No, but someone will anonymously release pictures from the changing room.

...couldn't this sort of principle be used in a weaker sense to help with incoming ionizing radiation? Micrometeorites are a concern, but so is long-term exposure to radiation for astronauts.

Are we not reading the fucking summary anymore?

Microsoft ended up buying just the handset business for $7.2 billion and licensed HERE maps from Nokia.

Once again, you're plowing your way though the comments with a reckless lack of perspective. There's no need to run a police state in order to institute universal healthcare, expand education programs, or build on welfare mechanisms. Nor does running a progressive agenda inevitably give way to the construction of a police state. There is nothing inextricable about the two ideas, and as usual, you don't even attempt to back up your flamebaiting claim. Knock it off.

This is a worldwide issue - when budgets get tight, science and research programs are always the first to go, despite the fact that it's been shown that increased funds to research and basic technology development benefits the economy much more than financial investments, and even more than education programs.

Nasdaq had switched to Windows earlier in the day...

"These particles cannot travel through the atmosphere to harm humans on Earth, but they can affect electronic systems in satellites and on the ground," NASA officials explained in a statement. [Solar Max Photos: Sun Storms of 2013]

Wednesday's solar storm erupted just 21 hours after another powerful coronal mass ejection (NASA calls them CMEs) on Tuesday (Aug. 20). That solar tempest also sent billions of tons of solar particles on their way to Earth.

So maybe if you have satellite TV you'll see a few spotty moments, but nothing to worry about.

I still have a hard time believing people sit down and code those.

Modded "insightful" but not really sure what the insight is. It's a pretty established business plan for data companies. It smells like a criticism with the anal probe hyperbole, but not really sure what the point is.

That article (and many other half-baked clips that were popular earlier this year) was based on a very weak report by AAA. Weak because it relied upon self-reporting, rather than accident report statistics.

The more I read into it, it's just a mess. Graphs correlating phone use with internet use (no bearing on safety?), alcohol use during the last year with phone use during the last month, and importantly, correlates the frequency of car crashes over two years with cell phone use over one month. In that point, which should have been their most relevant, it even showed no statistical difference between the self-reported phone use of "once/rarely" and "often/regularly."

Here is a link to the primary source.

UI advances like GG are supposed to make driving with technology safer, not more dangerous. Let's be real: we're only a few short years from on-windshield HUDs for navigation, driving metrics, etc.

You probably just need more pixel density.

Couldn't even RTFS?

"There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"

I wonder how that really works out, in the long-run. What if you're an online start-up, with little legal know-how? Are you really going to resist demands from such a high level?