http://particlecounting.tumblr...

Compares Blue Air 203/270E (3,600 RMB) and a Philips AC4072 (3, 000 RMB) to both of his setups. Those are only about $550 filters, but I think that is sufficient to cover the "up to" in "up to $1000". If you want to donate a $1000 one to him, it looks like he'd be happy to test it.

Are you talking about eInk e-reader, or their tablet?
If eInk, good luck filling up the storage they give you with books. Pdf support is there (as far as I can tell), and you can borrow books from the library using overdrive (checkout is not built in, but it works).

If you're referring to their tablet, just get a generic android tablet. You can install all the reader apps on it (Amazon Kindle, BN Nook, Kobo, FBReader, etc).

I do wish their eink kindle allowed other "app stores", so to speak, but I think that'd be entirely possible using the browser, and they do have app support (I have scrabble on mine).

While I agree, when it comes to ebooks, there's no reason someone else couldn't capture that market. The only thing they have going is that the Kindle is somewhat locked down, however, anyone can make an ebook that works on it (with or without DRM). Those 3 big companies are where they are due to the awesome distribution work they have in place + size (negotiation power) + software. Those things don't matter nearly as much for ebooks.

I don't think Amazon should force a maximum price for ebooks, but I do think anyone selling both the ebook and the physical book on that same site (amazon in this case) should have the ebook at a lower price than the physical copy.

Nitpicking, but this:

... is technically incorrect, though in general practice it sure does seem that way.

The "privilege" is that of driving on public roads. Just about anyone can legally drive just about anything on their own land (ex. young kids operating farm machinery).

The AC was almost right, except that we (at least in the US) already put laws in place banning various driving situations, like driving in public without a license, or without insurance, or with an unregistered car, etc etc (most of which are actually state laws). It's much like one of the ways that marijuana got banned - they put a requirement that sale required a tax stamp, and then didn't sell any of those stamps. In this case, you can't operate a driverless car on the public roadways without having a licensed driver and registered car and all that stuff, and those don't pass yet.

Or the problem is the financial budget (more money -> send more stuff -> include more features/stuff -> going faster and doing more).

FWIW, I totally understand that certain design decisions were made for various, and well justified, reasons. Personally, I'd favor the ability to travel long distances over some of the other features (ex. have it nuke powered, and ignore the issue of contamination of Mars). I'd also love to see more stuff sent there, and to other celestial bodies, like maybe a deep drilling device, or excavation equipment.

Anyway... I had just assumed (poorly) that it had wheeled around more than an average of 36 feet a day, or had a top speed better than 0.1mph. It's still an amazing little rover (already survived more than 40x's longer than planned).

I realize it's done much more than it was designed for, and we got more bang for our buck, but when I first read TFS, I thought this:

...meant, "If the rover can travel just 26.2 MORE miles THAN IT ALREADY HAS TRAVELED, then..."

It's been on Mars for over 10 years. It's not a very fast little bugger, is it?

They had their own goals and all that, but my first goal, if I was sending something millions of miles away (I don't know how far it traveled when it went to Mars, but the closest approach between earth and mars has been 34.8 million miles), I'd certainly want the ability to move it more than XXX feet per day. 25 miles is REALLY short compared to it's 35 million+ mile trip to get there!

1. they are. They're just not very good.
2. there's stuff on the back of your phone. If you add on a keyboard, you block those things and/or have to work around them some how.
3. (if you didn't do a slider keyboard) the other options is a folio style. Generic ones exist, but they're very bulky cloth or (faux)leather wallet things with a keyboard shoved on one inner side.
4. more battery needed (takes up room, and it's another thing to charge).

Phones with a built in keyboard can move stuff around the back of the keyboard. They can stick the battery in the keyboard part if they want. It's little things, but they're really needed to make it worthwhile.

As I mentioned above, the Typo keyboard for the iPhone is another alternative that does seem to work. It rips off the blackberry, more-or-less. Something like that *could* be made for other devices, but it's not as desirable in other ways (adds permanent length to already long phones, and puts the keyboard on the portrait side, etc).

Completely agree then.
The biggest issues with the sliding keyboard cases for galaxy S4 and S5 is that the camera, which is centered on the back, gets blocked even when the keyboard is slid out (the cases have an extra hinge so one can then fold it some, which leaves the camera the clearance it needs, and makes it really awkward to use and extra bulky).
The only add-on case I've been able to find that appears to be decent is that typo one for the iPhone. Wish they made them for other phones.

I'm hoping we see keyboards make a short comeback. Between the samsung galaxy S3, S4, and S5, there really weren't many significant changes. It wouldn't take them much engineering to get a keyboard properly integrated with one (or any other maker to do similar), and they could nab some upgrades from folks like me that see no reason to upgrade (only thing the S5 has that I want is the water proofing, which I hope becomes commonplace).

WHAT!??!!
I haven't found a keyboard case for the Samsung Galaxy S4 that I would use (though I really want a keyboard), but keyboard cases exist for the first two you mentioned (haven't looked for the nexus). Or am I misreading your post... are you saying you would NOT buy an iPhone nor Galaxy SIII?

Ex: iPhone (I really like this case): http://istoreworld.com/us/typo...

Here's a sliding one for the iPhone: http://www.amazon.com/Bluetoot...

I have trouble seeing any of the justifications for getting a public CA cert for a name like "Server1" with an internal IP.

You could use your own internal CA, as others have noted. There is overhead to doing so and, being lazy, just buying the public cert may have seemed like an option.

However, one could simply use a real DNS entry, and all would be fine. Ex. server1.int.my-domain.com. Setup the "int.my-domain.com" on dns servers that all your internal hosts can see (they're all internal, so that can't be TOO difficult, and it doesn't hurt if that's visible from external). It's really quite easy to setup DNS, and it's cheaper, and it'll work with the CA just fine, and will work if/when you move the service to a public IP, or if you adopt an internal CA, etc etc etc. Why NOT do this? You can even host your DNS for free somewhere online.

... is that the same risk team that would authorize the purchase of a public cert for "Server1"?

I think the original point was that it takes almost nothing to sign certs. There need not be any significant investment.

Sun-Thu is when you go out for dinner/drinks/fun because on Fri/Sat all the good places are too packed all types of annoying people.
Fri/Sat is when you relax after your long and taxing week, take in some TV, drop off/pick up your laundry, etc.

Perhaps one of these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Not sure telespoking scopes would do any better.

This.

Using some supposedly intelligent avatar instead of a clear, simple, and well designed UI ranks right up there with the automated call interfaces that ask you to speak your answers instead of pressing the number buttons on your phone. People complained because pushing numbers sucked; RCA was incorrect; we ended up with a system 10x's as frustrating that takes 3x's longer to operate.

I've found the self-service check-in's to be rather good, but the physical integration of them has left a lot to be desired. IE. there is no line for them.. there's just a bunch of them scattered about. Then you still have to take your bags somewhere, and figuring out where that line is, and how it differs from the line that includes getting your ticket, is often a complete mess. You often have to wade back through all the folks wandering around the kiosks to find the front of the new line. It should be a LOT simpler and organized much better... though I'm sure this is a per-airport, and possibly per-airline, issue, so YMMV.