The thing about your iPhone is that you are always looking right at it when you use it. When using an actual computer, you are looking at the screen, not your hands. Unless you can't touch-type, in which case, yeah I guess you won't notice any difference. Something that works well on the iPhone is not going to work well on a desktop computer because with a real computer you're not holding the screen in your hands.

The closest iPhone/Computer analog would be MS Surface, but I don't see that working well for day-to-day computing, way too much reaching with the arms.

For the arms to be without strain during long periods of computer use, they must be resting at the desk surface and not up in your field of view. So they need to be able to do things by feel. That's about it.

Does it still work, just really slow? What would be the ideal mix of the other 3/4 of your nationality to get the best connection under those circumstances?

Agreed that the reality definitely doesn't match the ideal in those pictures. But the reality of the Big Mac is that it is laced with crack or something, because even the non-idealized picture makes me want one. Or it's a Pavlovian response to seeing the name, or something. Big Macs rock.

No, at different points *in time* the laptop is moving at different speeds. At the moment of impact, it won't be getting any faster after that, only slower.

When Microsoft decides it's time to get more money and releases a new version of Office, as they have done several times in the past, does Dell charge them for having to change their image again? What about major OS service packs? They re-image for those too. It's part of their business. How is this any different from what would happen if MS released Office 2010?

I think what Lumpy meant was, why would we do such experiments so close to a large source of interference? You say that gravity waves should follow the same path as light waves, and we do indeed get plenty of light here. But you can go inside a building and voila, no light unless you specifically choose to put some there. We don't have that same control over gravity. When we experiment with light, don't we do it under controlled conditions?

Yeah, it's called pot.

When you're looking through a telescope, particularly one that is portable, you are focusing on a very small part of the sky. Meteors fall wherever they fall. During a shower you don't know where the next one will show up, and through a telescope you have a very good chance of not pointing the right way at the right time to catch one, let alone get off a camera shot.

Where did the poll say they had to be on TV? Who failed at reading comprehension exactly?

When I was 12 they taught us how to make a moisture trap with a can and some cellophane. Granted we weren't in a desert, but I am surprised if this "new" development surprises anybody.

Bullshit. If that were true, you'd be arrested for holding a kid's hand because of the implied sexual connection. Even worse if it was your OWN kid, that would be even worse, right?

So you're saying give it for free and offer a link of some kind where somebody who feels like being "fair" will go through a set of hoops to pay for something that they were just given for free? While you might find some individuals that will actually do this, they are in the extreme minority.

Hint: Even when it's entirely free, most people don't even want to go through the hassle of signing in/up with a free account to view the content, instead just moving on to another site that doesn't hassle them.

We plan to absorb this drool by carpet-bombing cities with pork rinds.

Your country also spells "thru". Larger values of stupid doesn't make something more correct somehow, just more stupid.