Unfortunately, you made up that dichotomy.

The scientific method can never prove anything is true. In science, there really isn't any concept of "true." Cigarettes cause cancer. Do they? It's a good theory. It works very well. It has a good amount of predictive power, good mechanistic support, lots of data supporting it. But it could be false.

Manmade global warming is a good theory. It looks like it works pretty well. It has some predictive power, although we're still testing that. There's good mechanistic support. Quite a bit of data. It could be false though.

There's none of this historical science / "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true" / etc. crap.

"the effect is obviously going to be amplified."

Ah, obviously. Never mind that most of the things you wrote aren't based on any evidence, and several are very well refuted by actual evidence.

Hypotheses are made by men to test a theory. Evidence is gathered for that purpose. Hypotheses are never generated to fit the evidence.

Actually, I believe the number of young earth creationists in the US is somewhat smaller than the number of Americans being treated for mental illness. Both numbers are unacceptably high, of course.

Congratulations, you've written an electric universe post that contains even more ridiculous claims than the electric universe people have.

That's because the other phones don't continue to function after their screens get broken. :P

I've actually broken a couple of iPhone screens. They seem to survive the corner and edge drops just fine, but the face down drops onto concrete or an uneven stone floor breaks the screen. Still works fine though, which is impressive.

Really? You got modded up for that?

Expensive watches have sapphire faces because sapphire is one of the hardest materials that can be made into a thin, transparent sheet for a reasonable price. That makes it very scratch resistant. It's not bling, it's very practical.

Sapphire is almost certainly more scratch resistant, because it's harder. Gorilla glass may well be less likely to break, since it's not as hard. Scratch and break resistance are usually difficult to get together. You're right, the real question is, in the real world, which is the more important property? Are scratches or breaks more common? Can other design features mitigate scratches or breaks more effectively?

I would think some rubber buffer around the glass could be used to add a lot of break resistance. Other than putting a film over the screen, scratches are pretty hard to prevent without making the surface itself more resistant.

You're making assumptions again. Wrong ones.

Jump suits aren't made to keep you alive for hours. You jump, you fall. A space suit might work. Even then, it's not a guarantee. Generally with a space suit you have to be careful about what part of you comes into contact with heat conducting objects, particularly contact for long periods of time. But someone's going to notice you hiking out to the tarmac in one anyway.

You've clearly never experienced real cold. Well prepared mountaineers with sherpas to carry their equipment for them die on Everest when a storm traps them out longer than expected, in temperatures that are generally above -40C. The wheel well of an airplane is a more extreme environment, and no sherpas.

Yes, it's possible. Also likely expensive, highly impractical and still quite dangerous. And no, you don't do it just as well on the cheap at the cost of some "aesthetics."

Yes, you could turn the gear bay into a little house. It wouldn't be very practical to sneak all of the stuff onto the tarmac though. Airport security may not be very good, but they'd notice that.

If you had to pressurize your little gear bay house you'd be completely screwed. Even so, for long high flights you're going to need a good bit of O2 to keep your brain working. That's going to be heavy and bulky. More stuff you have to smuggle in and somehow find room to stow.

The megapixel figure is the comparable number. The Lytro not only has a Bayer filter, it also has another filter that uses multiple pixels to measure the direction of the light. So you take your raw sensor, that might capture 40 MP, divide that by whatever number you like for Bayerization to get colour, and divide that by some other number (about 10 for Lytro's products) for the directional sensing.

No, you can't. The simplest tradeoff that you might switch lenses for is aperture versus focal length. A larger aperture is good for low light. A longer focal length is good for things that are far away. You can fake a longer focal length by cropping your picture, but that reduces resolution (something this camera already has a problem with) and requires a lens with much higher resolving power (which is ALSO something this camera has a problem with).

You might be able to do it on a short flight that doesn't go up too high. You'd need some specialized equipment to do it "safely" on a trip that wouldn't be easier and cheaper to take on a bus.

You can survive -20 pretty easily with a good coat, boots, pants, hat and balaclava. -40 is harder, particularly when you can't move, much of you is pressed up against large amounts of metal (conducts heat better than air and also compresses insulation, making it less effective). Colder than that is going to be a serious challenge. Remember, you need to schlep all of this equipment out to the plane, without getting caught. And no matter how many blankets you have, you still have to breathe.

You can't just haul along a SCUBA tank. SCUBA tanks aren't meant for holding oxygen, and probably wouldn't last long enough anyway. You'd need actual oxygen tanks, meant for high altitude use. The kind Everest climbers use. Since the plane might be going up higher than Everest, you might need to modify them as well.

If you got everything just right, you might make it. Probably not without losing some toes, fingers, the tip of your nose or ears though.

21% is not an amount. It's a proportion. As others have pointed out, the partial pressure of oxygen is what matters. Decrease the pressure but increase the proportion of oxygen and you keep the amount the same.

That's what we smartass reviewers call a conclusion unsupported by the evidence.