Plus, it's fairly descriptive - it's almost 4000 pixels wide, and it's 4 x the resolution of HD.
I don't see the problem here, and I don't think it's "just marketing". People would come up with their own shorthand anyway if it was marketed at 3840x2160.
To put things in perspective :
Lenovo 2012 profits : $472 millions
Yang's share of that : $33 millions
Lenovo's employees : 27 000
Lenovo profit per employee : $17,481
Yang profit per employee : $1,222
What Yang offers them : $300
I added in what you left out.
Were you purposely being disingenuous?
You really don't understand why people would be more concerned by a suspicious creep pointing a camera in their faces than a CCTV camera high up on a pole?
I get the point he's trying to make, but I think he's incredibly obnoxious in making it.
Should we stop looking for planets until we have the capability to get satellite imagery of the cities on them?
There's no reason to assume the whole vehicle isn't mirrored.
Well there's at least one reason to assume that - mirroring all the parts would mean a hell of a lot less re-use between LHD and RHD cars.
Converting hydrogen and oxygen into 1 tonne of water doesn't require E = 1000*c^2 (rocket engineers might tell you it actually gives you energy out), but you get 1000kg of water at the end.
For example, this. No user authentication required at all.
Who needs a 14MP Camera with a ditzy little lense
I love the new HTC One for that reason - they reduced the camera to 4MP to improve low-light performance. As it should be.
I think this has finally got the message through to many people (myself included), that Google will can anything. Reader wasn't exactly an experiment - it was almost 8 years old. Not really in sync with their push for us to rely more and more on the "cloud".
Maybe it's a very unpopular decision within Google, and those employees can back up their complaints with this petition (I'm sure not everyone has access to Google usage statistics).
Surely it's worth a try anyway.
If someone rear-ends you, then that's their fault. 100% of the time.
What about an oil patch on the road, a sudden puncture, brake failure, a heart attack - is it still 100% their fault? Sometimes an accident can be nobody's fault.
What is true 100% of the time is that purposely not preventing an accident you could easily prevent, is definitely your fault.
Example: Some idiot overtakes where he shouldn't, doesn't see a car coming the other direction. Driver who's being overtaken DOES see the oncoming car, but chooses not to slow down to let the overtaking car back in to safety - because "it's the other guys own fault". Yes, the guy overtaking is an asshole for risking his and other people's lives, but the guy being overtaken is also an asshole, and in my opinion culpable, for not taking action to prevent another asshole (and innocent others) getting hurt/killed.
If other polls are to believed, there's more than likely some overlap between the two!
No. One of the two did it wrong. If they produce the exact same result, proc usage, runtime, AND effort to create, they'd be the same functions. Besides, the infallible coder could just name off binary digits, all the while perfectly confident that it will work.
Did it wrong?? So a perfectly working function that took slightly more initial effort is wrong? Even though it might be easier for a non-infallible coder colleague to re-use or adapt? There, see - I've just added another metric - reusability - you could keep adding more metrics forever.
My point is that sometimes there is no perfect solution - there are trade-offs. You could argue that one day, eventually, maybe it could be decided that one or the other trade off was the better choice - but that conclusion will still be an opinion, based on a certain set of priorities. I don't see why two infallible beings couldn't have different priorities and opinions.