It's not actually a generic pejorative though, it's a common pejorative among 13-year olds.

The effect is that using it as an adult makes you sound childish...

Indeed, and I'm curious, actually: what's the last thing ICANN did that wasn't an obvious scam making the Internet a bit worse in order to pump some money into their coffers (so they can afford airfare to exotic locations for their meetings, of course)...?

Sure, but I think for many people, printers fall into the "not often needed but occasionally really nice" category.

This would explain why the printer market has developed the way it has, with super incredibly cheap printers that quickly get expensive if you use them a lot.

For some people, a better method of achieving this is easily availabled shared printers (e.g. there are still plenty of internet/manga cafes around here with printers, and the convenience stores all have copiers that can do printing or scanning from/to USB devices and SD cards), but especially in the sparsely populated U.S., I guess mega cheap personal printers that fall over after 10 pages are more popular...

Also, of course, by far the easiest U.S. bases for NK to attack are those located in ... South Korea.

It doesn't look like the editors had a whole lot to work with ... the quad-copter stunt, while a fun idea, didn't seem to work very well in practice (the drones were almost invisible), and the movie it's intended to promote looks absolutely cringe-inducing (Justinnnnnn Beiberrrrrrr innnnnn spaaaaaace > )?

I think it's not really an unsurprising question though. Highly functional phones are relatively new (especially in the U.S.) and thus very fashionable now, and have sort of come to occupy a mental slot as the "do everything solution"—even though they're actually pretty bad for many tasks.

In some cases, of course, the poorer functionality of a phone-based solution is acceptable, and using a device one already has offsets the problems, but I think even in cases where this arguably isn't true, people want it to be, and so tend to try and justify a phone-based solution anyway.

"Resolution" is pixel density, pixels-per-inch or whatever, not number of pixels.

So a higher resolution is actually a great way to give a smaller screen for a given display size...

One reason I mentioned that in particular was because the GS3 mini seems to have a resolution of 224ppi, which is significantly less than current high-end phones. There are also plenty of small high-resolution displays around; my current non-smartphone has like a 2.5" display with about 350 ppi...

I second this. Students in dorms cover their walls with all sorts of things—when I was in college, one of my friends had 99% of his wall surface area covered with tin-foil (not kidding; his stated purpose was to drive his roommate away, but ... oO; ).

Indeed, the "cover walls with soundproof foam" idea actually seems rather more practical in a dorm than elsewhere because of the typically small size of dorm rooms...

The problem is that the mini models aren't just smaller screens, they're lower-spec generally. I suspect that most people that don't like the current bloat-o-phone/phablet trend actually want a nice fast processor, high-resolution display, lots of memory, a good camera, etc, they just don't want the ridiculously oversized phones. I know I certainly don't.

It isn't just Samsung, this sort of simple-minded "bigger = better, smaller = old phone for kids" mindset seems very common amongst all the smartphone manufacturers. [Samsung perhaps deserves a bit more of the blame, though, as they're an industry leader, so other makers probably tend to follow what they're doing to some extent.]

In a computer software context, "orthogonal" has the huge advantage that it's idiomatic. People will immediately understand your meaning... (with "tangential" they'd just go "huh?")

Most people I hear using "orthogonal" outside that context are involved in computers, so for them, it's perfectly normal.

Er, more correctly, some Chinese hate Japan. Many Chinese do not, of course, particularly amongst the younger generations (I live in Japan and know quite a few Chinese people). The same is true of Korea (a younger Korean I know described the well-publicized antipathy towards Japan as "sort of true, but kind of an old-person thing").

In any case, Japan does a lot of business with China (not only does Japan outsource huge amounts of manufacturing to China, but China is Japan's biggest export market, by far), and if this sort of project had gone through, it would be "strictly business," not based on mutual admiration....

Do you think Japan would ever risk becoming reliant on China for any significant amount of their energy supply, at least while China has its current political system?

It'd be neat as an optional "top up" source of power, but it seems a non-starter for anything more, at least in the short/medium term. For now, Japan's gotta figure something out on their own.

This is wrong. The standard Lua implementation is one of the fastest widely used scripting languages out there, by a long shot. It blows python, ruby, etc, out of the water.

LuaJIT can be even faster (sometimes on par with optimized C), particularly number-crunching loops, but in many cases, it doesn't really offer much speedup over standard Lua. [and of course LuaJIT has some drawbacks compared to normal Lua, like increased complex, reduced portability (if you rely on LuaJIT specific features), and a smaller maximum memory limit due to details of its nan-encoded object representation.]

... insanely complex for no apparent reason (like trying to use libpng ...)

This is just wrong.

libpng isn't entirely trivial, but it's actually very simple to use, and quite flexible as well—e.g., it's easy to make the library handle all the weird cases automatically itself, but the option exists for you to handle them too if desired. All in all, I'd say it nicely hits the sweet spot between ease-of-use and power.

It's vastly better designed than many other image libraries (e.g. all the horrid examples that only support whole-image I/O into some awful least-common-denominator image format).

or (c) the story on RT wasn't true. Given RT's usual really, really, bad fact-checking, (c) seems pretty likely...