You're welcome to believe that, and I'll even admit that my memory may be inaccurate, but my recollection of the research I've seen ([citation needed], admittedly) is that they controlled for other factors, in particular food and lifestyle choices. Which is to say, there's no doubt that food and lifestyle have an impact in those areas, but the research also seems to indicate that there's no doubt that sitting/standing for too long can have an impact in those areas as well.

Just because one cause is more common than another does not mean that it is the sole cause.

You and I are in agreement (barring the fact that you think I made an assumption I did not make). In the sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted, I said (emphasis added):

I had hoped that would make it clear that I believe (as you do) that a simple trade is insufficient to address the greater issue, but by no means was I suggesting that a simple trade is the only option available. As I said earlier in my comment, what's needed is some sort of change in the routine, and your suggestion to change between sitting and standing throughout the day is great example of a means for accomplishing that. I provided a few other examples in my post as well.

Which is to say, we're very much so in agreement about the importance of changing things up. I apologize if I was at all unclear regarding that.

This. The real problem isn't sitting or standing: it's being still.

As standing desks have become more of a fad in the last few years, longer-term research is finally starting to come out regarding their effects, and everything I've seen so far indicates that its users are basically just trading one set of issues with sitting desks (i.e. circulatory problems, certain spinal issues, heart problems) for a different set of issues with standing desks (i.e. foot problems, different spinal issues, heart problems).

In both cases, the research is indicating that simply increasing the amount of activity in your routine alleviates the worst of the concerns, which is why it's so important to build regular breaks into your day where you get up and stretch, walk around, or at the very least do something that gets you out of your usual position, whether that's sitting or standing.

Standing has the benefit of predisposing its practitioners towards more regular activity, which can be a benefit, to be sure, but if all you're doing is trading sitting for standing without otherwise changing your routine, you really aren't going to see a net improvement. At best, you'll see a temporary relief of the symptoms specific to sitting before you start to develop the symptoms specific to standing.

I'm wondering about this as well. Apple and Liquid Metal have had an exclusivity agreement in place for consumer electronics for years, and by all indications, that agreements remains in place.

Something sounds fishy about this, for sure, but Apple has shipped Liquid Metal components before, namely the "SIM Removal Tool" (i.e. a glorified paperclip) that shipped with, I believe, the iPhone 3GS. So yes, we do know that a deal with Apple has existed for quite some time, and by all indications and the reports I've see, Apple's exclusivity deal with Liquid Metal for the consumer electronics market was re-upped last month when it was due to expire.

Yup, reading through that forum, it sounds as if the person who posted it up has admitted that it's a custom fake design. Plus, there's the fact that we know roughly what the actual device originally looked like, and it was quite a bit different. The original device was an add-on to the SNES, not a single-product hybrid console like this fake.

The idea is all well and good (and yes, I get the reference, this isn't a "whooosh", just a serious response to a joke post), but maybe we need to overcome some more basic issues first, such as stopping machines from labelling people as gorillas.

How does a post that gets almost all of its facts wrong get modded up as Insightful? You started on a provably faulty premise, backed it up with inaccurate statements regarding WebGL, and then closed it out by saying something that I'd have hoped most of us here would trivially recognize as incorrect.

Apple announced at the start of the year that they've paid out $25B to developers over the life of the App Store. Do some quick math, and that means that Apple is averaging $0.45B in revenue each quarter from the App Store, which would put it at <1% of their quarterly revenue (e.g. Apple posted $60B in revenue in their latest, post-Christmas quarter).

Which is to say, your basic premise here is that Apple is intentionally crippling the product that makes up 60% of their revenue (iOS hardware) in order to bolster the revenue in a segment that accounts for less than 1% of their revenue (App Store downloads). Seriously? Apple's main business isn't selling apps; it's selling selling devices that run apps, and you may even recall that back when the iPhone launched in 2007, the "apps" it supported were web apps, not native apps.

Could've fooled me. iOS 8 has been out for nearly a year at this point, and has had WebGL support from the beginning without any of the weird requirements you're talking about.

A) You're confused. You're talking about iAds (and I'll discuss why I know you are in a sec), but the iAd advertising network only operates in iOS apps, not on websites. Sites can't sign up to it.

B) It's not disabled. See above. WebGL support was available as an experimental feature in iOS 7, and as a standard feature in iOS8. No ads or other funny business required.

The reason you're confused is because, technically speaking, iOS did have support for WebGL as far back as iOS 4.2, but it was only available to iAd developers. By that, I don't mean people who agreed to put iAds in their app. I mean people who were actually making the iAds themselves, since iAds are basically just mini webpages that display an ad.

