The point about e-ink is that it's passive. It doesn't emit light. That's what makes it very easy to read for extended periods. Throw that away and you might as well go back to reading books on your laptop.
Getting heart disease is risk, obviously, but it's a relatively small one unless you're very unhealthy or you have a history of it in your family. If you increase said risk by 18% per hour you're not actually much more likely to die. For example, if you're facing a 1% chance of heart disease then an hour of telly every day changes that to a 1.18% risk. That's probably within any margin of error anyway.
18% is the "scary tabloid statistic". The reality is that it's not really a big deal.
It doesn't follow that a lack of accuracy from dragging in a painting app would affect click accuracy in a browser at all. For example, the accuracy could degrade the longer you hold your finger to the screen due to moisture building up on your fingertip or due to reduced capacitance as the blood flow is restricted.
If you want to test point accuracy then write an app to test that; don't test something completely different and then leap to a potentially inaccurate conclusion.
The printer that you buy with ink comes with cartridges that are, at most, half full. Usually it's considerably less than half. It might feel cheaper, but in dollars-per-print it's not, and that's the only metric that really measures the value you're getting.
Next time, don't fall for it.
If you read Cuban's original blog post he suggests giving money to the top 100,000 sites ($1m each to the top 1000, and a further billion or so split between the next 99,000 sites), and that Microsoft or Yahoo promise to drive as much traffic their way as they'd lose by pulling out of Google. His idea is that if you can persuade the top 100,000 sites on the net to leave then Google is screwed. It wasn't a serious suggestion, just a sort of whimsical "Google could be killed you know" musing.
Or, if you prefer, listen to the horror stories female developers tell about sexist remarks or being asked out for dates.
Making sexist remarks, ok, I can understand how that might be seen as being sexist. But how is asking a woman out considered sexist behaviour? Face it, if I were to join a group that's 98.5% women and demonstrate that I share an interest with all of them then I strongly suspect I'd get asked out too. Would I complain that their behaviour was sexist? No. Obviously not.
No. I'd be making lurve. All those ladies! Oh yeah baby!
Wait. I think I might be being sexist. Err.. Oh dear.
I don't see what's so impressive about photographing 1 atom at a time. I can photograph billions all at once with my $50 camera.
The patent in question deals with associating data into multiple categories dynamically. It's fairly obvious but (as far as I'm aware) it is a relatively recent innovation. It's definitely not something that databases do in terms of storage. They can do it, using views or triggers with stored procedures, but this is not a simple patent on a data table, a category table and a many-to-many cross reference table linking the two.
It's incredibly unlikely to ever affect anyo
People have been happily buying and selling cars here in the UK for the past 100 years, all without ID cards. Why do we need them now?
There are two caveats that limit the appeal of this...
1. You have to be a Premium Account holder
2. (Apparently) it'll only work with a wifi connection, not 3G.
The wifi-only bit is the killer. Everywhere I use wifi I have a computer (office, home, girlfriend's home). That means it's not very useful, and as it's not very useful I don't see the point in buying the £10/month subscription in order to use it. If I wanted the Premium service I'd already have paid for it to use with the computers.
These articles crop up pretty much daily on various blogs. They all follow a very clear pattern:
1. Pick a hot IT company.
2. Pick a service they're not providing.
3. Pick something that they're spending money on.
4. Relate points 2 and 3.
There's no evidence that the two things are related. For all we know Apple might be getting back into selling time-slices on servers because Steve Jobs has hit his head and thinks it's 1983 again. These sorts of poorly researched, uninsightful articles that are absolutely nothing more than *a guess* are completely pointless.
That's not the suggestion at all. It's implying that, at some point in time, 90% of the notes in circulation has been used to take cocaine. That could be by 1 very prolific addict for all we know. The article doesn't give any indication.
Their innate abilities can't improve, but that's not to say there aren't other ways that they might be better drug sniffers than their ancestors - improving training, diet, exercise, rewards, and simply having more dogs because they're cheaper would all serve to increase detection rates.
The service that uSocial are offering is neither an exploit nor a problem. They're not spamming anyone - they're just letting people have access to a pool of people open to "following back" and taking a fee. It's a total waste of money buying in because the sort of people who'll follow everyone and care about the number of followers they have are generally idiots, but it's not really anything to worry about.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford
