Yes, it is very confusing.

Which is not what GP said.

His argument was explicitly that no open standard existed within the field. Given that there is a perfectly good open standard in the field he explicitly mentioned, it is a terrible example.

Technically, it would have to have been either Calories or kilocalories. Note the capital letter in the former.
Yes, it is very confusing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm not sure that is the best example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They can sound differently due to the way the device(s) provide the input and/or to the settings on the receiver (because yes, they are both digital).

A simple indication of things that can happen is provided in the second post here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/...

A proper test would have the input devices doing only bitstreaming of medium-bandwidth audio in a format supported by the receiver and the receiver applying no or exactly the same postprocessing (including gain, obviously) to the decoded streams.

That's not how Slashdot works.

Mod points aren't that hard to acquire: Get an account, don't be a dick and contribute something useful once in a while.
Although I guess on Reddit such behavior might indeed only be expected from a select few ;-)

Fake.

Both the 'Russian' (his name is Kyle Myers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and the quadcopter ( http://www.military.com/video/... ).

Not saying it will never be done (the opposite, in fact), just that it hasn't been done just yet.

You have a terrible definition of the word 'plenty'.

'Journalists' don't need any other motive than to get people to click on their 'interesting' bullshit article and sell some ad views.
Remember this one?: http://science.slashdot.org/st...

STOP SCREAMING.
What is this, the YouTube comment section?

There are i-tags, b-tags. You could emphasize like _this_ or like /this/ or even like *this*.
Behave yourself.

This assumes human culture and/or 'biology' will never change.

1. With regard to culture, there are already plenty of humans that do not operate in the way you describe ('damn hippies' is the popular term to describe them, I believe). Whether or not the entire race will move towards such behavior is an open question, but it is certainly possible. Considering that we're still a good bit away from but definitely moving towards a peaceful cooperative planet where at least all basic human needs are met for the entire population, it would be short-sighted to assume that our culture will not change were we to achieve that state.

2. We're already regulating and modifying our bodies with drugs and augments. Considering that one of the most heard pieces of life advice is 'be satisfied with what you have', it seems that curbing unbounded and unsatisfying desire would be something that a lot of people would be on board with. You could actually say that Prozac and other mood regulators are already examples of how we're doing that.

There is of course the question to what extent such changes would permeate in our organizational institutions (government), but assuming that they will reflect the culture it seems probable that they will significantly.

From the article:

"Then, the monkeys' brains were wired together [...]"

So that doesn't tell us shit. On to the paper:

"Electrophysiological recordings
A Multineuronal Acquisition Processor (64 channels, Plexon Inc, Dallas, TX) was used to record neuronal spikes, as previously described15. Briefly, differentiated neural signals were amplified (20000–32,000×) and digitized at 40kHz. Up to four single neurons per recording channel were sorted online (Sort client 2002, Plexon inc, Dallas, TX).

Intracortical electrical microstimulation
Intracortical electrical microstimulation cues were generated by an electrical microstimulator (Master 8 , AMPI, Jerusalem, Israel) controlled by custom Matlab script (Nattick, USA) receiving information from a Plexon system over the internet. Patterns of 8–20 (bipolar, biphasic, charge balanced; 200sec) pulses at 20–120Hz were delivered to S1. Current intensity varied from 10–100A."

So, we're talking about roughly a maximum of 64 * 4 = 256 neurons (at 40KHz) participating per brain. It's not that many, but also not few for an artificial neural network. Because that's what happened. The researcher trained the mice (via reinforcement learning) on specific problems after interconnection. He didn't interconnect them and immediately let them perform some random complex task:

"In one test, for instance, different rats brains were given different barometric pressure and temperature information, and then the computational power of the Brainet itself was used to calculate the probability that it would rain (given those inputs) at a rate higher than chance.
Nicolelis said that, essentially, he created a "classic artificial neural network using brains." In that sense, it's not artificial at all."

Which isn't 'unlimited'. It includes 'as possible', which implies that there are limits.

Somewhere, maybe. Not in this comment-thread, though. You should have replied there. My comment was and is about how The Paradox of Choice is a bad basis for informing UI design. You have not responded to that.

I know and I have. It's completely besides the point. Stop bringing it up.
When people are talking about whether a convertible is preferable over a coupé, the guy that insists that you should just ride a bike if you want the wind in your hair is just being an annoying (offtopic) asshole.

No, it's not and no, it doesn't. Do you think that no professional on this planet uses a GUI? That nuclear powerplants and huge complex infrastructure networks are managed via a CLI? There are hugely complex GUIs that definitely do not only show 'common, sensible default choices', because they would effectively be useless if they did.

The point of a simple GUI is that it does not require learning. The point of a complex GUI is that it is very powerful. These are separate dimensions. Some GUIs cannot require learning, some GUIs can. Some GUIs need to be powerful, some don't. Many GUIs are somewhere in the middle of the plane.

The point of a GUI in general is that it allows for a completely different multidimensional way to interact with software (versus a CLI). The problem with GUIs is that you generally lose expressiveness, as only the options put into the GUI are generally available to express what you want the software to do.

Now you and many people with you are arguing that a GUI should contain the minimal amount of expressiveness to make it useful and people with wishes for even slightly more expressiveness in a GUI should just piss off and use the CLI. It's simply ridiculous. Especially when you start arguing that "humans don't like choices" (I'm paraphrasing).
Determining or not whether adding certain choices is beneficial or not is something that should be thought through and not dismissed with the inane 'less is more'.

Oh stop.
1. People who 'suggest' things DON'T SCREAM.
2. Also, 'attack' is a perfectly valid term in the area of debate to denominate an argument against some statement. It's nothing personal, just the English language.
Silly.

I'm going to be another random guy on the internet with some advice:
A lot of very differing issues (can) trace back to cramped, too short or otherwise tight muscles. I used to have the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome (numbness, lack of strength, pain), induced by a combination of a lot of table football and a lot of coding. I know it sounds terribly cheesy, but my Kung Fu trainer taught me this little 'trick' to temporarily disable the lower arm (perpendicularly striking just 'above' the pointy bit of the elbow) The weird thing was that undergoing it actually alleviated my symptoms. Turned out that my symptoms were just caused by several muscles in my upper arm constricting the ulnar nerve (striking it and the muscles around it loosened them up). Since that day I have been able to just massage (specific parts of) my upper arm and any symptoms will disappear.

That experience, combined with tearing a hamstring really put me onto a 'stretching and massaging fixes and prevents almost everything' approach. Be it headaches, knee problems, or back pain, my first response is to massage any and all muscles possibly involved and my second response is to stretch them regularly. The latter takes time (I'm up to half an hour before I go to bed), but it works like a charm.

This is a fallacious cop-out. You are attacking a straw man of 'wanting ununlimited [sic] choices' (nobody said they want that), and are implying a false dichotomy (there is something in between 'no choice' and 'unlimited choice') of which the choice you present is absurd in itself ('unlimited' is technically physically impossible).

We weren't talking about CLIs and we're not going to.

Which says NOTHING about what number of choices is appropriate and thus NOTHING about the subject at hand.

Straw man again.

Which only SPEAKS FOR showing many choices early instead of HIDING them somewhere deep in the UI.
(is the caps-emphasis annoying you yet?)

Nobody was talking about keyboard shortcuts, but as long as they are optional they do not complicate the UI for anyone, but do make it more powerful for everybody. But again, you seem to be arguing in favor of showing users many choices in a UI. Is that correct?