The standard accelerometers in smartphones are not accurate enough for inertial navigation. You get a very high rate of drift. My guess would be the innovative part of this that isn't clearly explained in the article is just that they got better accuracy than previously achieved in a chip sized unit.

An economy doesn't "grow" in any sense unless outside wealth is coming in in some form.

Economies are positive sum, not zero sum. They can grow without any outside trade. Your description is incorrect. For example, your description would imply that it is impossible for the World Economy to grow, because there is not outside wealth coming in from aliens.

Here is a nice sum of positive, zero, and negative sum in the context of economics. http://www.conceptualmath.org/philo/econ_sum.html

Here is a more detailed example of positive-sum trade between 2 parties (Crusoe and Friday) on a desert island. http://ingrimayne.com/econ/International/Comparative.html

One thing to point out with those videos and the review is that the FOV is like a typical monitor.

Mmm ... no, it's not the same. Regular wide screen TV: 16x9. Regular wide screen monitor: 16x9 or16x10

A six monitor (3x2) wide screen setup will be: 48x18 (16x3 and 9x2) or 48x20 (16x3 and 10x2). This is 24x9 or 24x10 which is 50% wider than 16x6 and 16x10 respectively. But thank you for playing.

... "while driving".

It's fine for them to communicate however they like when they're notdriving.

>>>Married women couldn't own property. Slavery was legal.

Why repeat what I've already said? I already started "except for slavery and sexism". Try to be more original.

Oh and you're wrong about the women couldn't own property bit. In virtually all states they could own property if the husband passed away and the widow inherited the land/assets. And in the more-progressive northern states not only did women own property, they were allowed to vote in elections.
.

>>>Health care was practically nonexistent

So was electricity and cars, but that doesn't have anything to do with government and how much freedom a person had. An american individual in the 1820s had a LOT more freedom than we have today, if only because there was no income tax to take-away your earnings.

Didnt you see that interview from several months back? I think Conroy made the comment "you dont know the things that are out there, you cant trust parents to keep their kids safe" (I cant find the exact link, but it was on a BBC interview). That pretty much sums up whats happening here, government wants to raise your kids for you.

A little early for April Fools' Day, isn't it?

Enemy of the state wasnt too bad, i guess, right?

So prove they are abusing your data.

I get email and especially post-office-kind mail with eerily detailed information about me all the time. I've never tried calling the companies and asking where they data mined it from (I try not to contact them if at all possible), but I don't think it would work. Obviously someone I'm doing business with is giving something away, but I don't think I'll ever be able to track them down.

The task of proving myspace sold your data after you deleted your account would be huge and then you would have to hire a better legal team than theirs to attempt to make your argument, from which you will probably win an apology.

I think is better to create a new and decent browser-based script language than try to run faster the actual javascript...

So how much sanity do spam filters have and what happens when it runs out?

Whenever you say that "X is not standards compliant", it's worth mentioning what standards you have in mind. IE8, for example, is standards compliant with respect to HTML 4.01 & CSS 2.0, but not with respect to XHTML 1.x (which are the final standards). It also compliant with CSS 2.1, but is not compliant with CSS 3.x or HTML5, which are all not finalized yet (either in draft or proposed recommendation stage).

The point is that most people will not need to install the H.264 codec, because all news OSes (OS X, and Windows since Vista) come with it preinstalled. That's a major install base already, and it will grow even larger (as people migrate from XP) by the time this will be a practical issue (i.e. HTML5 YouTube out of beta etc).

This is really only an issue for 1) Desktop Linux users (a tiny minority), and 2) XP users who don't want to migrate (currently significant, but steadily diminishing since Win7 release). At a certain point, these categories become small enough that it is feasible to require them to install whatever codecs are needed, while for everyone else it Just Works.

This is not any different, nor treated differently by the market, from how you need to install Flash manually in most Linux distros today.

Oh, yeah, I know what you mean. The worst thing is googling for something and finding a lot of conflicting advice. Like one guy saying, "Oh, you want to do X? Well then install package Y. Some people will tell you to use package Z, but for reasons I won't go into here, that's a very bad move." Then another site will say, "DO NOT USE package Y. It's terrible and has lots of security problems. Use package Z." No further explanation.

So then you have to try to figure out, which of these guys knows what he's talking about? Was one of these pages written more recently than the other, and maybe the situation changed in between when they were written? Do either of these vague objections actually apply to my situation?

But... that's kind of hard to address. Opinions will differ.

The interstate highway project killed rail transit in this country, and airline deregulation sealed the deal. The highway system was built at about the same time that the train world was looking into high-speed rail. It turned-out to be cheaper to build brand-new roads for cars than it was to upgrade existing track for high speeds, and add electrification to the entire network.

Unfortunately, we have two large mountain ranges splitting the country into pieces, and everyone knows building train lines to get over/around/through mountains can get very expensive, especially if you want to add electrical infrastructure in the middle of nowhere. And even if you built the line, you couldn't run the trains at high-speeds on grades and curves in mountainous country. Building a road for cars through the same mountain range requires a lot less engineering, and the cars can actually move quickly, because they're not trying to keep hundreds of tons of cargo from derailing.

Sure, you can build high-speed lines on the Great Plains, but there's not enough passenger demand to support such a thing. In the 1950s, you only had one major destination that was not cut-off by mountains (Chicago), so there was no need for a major transit corridor. If you wanted to go somewhere besides Chicago, you would've had to switch to diesel when you hit the mountains, so what was the point?

This is why we only have one high-speed train corridor, and why it's on the east coast. There are plenty of destinations worth hitting along that major corridor, so there's enough demand to justify (and flat enough land to allow) the building of high-speed electrical train lines. The interstate highway system may be overloaded near the coasts, but it is an absolute dream to drive in the interior of the country. For those needing faster transit, the airline industry has grown to meet that demand, so there's no really no need today for train transit.