Interesting. But I think there were a few other problem with the diet of the holocaust victims other than just looking at the calories. They probably didn't get all the nutrients they needed from 350g of bread, 500ml of coffee, and 1L of potato or turnip soup. Also, these were work camps, and it's likely that many people in these camps had to expend a lot of calories. Also, they did not have great accommodations. They probably would have used a lot of calories just to stay warm at night.

Exactly. People who come up with these ideas have no concept of the technology of how the internet works. To enforce a license for accessing the internet, they would need to circumvent all the secure methods of communication between individuals on the internet. You either have to block all traffic that you don't understand, or people are going to be able to trivially communicate anonymously over the internet. Any time I connect via SSH to my hosting service, connecting to a VPN, or making an HTTPS connection to any website, I could be communicating anonymously with anybody else on the internet. The protocols are secure, and they can't tell who I'm talking to. The messages sent to the server I'm talking to could be forwarded on to anywhere else in the world.

This is why I think exercising is so essential to maintaining a healthy weight. Because living without calories sucks. Nobody wants to live on 1000-1500 calories a day because you will feel exhausted and will probably have trouble getting all the needed nutrients while eating so little food. If, on the other hand, you exercise enough such that (on average) your body takes 2500-3000 calories a day maintain, you can eat a lot more food, have a lot more energy available for the body to do things, and still be at a point where you're losing weight, simply because you are using so much energy.

You don't even have to go that far. If you want sand, you don't even have to go under the ocean. The Sahara desert has almost limitless amounts of sand. If the US wants a local source, they should check out Death Valley. Quite a bit of sand there.

If what you want is an Android tablet, then go ahead and buy one. A Surface Pro isn't really comparable to an Android Table. The Surface Pro has an Intel Core (i3,15,i7) processor and is a full Windows Machine, and has a 12 inch screen. Just because it has a touch screen doesn't mean you should compare it to a $100 Android tablet in terms of price. It does so much more than an Android Tablet. If an Android tablet fulfills all your needs, then you should buy one because they are cheap. Or wait until the HP Stream 8 comes out which runs full Windows, and will only cost $150.

I hear that people have run Linux on it, but that Linux kind of sucks on it as it isn't set up to use the touch screen very well. So you're paying a lot of extra money for something that has a digitizer which you can't really use to it's full potential. Also, I'm not sure how easily it can be fixed, but due to the high resolution of the screen, all the controls and icons show up super small, which would make it difficult to use.

With the Surface Pro, you don't have to worry about apps, because you can run full windows programs. You aren't just limited to what can run in the app store. You could even run a VM with Linux on it if you wanted. Run a web server, a database, Photoshop, or Solidworks. You can completely ignore the Windows App store if you want to. Personally I think it is a mistake asking extra for the keyboard though. They should make it included, and maybe add $50-$70 to accomodate the price of the keyboard. But adding $120 onto the price of an already expensive device is probably hurting adoption quite a bit.

What's interesting is that GPS works much in the same way. You aren't measuring angles to known stars, but rather distances from known satellites, and it all works because there are atomic clocks on the satellites so you know exactly when the message left the satellite. It's a much more high tech way of doing almost the exact same thing.

This is my biggest problem with Android. I don't want to go with iOS, because although the updates come right from the supplier, the only way to load software on it is through the app store. I'm due for a new phone in a few months and I really don't like any of the choices. Going with Android means I probably won't get updates. Going with Apple means that I'm locked into Apple. Going with Windows Phone means that my phone is severely lacking in apps. I'm seriously thinking about getting the cheapest phone I can get that does tethering, and spending the remaining money on a Windows 8 Tablet like the Dell Venue 8 so I can run whatever I want, and get software updates straight from the source. My phone would basically be a cellular radio so my portable devices can have internet access, but wouldn't need to be much good for things other than checking email, or looking up a quick map.

Every app can access the files/folders after I've selected it with the file selection interface. They can't just go and start reading and writing to all parts of the disk. Basically the same feature that this article is talking about, except that on Windows RT (all all Wndows Store apps), it also allows you to grant access to OneDrive or network shares.

I've had this on my Surface 2 with Windows RT, and I wonder why it took so long for Android to do the same. I can also mount network drives and do the same thing. Every app can access files on my network shares, OneDrive (aka SkyDrive), and my SD Card without the developer having to do any special coding.

Might work for games because they have evolved so much in the last 28 years that stuff from 28 years ago doesn't really act as much of a threat to those trying to sell new games. Think about how this would work with books, movies, and music though. Imagine if everything made 1986 or earlier was in the public domain. That's a huge catalog. And since things like CDs existed in 1986, there would be perfect copies of this stuff available for free. It would be a lot harder for people to sell stuff if you could get more content than you could ever consume in your life for free. Sure there's a lot of content out there in the public domain, but a lot of it is so old that the language seems almost foreign to a lot of us. I agree that copyright needs to be shorter, but it also blows my mind to think of the amount of content that would be available as public domain if copyright only lasted 28 years.

Go try Alone in the Dark, or even worse, Hugo's House or Horrors. I remember spending countless hours playing those two games. Went back and played them a little while ago and they just don't hold up.Granted I never really thought of them as "realistic", but I remember them being a lot more fun than they are.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I would guess that the number of warehouse employees vastly outnumbers the technical employees. Facebook only has 8,300 employees, while Amazon has 132,000.

I do get changed in my room. For returning to my room, I just lounge by the pool until I'm sufficiently dry. It doesn't take that long to dry off.