> Tell your past self to start betting people . . . that the World Trade Center will get totally knocked down by a terrorist attack no later than 2002

You'd find your past self with a lot of 'splaining to do down in Guantanamo when you collect.

> Where in the hell can you find (good) beer for $1?

Czech Republic.

First, using the same data structures is fairly easy across multiple languages because the same object-oriented principles usually apply. Second, if you use web services to be consumed across your platforms, you don't need to duplicate business logic in more than one language (you can at least minimize it). Third, you're mentioning three mobile platforms that pretty much require an OO approach in their respective languages (C#, Java, and Objective-C), so why would you throw out the entire approach for the web?

Sure, but all that stuff can be forged. Of course, it would be ridiculous to forge that stuff, wouldn't it? In fact, it seems (to me) almost as ridiculous to falsely claim that one's sister has been sued as it would be to actively falsify evidence. Sure, I wouldn't put any money on that claim being true, but somebody getting stressed out about it to this extent seems kind of sad.

No evidence, nothing.

What evidence would you deem sufficient for claiming that one's sister had been sued by the RIAA?

I can say that it's not just you. LOTS of people are wrong about this.

There are plenty of reasons, but one of the best ones is that "web development" isn't necessarily separate from other development. If you're using the same data structures and operations across multiple targets (web, desktop, mobile), OO is definitely a good idea.

Movies are popular attractions for dates*. You can take a date to a bad movie, and won't necessarily reflect poorly upon you. But if you take a date to a bad movie because happened to be cheaper than a putative good movie, you're just not getting laid**.

* A social activity with a potential or established romantic goals.
** Sexual intercourse.

You should stop coding, too, which would free up more time to do nothing. You'll soon get bored of doing nothing, but that's what TV is for, amiright?

You lost them at "locally."

You read the entire patent, and didn't see the method? That makes me think you stopped after the abstract. The description of what they're patenting is quite verbose.

Does open source software cost Jobs? I mean, he recently died, so my guess would be "no."

> On the other hand, it goes up to ridiculously slow f/5.9 at 120mm zoom, and I'm sure your "good glass" does do a lot better than f/5.9 at 120mm.

Just to clarify, the S95's lens goes to f/4.9 at full telephoto, which is 105mm, not 120mm.

If you want to take some nice pictures when you're out doing stuff, and don't want to make a big production of it, the Canon S95 is a great buy right now (less than $300 on Amazon). It's recently-discontinued, and replaced by the S100, but for the money it's really hard to beat. It's got a sensor that's a bit larger than most compact cameras, and has lots of manual control if you really want to learn about photography.

Will you get better pictures with a $500 DSLR? Yeah, no question. Will the DSLR be more responsive? Oh, yes. But if the size of the thing is an issue, you'll get great results with the S95. And you won't be out tons of dough, so you can get the DSLR when you need it.

I've got a Canon G12, which is a similar camera. A little bit longer zoom, a fantastic flip-out screen and a viewfinder, and some other goodies, but it is larger.

Now I want a DSLR, for better creative control, better low-light performance, and better action shots. But I won't ditch the G12. I don't always want to stand out as "that guy" with the bigass camera.

Anyway, check out the S95. Others have mentioned it, but I wanted to emphasize it. Back when I was learning about cameras, I wondered why anyone would pay $420 (as it was at the time) for 3.8x zoom and 10 megapixels when I could get 20x zoom and 14 megapixels for the same price. The thing with lots of zoom is, you need to reduce the sensor size to allow those long focal length lenses to be a reasonable size. I borrowed a Canon "superzoom" for a while, and was dismayed by the image quality. Putting fewer megapixels onto a larger sensor is way better. That, and they put an excellent bit of glass into the S95.

The first paragraph of that article was one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Pssst... yeah, you. We don't actually READ the articles.

If accident rates for bee trucks are higher than rates in the general trucking industry (which I don't think is established in TFA), it could be because a small number of bees get into the cab during loading, and then emerge to startle the driver en route. Insect distractions are a significant cause of non-commercial auto accidents.