Apparently not. The announcement was pretty much this.

That says nothing about extending range. It talks about ending range anxiety. Which could be, for isntance, adjusting the sat nav so it calculates how much further you can drive before you go out of range of the nearest charging station.

Wilbur stood on the corner with a jar of rabbit shit. Freddie came by," hey man what you got there?"

"It's smart pills, try some."

          Chewing up a large handful, Freddie exclaimed" this tastes like shit!"

"See you're getting smarter already."

330km is the upper bound for depth, but the real question is, what's the lower bound? I want to see error bars!

So your preference is whatever your boss tells you? You have no opinions on what you prefer? I'm astonished that anyone that reads /. would admit to being so servile and unimaginitive.

There was an old friend of Mohammed Emwazi ("Jyhadi John") saying that he was a really nice guy - sweet, gentle, intelligent, and everyone was horrified that anyone could say that of such a monster. Er, I'm sorry, but if that's what the guy actually thought about Emwazi at the time, then that's what he thought. You can't change that.

It's not the idea that was top secret. It's the specific implementation and the fact that they were using it and what for that was secret.

To be honest, using a method called "getline" in order to break up a string on commas is hardly intuitive.

...and the extension doesn't actually say what it is, it says what the operating system will try to do with it. Which is just as important, if not more so, but it's important to get these details right. Sloppy tech journalism.

It's a visitor from a different spacetime.

Zombies have been a popular story trope since long before memes, or even tropes, were invented.

So when someone takes a picture of you wearing these glasses, uploads it to Facebook and tags you...

But which of those is the actual reason is not obvious.

Please go here and propose Leonard Nimoy:
http://elitedangerous.com/name...

It's the natural tendency for people to interpret evidence in the way that supports their prejudice. Go to any football match (I'm thinking soccer as I'm a Brit, but I guess USian football is probably the same) and ask two supporters from different sides what they honestly thought of the merits of a referee's decision. 90% of the time they will agree with decisions that went their way and disagree with decisions that went the other way.

My mum watches a load of those "psychic detectives" TV programmes, and whenever I watch one with her, I steadfastly refuse to accept as credible anything I'm seeing. Why? Because I don't believe in psychic powers. All that evidence, all those police officers saying they would never have solved the case without the psychic's help, I disregard it out of hand. I don't know why it's invalid, I can't prove that any of them are lying and I don't have the statistics to hand about how often "psychics" turn out to be time-wasting frauds that get in the way of investigations, I don't care. I've made my mind up and I ignore any evidence that I am presented with. I guess I'm just as bad as AGW-deniers.