I've had my bookmarks toolbar in that big blank emptiness since Firefox 1.X. The UI for doing that change is kind of unintuitive though: first you go to the edit toolbars mode, drag the bookmarks toolbar into the right place, close the edit more, and then deselect the bookmarks toolbar from the View menu (to hide the now empty bar where the bookmarks used to be). But once you do it, it's kind of neat to have your most commonly used bookmarks just one click away.

Are there wrestling simulators? I'm only familiar with wrestling-themed fighting games. And even if there are, wrestling isn't MMA, MMA isn't wrestling.

I looked up some videos of Glider PRO, and it's not really the same... I mean, the very basic gameplay mechanic, "fly around collecting shit" is the same I guess, but that mechanic isn't really the defining feature of Flower. It's all about the atmosphere it creates. Have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUC2tpY5gb4

Btw, if indie games count, have tried http://www.ludomancy.com/games/today.php?lang=en or http://www.kongregate.com/games/GregoryWeir/the-majesty-of-colors

Depends a bit on how loosely you define genres. Does "MMA simulator" count as a new genre or is it grouped with table tennis into "sports games", or with Mortal Kombat into "fighting games"? What genre do Sims and Flower belong to?

Funny. When I do corpus linguistics, a dictionary is often exactly where I start from. What kind of relevant research do you do, exactly?

Maybe the secondary meaning wasn't obscure when the text was written. Or it isn't obscure in the writer's native dialect. Or maybe the writer really was being an ass, but you still need to figure out what they were saying. What kind of bullshit argument is this?

There are a number of words Google can't define for you. Though less so now that Google Books includes Middle English dictionaries and other fun stuff. But the OED has, more or less, every word and their even more obscure secondary meaning that's ever been considered acceptable English, all in one place. With all relevant information about the usage. The other advantage OED has is that you can quote it even in serious publications, unlike Wikipedia or random Google results.

Err, that's exactly what they do.

Get the CD-ROM version then? It's either around $200 or free, depending on how you want to go about it.

It wasn't an exe(cutable), you had to run the code from qbasic.

What has dynamic range got to do with noise?

Ah, I disregarded the effects of magnification. But doesn't magnification have any effect in your second scenario (last paragraph) or is it included in the formula?

If you put a 50mm lens in front of a tiny sensor, it functions as a telephoto lens. The resultant photos would be so different in framing that comparing their DOF isn't really meaningful. I think the parent assumed that you make the framing similar by changing distance to subject and then compare the DOF.

But yes, I think technically sensor size itself doesn't affect DOF.

I think pretty much everything you said is true, but,

a) nobody forces you to use a low-end camera;

b) you can change the focus screen if you want to;

c) even on (new) low-end cameras, live view addresses the manual focus problem quite nicely.

"Film cameras can be very simple and are generally much more rugged than digital cameras."

I'll give you simple, but general ruggedness is a bs argument. You buy what you need; the existence of plastic DSLRs doesn't make the rugged models any less rugged.

"Many are all-mechanical designs that don't require any batteries, others only need a battery for the light meter. That's very useful when you're travelling, especially to remote locations."

Spare batteries and memory cards take up way less space than an equivalent amount of film rolls. Also, I read an article about two guys who skied across the Antarctic a year or two ago, and they were using a DSLR (though their battery set-up was pretty interesting).

"And film offers a huge amount of variability in appearance. [...] You might be able to imitate many of these effects in Photoshop and the like (or maybe not), but it's not the same."

I contest that you can do a lot more in Photoshop than in a darkroom, especially if you don't limit yourself to trying to imitate the quirks of specific film types.

Yet no medium format digital back has any high ISO performance to speak of, i.e. they're worse at it than entry level crop DSLRs.

It's not that simple.

Jab Comix is commercial, US based and the characters are obviously underaged (despite their disclaimer which claims otherwise). And there are many just like it.