How is "desire to tinker" not a real need?

As far as I can tell that camera wobbles more when walking on perfectly flat ground than this guy's does when walking in fairly tough terrain. So, great in body stabiliser but useless for "steady cam" shots.

All that is needed is that instead of correctly interpreting the current needs of the current users, you need to correctly interpret the future needs of the future users. Ignoring the fact that we often fail on the former, how hard can it be to succeed on the latter? ;-)

What about the third kid sitting in the middle? ;-)

Doing 80km/h shifting into 2nd or 3rd gear nod using no gas I think you are using the engine to do a lot of the stopping. To actually test the effect of the hand brake you should select neutral. However, to mimic the situation described in the article it more sounds as if you should drive at over 100km/h, press the accelerator as if you want to accelerate to 200km/h and now try to stop using the hand brake.

Guess it depends on how much you read into it and how the shooter actually uses it. The article states "the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger." The way it is described here, specifically with the "at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger" I read it as the intended operation is for the shooter to apply a force equal or higher than the normal pull, move the aim to the target and at that point the scope reduces the required pull force and the gun fires. Then the the shooter is no longer making the actual decision to shoot, but rather the decision to abort (by releasing the trigger) Maybe the meaning was that the extra pull weight will indicate to the shooter that the round will probably miss but that is not how I would read into the sentence above. Then again, I have not actually seen the rifle in action, but rather read a technical journalists writeup after a presentation by a sales pitch. There might have been room for misinterpretation ;-)

If they work by them selves, then fine, they can use their own style. However, if they work together, such as drawing one section each of a comic strip or writing separate chapters in a book, then you want them to use the same style. It will be a bit harder on them and they will lose some of their personal style but it will be much easier for the reader. And the same goes for code, I don't really care if curly braces are on the same line or not, if the fields are at the beginning or end of the class definition, but when it varies in the same project or even the same file, then it makes reading and comprehension much harder. And most code that is used has more developer time spent on reading it than writing it.

Maybe he needs to register it on the internet to unlock all of the functionality.

There are customers willing to pay to get software developed to solve their specific problems but lack incentive to also make a profit on it by selling it to other parties. I currently develop software under different GPL licenses (as per request of the client). That way there is a smaller risk of IP conflicts of who actually owned the code (now it doesn't matter). There is also a chance that new functionality will be developed, driven by the need of others that this customer can benefit from in the future. By choosing an appropriate GPL license you can ensure that you have the option to benefit should a competitor decide to expand on your work. It does not mean that you have to GPL all your code, and if necessary you can use it with a non GPL license internally if required.

As for giving something away that originally cost a lot of money, do you never give anything away? I give away used electronics, clothes, toys and furniture. Some of it could probably be sold instead, but the effort of doing that is not worth it (for me). An easier option for me would be to just throw the stuff away and that might even benefit producers as some of the useful products would no longer be available, but this way there is a chance that they will be reused and benefit society as a whole.

Since you are using https you obviously think you have something to hide, that in it self is very suspicious.

Did you use SHA-0 or SHA-1? If you really did find a collision I think you should try to reproduce your case as I have so far not seen any success of not only being able to create hash(m1) == hash(m2) but also m1 and m2 are meaningful messages. I did find some papers indicating that it might "not be much harder" than finding collisions. A collision in the wild would probably warrant a whole bunch publications.

Sorry about crashing in on you, we come in peace, I promise. I'll just fire my laser for a while over there. No hard feelings right?

If they make extraordinary statements or statements that goes against common knowledge then I agree, it is their job to provide evidence that the statement is true, but for ordinary life some acceptance or due diligence to investigate is probably acceptable. Or are you one of those that will not leave a building just because of the fire alarm? You need to see the actual flames first?

As far as I know there are no scientific studies that jumping out of an airplane (flying, not standing on the ground) without a parachute is dangerous. There are even some cases where people survived such a jump. However, will you accept my statement that "jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is dangerous"? Or is a double or triple blind study needed where a few thousand people jump out of different types of airplanes, some with, and some without parachutes?

Does that make the math of the original poster any more correct?