Sorry, no. The blur in CSI Miami is not caused by motion, thus motion compensation won't help. That blur is just a sheer lack of pixels, and this algorithm does nothing to help that situation. CSI-mocking is safe.

I wish I could find a source on this, but I believe your understanding is flawed. Infact, if memory serves me, I've seen that Nokia was the company that went to great engineering lengths to make internal antennas that were as good as external ones, and also to convince everyone of it.

My memory may be flawed, so don't crucify me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what I have seen in the past.

I think you've got it backwards, sir. IP is the competitive edge these days.

I once bought some level_upper off a buddy, and I thought it was the real deal, but as soon as I took the first hit I knew it was laced with Lady Gaga. Now I'm hooked on pop music :( Just be careful where you buy your sound from guys.

When did the point of art become profit? I thought "art" was made because the author had some sort of passion or talent for what they were doing. If you're just making it to make a profit off of it, doesn't that just make it a product? Why do we keep calling this stuff art? I've seen pieces by "starving artist"-types whining and crying about how people are stealing all their work and not paying for it, etc etc, and every time I read them I find myself asking the question "Well, why are you trying 'art' as a career? Get a real job like the rest of us and do your art because you're in love with it, in your spare time."

Yeah, but you're proposing that the FCC not auction off the spectrum... that's crazy talk! There's no money in that for the FCC!
Huh. Maybe the regulating agency shouldn't be getting paid by the people they're regulating.

Gold is over twice as dense as copper or steel. That much weight could be an issue in a lot of those applications, particularly roofing. There's a reason why we use very thin metal roofing material: weight. Adding even a very thin layer of gold to that could have a negative impact on weight constraints. Also, gold is highly malleable, which is bad for any parts that are load-bearing or sustain impact events.

From one way of thinking, Debian is Ubuntu stripped down in one specific way. If you don't want Ubuntu stripped down in that specific way, then you're possibly better off stripping down Ubuntu to what you want, rather than trying to add to Debian (and probably prune other things from Debian that you didn't want anyways).

Yeah, as though somehow by having a "statement" of your "mission" prevents you from acting differently...

They'd never make it through the approval process.

I don't know what authentication mechanisms they have in place to make sure you are who you say you are, but if you can get the assistance of a male friend, I can't imagine they'd be too hard to circumvent.

PS. Hopefully you use a handle a little less obvious there than you do here :P

No, blasting through red lights like they're not there should be banned. Fortunately, it is. That's his entire point.

As far as not being smart enough to multitask goes, why is it that everyone insists on a least common denominator society? How about we just put into place a system whereby we punish people for doing bad things, and leave them alone until they do bad things? Would that be so awful?

For some reason, we really have some love affair with convicting people before they do anything wrong or harmful. That is, in essence, what you are doing any time you ban something outright. You've made them legally guilty of... not harming anyone yet. BUT THEY COULD!!! Just like them durn t'rrists could crash more of our planes into our buildings, so we criminally convict anyone who brings nailclippers onto an airplane. Again, let's go back to having laws exist so that when people do bad things, they can be brought to justice. The government can never put in place enough safeguards to preemptively protect us, without turning into a police-state such as the world has never (as far as I know) seen. So let's just abandon that pursuit altogether. There will be some inevitable deaths, and those are extremely regrettable, but a price has to be paid for freedom, and not in the form of soldiers dying halfway across the world. Some citizens will have to die for their freedom too. The world ain't perfect.

I guess we all know what Gizmodo will be doing at the next major conference.

So your contention is that we should send a humanoid robot to the moon, because hand tools have been developed to fit the human form? Got news for you buddy, this robot isn't going up there with a Ryobi power drill and a Craftsman toolbox. Your arguments might have merit if it was a discussion of sending humans versus sending rovers, but it's not. It's about sending a bi-pedal robot versus sending a rover.
No matter what we send up there, it will NOT be re-using all these technologies that you point to as having been designed around the human form. It will have a few dedicated appendages.
I can't decide if you're a troll or not, but the debate here is about method of locomotion. The chassis we put our probes in isn't the point. Whether it's humanoid, a rover, or shaped like a box, the significant differentiating factor is how it gets around. Look at the state of humanoid robots here on earth. What makes you think they'd work any better on a relatively uncontrolled, chaotic surface like the moon's? Guess what? The moon isn't going to have even floors and nice staircases!

Let's not forget about the printed booklet (which is vastly expensive if you listen to ubisoft), the box it's held in, the plastic wrap around that box, the cost of loading it onto a truck, moving said truck halfway across the US, unloading it from the truck again, and getting some highschool monkey to put it on the shelves. The shelf space itself may cost money too.

It's still bullshit that physical games cost so much, but that doesn't mean there are no costs involved with producing them.