If that seems a bit weird at first glance, recall that WebGL was a resource-intensive feature on the devices of that day, and Apple has a history of restricting the scope or operation of resource-intensive features until the implementations or device capabilities improve (see: background processing, native apps on Apple Watch, etc.), so it made sense at the time why WebGL was restricted to iAds, since they were designed to only be on the screen for short periods of time yet could stand to gain the most from such a feature.

The only sense in which what you said is correct is that for a few years the only people who were able to make use of WebGL on iOS were the ones making the ads, but it was never a feature that web developers had to make a Faustian pact with Apple to use. It simply wasn't available to them.

They haven't both used "WebKit" since Google forked WebKit to create Blink over two years ago, but even before that, they weren't even running "the exact same core rendering software" for the last several years back when they were both running "WebKit".

Google and Apple have had divergent multi-process architectures for quite some time. Google built their multi-process architecture on top of the original WebKit (i.e. it's a part of Chromium, not WebKit), whereas Apple decided to bake the multi-process architecture directly into the rendering engine, which became WebKit2 and is at the core of Safari on iOS and OS X. Despite those differences, the two companies still tried to keep the engines in sync, but the difficulty in doing so (i.e. it wasn't trivial like you suggested) was one of the reasons why Google eventually decided to just fork WebKit and make Blink, since it wasn't worth their time.

I'm admittedly glossing over a lot of details since there's a lot of history here, but the long and short of it is that even when they were both running "the exact same core rendering software", they weren't actually running the exact same core rendering software, and it wasn't always trivial to port all of the changes back and forth. They both started from the same stuff, but it's been over five years since they diverged in major ways.

Any more faulty premises backed up by untruths you'd like to share?

You keep saying "fighting off", but this...

...this sounds more like "embracing" to me. Maybe we should clear up what we're talking about here.

TV, the medium, is dying a slow death. It has been slow to adapt to the changing reality and hasn't reacted at all to changes in the market. But the content distributed on the TV medium? The shows themselves? They have a bright future. That said, it's just a matter of time before we stop referring to them as "TV shows" and start referring to them by some other name such as "serials" or simply "shows". My guess is that within 20 years the kids will look at us funny if we say "TV show", yet that content will still exist in some other form online. And already, we're seeing some changes in the format, such as with Netflix's shows, which can vary considerably in length from one episode to the next.

For an analogue, think about the news industry. The news isn't going away anytime soon. We have an insatiable appetite for it. But newspapers? They've already lost the fight against the Internet, in much the same way that TV is losing it now. We'd scoff at anyone suggesting that newspapers are fighting off the Internet by posting their news content online. The same is true here.

We'd do well to not conflate content with the medium on which it is distributed. Old media is dying, but its content remains relevant in our society.

Actually curious here...links?

Without fiddling with config files, you could boost it from the default of 250 to 1000 per side, as I recall. There was a secret hotkey to do it, just the same as there was a secret hotkey to enable skirmishes/multiplayer with up to 10 players.

I suspect the NSA doesn't view it as an "either/or" situation, but rather as an "and" situation. They're big enough that they can concentrate on ALL of them. Wasn't the NSA's budget a few years ago as large as the CIA's, FBI's, and DIA's combined? People don't realize how massive the NSA actually is.

Free speech. I firmly stand against any local, state, or federal government entities flying the Confederate flag, for exactly the reasons you provided, but I will defend an individual's right to do so, even if I vehemently disagree with their reasons for doing so.

That said, we're starting to take things into the realm of ridiculousness here. Apple is removing apps with the Confederate flag. Great. Except that they're removing a number of Civil War games that correctly used the Confederate flag to represent the Confederacy. What next? Force HBO to stop offering Band of Brothers through HBO Now on the Apple TV because it features a swastika? Remove the Dukes of Hazzard from iTunes because they have a Confederate flag painted on the roof of the car?

At the end of the day, the flag is merely a symbol, and symbols are only as powerful as we let them be. The meaning behind that flag has changed over the years, and has meant different things to different people. We need to recognize that fact, otherwise we'll swing the pendulum too far in the other direction and end up cutting in on civil liberties.

Because, this isn't their first rodeo. When they weren't busy being experts in materials science at MIT, they were busy founding A123. A123 remains a successful company, but they sold it off, continued doing research at MIT, and now have something new that they'd like to make, so they're ramping up a new company to do it.

From the article:

Mind you, Chiang is someone with previous battery manufacturing experience, having co-founded A123.