I don't know why the URL no longer works. http://www.engadget.com/2014/0... might be a good replacement, it mentions the net neutrality issue.

S5 is smaller, better screen (even if it's .1" smaller), better camera, faster, has a micro SD slot, replaceable batter better build quality (my wife recently got the S5 over the similar Nexus 5). Water resistance is kind of cool, I've heard of people destroying their phones that way.

Not that the G2 is a crap phone, I just think something you spend a lot of time on is probably worth spending an extra $.35/day or whatever that works out to.

How has "redskin" turned into a term of honor or a word to be proud of? Nobody would ever say it now, unless it's in a historical context or when talking about the sports team. It's an archaic, vaguely racist term from a time when Indians were generally depicted as war-like savages. It's like a Chinese person saying "Chinaman" is a term to be proud of,

And I think you'll find not all Indians are offended at the drop of the hat, or non-Indians aren't. If you really are Indian you have very weird self-identity issues.

but not a lot of people are buying them on Amazon

Yup. The top two selling phones are Windows, so obviously Amazon top-100 sellers are not representative of larger trends in the marketplace.

If we're actually going to use logic on this... You're likely to drop/break that phone in the first 6 months.

I've never broken a phone. If 6 months was the expected lifetime, I'd pay extra for some kind of insurance plan.

Chinese phones work on unlocked GSM and work fine on AT&T, TMobile, or all the various cheap monthly plan services.

$400 LG G2s are nowhere near as good as a $650 Galaxy S5, though. I can't tell strangers how to spend their money, but personally most people I know, and myself, use their cell phone enough that it's worth spending an extra $250 spread out over the course of two years.

And whether you have a 2-year contract or not is basically not a factor, my wife and I don't, and it seems T-Mobile and AT&T have both made monthly plans the focus of their marketing. I just said 2 years because that makes it about a dollar/day and sounds like a reasonable length of time to hold on to a phone.

A lot of people spend a lot of time on their phone. Maybe 30 minutes or more. If your phone lasts you a couple years, paying a dollar a day for a phone that is (and let's be honest) substantially better is probably worth it.

If you don't use your cell except for emergency phone calls, yeah what the hell, get whatever's cheapest.

Yeah sure, the camera's auto-settings can do a better job with instant results. And a computer can do calculus equations lickety-split. The point isn't to have students take the best pictures possible, but to have them learn photography.

The lenses for a Nikon FE will work fine on a current Nikon DSLR. If they were prime lenses, the optics are about the same as with modern lenses.

Many problems with your scenario...first of all, commercially grown bell peppers (and other vegetables) are not all of the exact same variety. Sure, there's more popular varieties, but different climates and soils call for different varieties. They use different peppers in California than they do in Minnesota (and it's not just economy of scale - California climate and soil is favorable to bell peppers).

Also, even within the same variety of plant, there are genetic differences, even if they're very similar. A doomsday virus that kills one variety of bell pepper isn't likely.

Also, have you ever looked in a bell pepper? There's a lot of seeds. Should a miracle happen and (say) Anaheim Bell Peppers no longer can be grown, it would be easy for another variety to take its place very quickly. There are seeds banks around the world, private growers, etc. The extinction of most varieties of bell peppers just is not going to happen.

Farmers don't re-seed from their own crops, and (in the first world at least) haven't done so for 70-80 years. So the fact that most farms choose to raise the most popular variety of peppers in a non-factor into the genetic diversity of the crops.

Many of the longest-lived populations in the world, populations with low rates of obesity, have high-carbohydrate diets. Much higher than in the US.

Insulin is released more from protein than from carbohydrates. Eating them together releases more insulin still! Insulin is simply not a "get fat hormone" and you should ignore any source that tells you it is. Insulin suppresses appetite, this is very well established. It's junk science.

Why? I don't eat a strict diet like that, I eat nothing like that in fact, and I'm not a fattie, and my health checks come out about perfect. Japan has the world's longest lifespan, nobody there is eating brown rice or whole grains quinoa.

Governments shouldn't tell people how to eat, especially when the specifics of what's healthy aren't exactly understood. There's a lot of evidence that meats are an important part of a healthy diet.

I am not obese, I appreciate all the cheap calories from corn syrup. Before corn subsidies there were wild price fluctuations in food, not just those that use sugar but also in alternate grains and in meat. It's good domestic policy. Why should stupid people who can't limit themselves force the US to cancel a policy that works well? Anyway, if it wasn't subsidized corn syrup, fatties would find some other cheap food to stuff their faces with, or would just pay the extra money.

Why shouldn't the weak get WMDs, why does only the government (the strong) get to arm itself with nuclear weapons? So the idea is "people can protect themselves with weapons, but not the really powerful ones?"

And who makes the determination that a weapon is too powerful for an individual? The government? Why shouldn't each individual himself be allowed to decide how powerful of a weapon get gets? If I want to arm myself with a few grenades, a bazooka, and some C4, why should some Washington bureaucrat tell me I can't?