50 Megapixels in a phone is absurd. Even the most absurdly expensive glass has trouble keeping up with Nikon's full frame D800-- and that's only 36 Megapixels. It's more understandable in a medium format camera-- but those are significantly larger than phones, and far more expensive.

What really would be useful in a phone is decent low light performance-- noise free images at ISO 12,800 and beyond (as well as the focusing systems necessitated by this lack of light.)

See, his view is that the big problem with the UK education system and boys is that they lose all interest in reading for pleasure right around that 10-11 age range. This is, in part, because the generally approved reading materials in schools have a heavy female tilt (lots of teddy bears and thinking about feelings, not so much on the swords, dragons and robots), but there's not actually a mandatory reading list at this age and teachers (if they're willing to stand up to the senior management in their school if needed) have quite a lot of leeway.

I don't think this is so much about a male/female thing as much as, this is about the age range where teachers start really wanting to "expose" kids to the changes that are comming in their life and give them through story the context to deal with the oncoming turmoil of the teenage years...and frankly.... I think that desire ends up overshadowing other concerns.

It took a bit longer than that but, I can say, that by mid high school the readings we were being assigned were, on the whole, quite boring, and as I went to an all boys school, they were very much geared towards maturing boys.

Frankly if not for a few books, including 1984, brave new world, and some really excellent classes on Shakespear that made his works entirely approachable and enjoyable, I might have never picked up a book for entertainment purposes again. In fact, I didn't for at least 5 years after leaving school....and prior to "young adult reading", as a child, I actually did read for enjoyment and even picked up books on my own outside of class. Hell I read Moby Dick (unabridged) in the 4th grade... my teacher actually tried to dissuede me, but I took it out of the library and did my book report on it anyway. The report sucked, I totally missed many of the important themes of the book and really only was able to focus on some of the action but you know.... I still enjoyed the hell out of it, it still made me want to read more rather than less.

That said, it does seem that a lot more adult women read books for pleasure than adult men, but even that isn't completely cut and dry.... I have seen some of the books some of my female friends read and, they have admitted in their own words that visual porn does nothing for them, and that some of their books really are little more than porn with the same sort of thinly disguised excuse of a plot as the movies about which cities "Debbie Does" (side note: get off my lawn).

Now, I don't really think that "women get their porn in text" explains the difference in at least percieved (I haven't looked for numbers) rates of reading for enjoyment between men and women however; if those differences are real, I would not be entirely shocked to find out that some of the underlying reasons for it turn out to be related.

I probably would be only very slightly less unshocked to find out the differences have no biological basis at all and are primarily culturally driven.

That sounds fine to me.

Also I would like to mention.... the reality is they can already require their guests to agree as a condition of their stay that they will not use external networks. They can already buy equipment to detect and find devices using wifi..... seems they can already handle this by hunting down their own guests and charging them fines and or kicking them out.

Thing is, they know that if they start doing that, they are going to piss off customers. What they really want is stuff to just "not work" so it doesn't look like it is their fault. They don't want you to really know that it is them doing it; they want their customer to get frustrated with other options and grudgingly use their service instead..,..because then they are not the bad guy, or at least....not openly.

What this really is, is them wanting the government to sanction their underhanded activity because doing what they want out in the open is going to look bad.

Francises/sequels: 4
New movie projects: 0

In principle I agree, in practice, not so much.

For them to actually "do it on their premises" is fine with me, but only if there is no way a person outside their premises or within the publicly accessible entranceway to their premises are under its effect; even if they are simply walking the paths around the outside of the building.

So basically, sure, if they want to shield their entire building from outside RF, with the exception of the entranceway, and as long as its clearly labeled for anyone entering to expect their devices to not work...then fine. However, they don't want to do that at all, they don't want to break cell phones or have to build internal towers with hard lines out, no, they want to just run active jammers out of some sense of monetary entitlement.

Hopefully not nuclear...

I am not questioning the concept of lines, I am asking why this line even needs to be drawn.

Don't you think that before drawing lines there should be a reason? I happen to think so. Wht the fuck justifies these laws? I see no more reason to arrest a person with 100 lbs of pot than to arrest a person with a cup of coffee. I see these laws doing little more than creating black markets for no benefit.

Drug laws have not even been shown to reduce drug use, if they don't do that, then what the fuck point do they even have? If they don't reduce use, then isn't having them drive people to worst drugs, to more underground production....bad. If they can't even do the ONE good thing they intended?

I didn't ask if the form of he law was unusual. I asked what supporters of such a law what they expect it would accomplish, and what they imagine they are protecting us from.

It seems pretty clear to me the ONLY effect such a law will have is to continue a policy of allowing gangs to flousrish and creating black markets for them. I see no benefti at all to such a law in the first place and no danger that it protects anyone from.

Well hindsight is always 20/20. Few people look into securing their houses what haven't been robbed or known someone who was. Nobody benefits from this sort of attack; like you say, its a motive issue. Why does the production network need so much proection? Up until now it hasn't. There was nothing of any value there for anyone....only of theoretical value.

The only people who carry out this sort of attack are the ones who work for armies because they don't have to worry about personal reprisal and they are not interested in any sort of profit. Its just a game to them; and they will work to whatever goal they are told to.

Its the rise of this "cyberwar" bs that creates the danger in the first place. The only result is going to be to hurt some insurance company that is going to pay, or the steel factory, but more will be built. However, within the context of a cyber war group this is a demonstration of effecitveness or even a win for some petty head of state.

This is one more area where I was happier with the old threat of money hungry gangs and the occasional rambunctious kid than the massive politically directed machine that is supposed to protect me from them but ends up just being bigger, badder, and more capricious versions of the same.