No, the reason that Google Images uses frames is that the designers were faced with three alternatives:

1. Display only the full-size image. This hotlinking, and is considered worse than framing.
2. Display only to HTML page. At best, it makes the user play hide-and-go-seek. At worst, the image is hidden, and the user has to figure out how to make some random Javascript happy before the image can be displayed. Either way, the user often ends up being very frustrated.
3. Use a frame.

Framing was the best of three bad alternatives.

The problem is that businesses use autorun on burned demos for customers, particularly when they need only a small number of demo discs. There are lots of small businesses that do this, and we even do it at the Fortune 100 company I work at.

What percentage of legit uses of autorun CDRs versus virus autorun CDRs? I'd imagine the legit uses far outweigh the virus ones (though that could change in response to this article's change, I suppose).

Seriously, when PDF is based on a language that can calculate fractals on the fly and draw a different random maze every time you print it, why are we surprised that PDF is nearly as capable?

How do I opt-out of opt-out lists?

Yup, it was invented in 1958, and was used on the Gemini back-up ejection seat, and is used on the Mk-82 unguided gravity bomb.

The motion of galaxies/superclusters/filaments is pretty steady, why not just record the current positions many of them, and note when each observation was taken? Even if a small number of superclusters collide, most are likely to still be intact after millions of years, and this would require no moving parts.

any more than that gives me jitters, a racing pulse, and headaches.

Keep taking it for a few days, and you'll be fine.

Caffeine tolerance develops very quickly, especially among heavy coffee and energy drink consumers. Complete tolerance to sleep disruption effects of caffeine develops after ... 7 days. Complete tolerance to subjective effects of caffeine was observed to develop after ... 18 days.

"Big iron" hardware is still used for modern supercomputers, but the software is increasingly becoming Linux. Even on the hardware front though, commodity hardware with software failover is increasingly being used.

The problem is that "critique scientific explanations" means different things to different people. To a good science teacher, it means valid scientific critiques, and yes, that's very good. To a bad science teacher though, that means critiques that sound like science to the uneducated ear, but are really nothing of the sort. Surf some of the anti-evolution videos on YouTube for a few minutes to see just how good some people can be at blurring the line between science and hogwash.

The article mentions it does fuzz testing, so it'd be the former.

They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. ... the rules of evidence, developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, are there to ensure that the facts that go before a jury have been subjected to scrutiny and challenge from both sides

Honestly, this is another "information wants to be free" issue. I can understand asking jurors to not Google about the specific people involved in the case, but to prevent them from looking up general information is absurd. If I was in a jury, I'd be very interested in the relevant case law.

It's the age of the Internet, you can't block people off from information any longer.

I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people

Just wait. In the end, it will certainly be scrapped *, but in the meantime, there will be many lulz.

When people implement ridiculous ideas, the only thing they accomplish is to provide fodder that helps prevent the idea from being implemented again. And they get their 15 minutes of fame, even if they wish they could take it all back.

• (* okay, there's a miniscule possibility that Australia will march firmly in the direction of fascism, with new layers of secrecy being created just to hide existing layers of secrecy, but the likelihood that this pulls down all of democracy in Australia, all by itself, still seems miniscule)

It's fundamentally a physics issue. Light decreases at the square of the distance. The further away you are, the more light you need to gather, and so the larger your lens has to be. Sensor size doesn't matter.

If you don't collect enough light, the only way to make pictures bright is to take looooong exposures, which means you can't capture motion. (and many things you want to capture at a distance — sports shots, skittish animals — are in motion)

When the market desires a solution so strongly, sometimes engineering companies figure out a clever solution, physics constraints be damned. (fit thousands of phonograph records in your pocket, no way!)

Is there any equivalent to retinal displays that could be used to create a sort of "projected lens"? Maybe heat up the air with a laser in a careful way to create a temporary optic? No, that's probably too far out.

Perhaps, like the retinal display, the military will have the incentive to eventually research this, and find some far-out solution that industry can then produce?