it.