Because by the time my camera gets around to taking several photos at various focal lengths, the fast moving subject I was trying to take a picture of already left the scene. But I have the opposite problem (since I can fake a shallow depth of field in photoshop) -- I have to open the lens all the way on my P&S in any kind of low-light situation since the sensor is too noisy at high ISO's, so I end up with a shallower depth of field than I wanted.

I want a fast lens *and* a larger, lower noise sensor than I can find in most P&S cameras. But I don't use that fast lens for taking pictures of planets or the moon.

Right, all those sports photographers that use the big $8000+ 300mm telephoto lenses could save some money and just get a point a shoot with more pixels than his 20MP DSLR and he can just crop down the pictures to give him a nice 3MP shot of the winning touchdown. Pixels are pixels, right? The 1/2" sensor on a 20MP point-and-shoot is just as good as the 35mm sensor on his DSLR, right? And what possible difference could there be between an $8000 lens and the lens on a $500 P&S?

Here's a list of 30 movies and TV shows that have been shot in whole or part on Canon or Nikon DSLRs:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059...

Hard to get any faster and more convenient than this -- if they don't want to make employees scan their badges, put an RFID reader in the chair and keep the badge in the back pocket and it's automatic and instant every time they sit down at a workstation.

Unless they have a specific need for biometrics, there's no point in using it.

But does it work through gloves?

Because opening the windows slightly only affects inside temperatures slightly? Yet it makes it much easier to thread in a wire to snag a door handle to open the door.

A forced air fan to vent in cooler air from below the car 30 minutes before you return to the car would be more effective. And the only thing stopping that is cost vs benefit - not enough people would find it useful enough to add $xx to the price of the car.

They spend $200M/year on software development -- have browsers become so complicated that Mozilla and associated projects need 1000+ developers?

I'm a cyclist too, so I can safely say, that most cyclists spending $5K on a bike are doing so for appearance only, because if they lost just a few pounds of the extra weight they are carrying, it would save more money than the upgrade from a $2500 to a $5000 bike. I had a 250 lb friend who actually drilled out various components on his bike to save a few grams of weight. It wasn't until he snapped off his drilled out chainring that he realized that maybe the manufacturer already cut out as much weight as they could.

I'd never purchase something like this for serious use because if I'm going to be biking far from reliable water supplies, I don't want to count on a mechanical device to extract water for me. On long unsupported rides, I carry some water purification tablets just in case, but haven't had to use them yet, rural fire stations and post offices are a good source of water.

While an all wooden bike (including wheels)might have problems tripping lights, I almost always can trip the lights with my Carbon Fiber bike with aluminum wheels, I just have to careful where I stop. I don't think an all-wooden bike (including wooden wheels) would be practical enough for much riding around town - the road vibrations noted in the article would make long rides unpleasant.

How can one verify that any "certificate authority" hasn't issued a cert to the NSA?

But if your domain is currently running HTTP because you don't want to pay for an HTTPS certificate, giving the NSA a backdoor to decrypt your website doesn't seem like much of a drawback. Not that matter for most people, if the NSA wants to see your data, if they can't get it from you, they'll get it from your ISP.

They already mentioned that in the article.... It's better to lose power to a few racks than lose power to 100 racks when your main UPS fails. Your use case may be different but you are not Facebook.

Do you have a reference for this? I find that I can schedule very little with the internet that reduces my trips. The thing that the internet does for me that helps reduce trips is online purchases -- except for groceries, most of my purchases are made online so I almost never go to the mall or big-box store. Previously I might have had to make more than one trip to different stored to find what I'm looking for.

I could get groceries delivered, but I don't find it to be more convenient than doing it myself since I don't find browsing for groceries in a web interface to be a good substitute for actually looking at the food (particularly with meat and produce) and if I have to schedule a window of time to be home anyway, I might as well just go myself rather than arranging to be home from 6pm-9pm.

But scheduling? There's not much in my daily life that I can schedule over the internet that I couldn't have already scheduled over the phone (like restaurant reservations and hair cut appointments) - and many of those still don't accept internet reservations.

Because smoking cigarettes is worth 10X your salary?

Interesting accusation coming from the guy that's too lazy to use the tags to turn his link into a proper HTML link.

This is already being tested in the courts. There's not yet (as far as I know) a test for marijuana intoxication, only detection that you've used marjuana at some point in the past few days/weeks, so there's little justification for testing for marijuana when it's already legal for recreational and/or medicinal use. It's particularly controversial when an employee uses marijuana medicinally -- cough medicine is going to affect employee performance much more than smoking pot over the weekend.

I wish governments would use taxes to pay for benefits for the poor instead of making us pay through hidden costs by forcing companies to give "free" or reduced cost services, which are made up for in higher fees for the service. The same goes for "affordable housing" where developers have to provide reduced cost housing, which is paid for in higher cost of housing for everyone else.

I have no problem with providing benefits, but If governments want to provide these benefits, then provide them through taxes where they are shared among all taxpayers (why should a Comcast customer pay to subsidize "free" interenet for the poor, while an AT&T UVerse customer does not?), everyone can see what they are paying to the full cost of providing these benefits is known, and the local taxes are tax deductible themselves.