Framing the picture differently affects how the exposure settings are chosen by the auto-exposure algorithm since the sample points will be distributed differently in the scene than with the other cameras. If one of the exposure sample points happens to be significantly brighter than the others, then the sensitivity of the sensor could be tuned down to ensure that the picture is not saturated (the upper right of the image seems brigher than the rest of the image). This calls the validity of the test into question.

This is irrelevant because murder rate is not the same statistic as the rate of gun violence. The latter would be a more useful comparison.

This demonstrates correlation, not causation. In fact, you confirm this and contradict the premise of your argument (that gun control does not decrease the occurence of gun violence; either that or you changed arguments half way through) in the sentence that follows:

What is the rate of poverty in Chicago vs. that in New Hampshire? Not to mention the fact that you're comparing an entire state with a single metropolitan area. If you're going to accuse someone of being disingenuous, at least use a more coherent argument. Gun control alone won't stop people from murdering each other. Reducing the divide between rich and poor would likely be a more effective solution. However, I suspect this idea would be rejected as "socialism" by a large number of the US electorate.

That statement is only valid for large values of "evil".

Even if you have unlimited minutes, do you still pay long distance charges? In the affirmative case, this could probably save you money if you have many far away friends/partners/clients.

As far as I know, the energy input of sunlight in fossil fuel is ignored because that energy was input millions of years ago when the fossil fuel was organic matter. So it's probably fair to omit this factor when doing an analysis of the energy yield of ethanol (assuming of course that its total contribution is equal in all cases).

I would be interested to see more evidence, other than the "god gene", as to the genetic basis for religion. From my understanding, the genetic predisposition has more to do with determining whether or not someone is susceptible to believe in religion, but does not predicate what that belief is. If religious belief was largely predicated on genetics, we would probably see a more random distribution of belief systems.

Most of us do have a genetic predisposition to adopt a sexual orientation, it is possible that social influence is a factor in deciding what that orientation is. However, I believe the body of evidence points to genetics as the determining factor.

There is one difference between the two: religion is a choice, homosexuality is not.

The summary omitted the word "mean". The linked article has the correct description.

I can't help but think that this was an appropriate freudian slip. Unless it was done on purpose, in which case: well played sir.

Their main business is not consumer graphics cards. I believe their focus is on building specialized imaging hardware for industrial systems and providing the associated image processing software (ML if I recall correctly). I imagine the margins are far greater than what they were getting building consumer GPUs.

I had the same initial thought that you did. However, I didn't realize that harvester ants do not rely on pheremones which makes their approach slightly different than the typical Ant-Colony Optimization algorithms (which have been applied to routing). It would be interesting to know how the harvester ants communicate geographic information when they touch thier antennae. Something that may be revealed once I have the chance to read the rest of the article (beyond the abstract).

The featured article explains with a much less confusing use of pronouns:

I don't think the fact that the private sector is better equipped at making enterpreneurial decisions has been adequately proven by evidence (however, neither has the converse). One big problem with allowing private, for-profit, companies to be the decision makers in matters of public health has one major flaw: medications that yield high profits don't necessarily address real health problems (I'm thinking of Viagra and Cialis here), and medications that address real health problems will not necessarily yield high profits. The private sector has little interest in addressing health problems that are not profitable.

Your example would be more illustrative if you said 4 people make $1/year and one person makes $639,996/year, the average is $128,000 with only a single outlier (Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg subscribes to Linux Journal). The quoted statistic also doesn't account for the potentially more numerous Linux users who are too broke to subscribe to the Linux Journal.

That would only be meaningful if climate change and speciation were measured using the same time scale.