All I've ever had was problems with bluetooth, whether it was something not supporting it, or something only partially supported, bluetooth is just terrible.

How about some specifics? What hardware? What OS? It's worked fine for me on two Motorolas and a Kyocera moving pictures to my W7 notebook and kubuntu tower. What kinds of problems? How did that comment get modded up??

Also, anyone spending that amount of money for a fucking headset should be shot, period.

What amount of money? Some people actually use headsets for more than gaming, you know, like listening to high fidelity music with. It's their money, they earned it (or stole it), why shouldn't they be able to waste it as they see fit? You could say the same thing about high end $800 phones that won't do any more than a $125 phone will. Or high-end cars, big houses... jealous much, son?

B-B-B-BUT MY BRANDS. Surprised it wasn't Skullcandy too. Terrible.

Sorry, I have no idea what that phrase was supposed to convey, is that a young people thing or something?

Disclaimer: The above opinion is from an angry owner of a very nice Sony-Ericsson bt headset that the PS3 won't use.

"Spank me some more, Sony." Why do you keep giving those criminals your money?

Are you being sarcastic?

Of course he is, Sheldon.

I wish I had mod points. What dimwit modded that insightful comment "flamebait"? Personally, I'm getting sick of the "first world problems" meme. The parent is accurate, the third world isn't going to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. It can't.

When I was in Thailand in 1974 it was primitive. Dirt roads, no municipal water (everyone had cisterns), no electricity. Thailand is now an industrialized country, thanks to foreign firms setting up manufacturing there.

Well, you got an XCP rootkit. I'm surprised they didn't just put Bluetooth and USB in and take it back out after you paid for it like with OtherOS.

Honestly, why are you people giving the criminal conspiracy named Sony your money? They've been fucking their customers over for a decade and you dweebs just say "spank me harder, Sony."

It is not spending on the "wrong kind of people", it is an attitude that the government is just too damn big for its own good and infringing upon our rights and ignoring the U.S. Constitution as if it didn't even exist in the first place.

So why then didn't they rise up early in the Bush administration when he reversed course and ran up the biggest deficit we had ever seen? The tea party didn't happen until Obama was elected, but before he'd had any impact.

I suppose you happen to like having the NSA snoop into everything you've ever done, and want to see the TSA come in and search every car traveling on Interstate Highways since they obviously aren't molesting enough grandmothers and toddlers?

Well, the tea party was around before the Snowden revelations, and again, Bush started the TSA and DHS and pulled for the PATRIOT act. Where was the tea party then?

It tends to have a very strong Libertarian bent

Then why haven't they been advocating the legalization of marijuana? That would increase liberty and reduce the toll on the taxpayers; we have more prisoners per capita than any other country, and half are there for drugs.

The tea party certainly doesn't look to this outsider as you portray it. I see it as a "I have lots of stock and environmental and safety regulations cost me money, get rid of the damned government... Oh, and I don't want to pay tax, either."

I suppose you could also factor in which days of the week the Cleveland Browns are likely to win on, since that is definitely random.

You think they're losers? let me introduce you to the Chicago Cubs, who haven't won the world series since 1908 (Go, Cardinals!)

You might be surprised. The last congressional election here had a tea party loonie run against an MD. The MD wanted to give medicare to everyone, IMO that's far preferable to the clusterfuck that is obamacare (which is nowhere near the clusterfuck it was before obamacare, which is what my idiot* teabagger congressman Rodney Davis wanted).

Next election I'm registering as a Republican so I can vote against Davis in the primary. I might wind up voting against him twice, he's one of the dumbfucks who tried to take the government hostage for delaying obamacare.

But in the general election I'll vote Democrat at the congressional level if Davis gets nominated again (the man is for everything I'm against and against everything I'm for). Everyone else I'll vote L or G. It would be utterly retarded to vote for someone who would like to see me in prison.

* He barely squeaked by in the election, in fact there had to be a recount but the idiot can't figure out that half the voters in his district are against his agenda. I'll really be surprised if he wins again.

It's not really fair to describe Social Security as transferring "wealth to the old". By this point in time, almost everyone collecting SS paid into it their entire working life.

Indeed, my uncle died at age 60 after paying in for 40 years and didn't collect a penny. Another uncle collected for 20 after paying in for 40 so probably broke even. This is NOT funded from the general revenue; it's a tax you pay in all your life specifically for SS. Medicare shouldn't be part of the budget, either, since it's also paid for by a separate tax on working people. God damn it, kids, I fucking paid for my retirement. It won't go bankrupt; it might have to borrow to get through my generation but it will be fine.

Because SS is regressive, you could call it "transferring wealth to the wealthy", as the wealthy are more likely to also collect more than they pay in (due to longevity).

How is it regressive? Steve Jobs didn't live long, now did he? However, I posit that it should be progressive -- keep the limits on how much you can collect but end the limit on how much you can pay.

The number of people needed, and the time involved for a typical 15 seconds of video won't be possible in space for another hundred years.

Ron Howard managed to shoot most of Apollo 13 on the Vomit Comet. In ten years if guys like Branson and Carmak keep it up, they'll be filming in space.

In the mean time, why can't people simply enjoy a film, without trying to pick apart ever millisecond?

What makes the same people eat up LOTR or the Hobbit with total suspension of disbelief, but grouse incessantly about flowing hair?

To be fair, few if any movies get any kind of physics at all right. Look at everything that was wrong with every single Die Hard. And people did bitch about LOTR, specifically the shot where the horse was laying on that king.

The thing is, is it believable? AFAICT, Apollo 13 got it right, even the hair... but it was filmed on the Vomit Comet and was non-fiction, unlike Gravity.

I've noticed that science fiction novelists usually (but not always) do their best to get the science right (and sometimes fail), but many science fiction writers were scientists (e.g., Asimov, PhD in biochemistry and did cancer research).

Most people would have no problem with Gravity, the problems with a movie come when you're not sufficiently ignorant.

My Kyocera was about $115 after taxes (no contract or subsidy).