That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.

It is not standalone. You're ignoring the referential pronoun object of the sentence, "it", which is contextual and refers directly to the topic at hand: something for which we *do* have active examples, is demonstrated and thus 100% possible.

This rebuttal is flawed. Obviously the odds of success of pursuing something impossible is always 0. You're equating the pursuit of things for which we have no model of possible existence with the pursuit of replicating something for which we have abundant, active examples of it's 100% possibility--over 7 billion intelligent, autonomous physical entities, not even counting other species which qualify.

I agree that there is no logic in attempting to predict a date for when someone will comprehend how to manufacture an entity that exhibits intelligence similar to our own. But there is likewise no logic in declaring we cannot or will not do so within any specific timespan either. However low the odds of success may be, they are still >0. The odds don't even go to 0 if not a single person is pursuing it directly--someone not in pursuit of it may have a realization that leads to it. We have historical examples of discoveries coming at us sideways.

In addition, even if multiple insights are required, that does not reduce the odds of them all occuring within X amount of time to 0 either. The fact that people are actively pursuing it still puts the odds at >0.

Prove it. For all we know, one single insight may be all that stands in the way--just because *you* haven't had it yet doesn't mean multiple are required.

Sure there is. Just because no one has had the "ah-ha!" moment yet and figured it out doesn't mean we can say no one will in the next X amount of time. It very well could happen today. The mere fact that people are actively pursuing it means the odds are >0.

No one in the mass market will buy this. So many already can hardly handle a one-piece phone/tablet/laptop/computer/device. Women will not buy it simply because it's ugly.

"Oh, but you can upgrade the camera" you say? Anyone that is so much into photography that they need a better camera will buy...... a *real camera*. You know, with interchangeable, actual high-quality, purposeful lenses.

"Oh, but you can just upgrade the screen or processor" you say? Prediction: the upgrade path for any generation chassis will be limited to only one or two steps, then you need a new chassis. Just like with motherboards (because that's what the chassis is).

Now, doing this for laptops... that's the real question--why haven't they done this *yet*. (And no, just because you can aggravatingly, pain-stakingly pry open a laptop to service it and in some cases interchange some parts does not qualify).

This seems like such a step backwards. Are they going to go through the whole 1980/90s plug-and-pray interoperability nightmare again? This is one reason Apple became so dominant--they locked down the hardware, supported a canned set of options, and made their hardware compatibility issues mostly a non-issue. Their stuff *just worked*.

Also, what about the additional avenue of security holes: counterfeit modules, hacked modules, modules swapped out when you're not looking, etc. The android security/permisisons model is already poor at best for the masses.

They are not related. ASRock may have originated from Asus, but that was over a decade ago. They have long since been their own distinct, separate brand.

They should put the funds to decommission a nuclear plant in escrow before it's even built and turned on.

If pass phrases are inherently far more secure, why do we still prompt people to create and use a *password* and then make a big stink that they did *exactly that*? Just because they do that poorly we shouldn't hold that against them since the process itself doesn't do anything to help them do so better--it's actually at odds, whereas simply indicating the different process of selecting a pass *phrase* does.

Why not simply change the labels and validation (since when should a site ever *prohibit* any specific character from a pass phrase?!!) to say "pass phrase" to urge people in a better direction?

We have bone-headed developers that have "helpfully" sent out emails to every member of a site saying "to improve security we have stripped all non alpha-numerics from your password"... Huh????? a) that means you stored my pass phrase *in plain text* in your database, then b) you *shortened it*! and c) you reduced the available combinations and d) turned my pass phrase into a password.

We have *banks* adding "site lock" security--reducing the security of their websites and *lying* to their users telling them that a) it increases their security and b) *trust the site lock image to indicate that it's really the correct site* rather than educating them to check the *SSL cert*!

Perhaps we need an article similar to "what every developer needs to know about character encoding" but for "handling user credentials". It's obvious that it's not just users that don't get it--but many developers and businesses also.

That read <4.0 when I wrote it.

No chrome for Android 4.0, which is still nearly 40% of the current Androids in use.