The experiments done with the tongue input method that he referred to were actually quite impressive. A man that wasn't born blind but became blind after the fact described it as being able to see again but just shapes, no color, and a bit blurry. I am paraphrasing there but the idea was that with time the visual centers of his brain learned to take that input and create images with it to allow him to "see". The only immediate problem with this method was their test setup was very bulky and hard to use outside of a test environment. It has real potential in the future though.

If you are willing to put a bit of time into talking to their sales people, you can bargain your contract terms and prices a bit more than they would have you believe. I have personally done this a lot with sprint. For instance I have never signed a 2 year contract, and refuse to. I can usually talk down the price a bit and get a 1 year contract rather than 2. It just takes a little persistence. (not the annoying bitch at them til you get your way kind either). People are more willing to work with you when you are friendly.

Not sure why there is so much speculation on the basics of the story line when blizzard has already been talking about this for some time.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6176224.html?tag=top_stories;title;0

It will cover part of the lore before the timeline for WoW began. All the comments about the movie trying to replicate a repeatative gameplay mechanic have obviously never paid one bit of attention to the game or read any of the quest logs etc. There is plenty of story there. The game must remain static so people can take part over and over again but the STORY is not static. They tried to remedy some of this in the last xpac by using phased zones where different players see different things depending on what quests they have completed.

I tested both illusions on the link provided in the summary and neither one had the effect on me that was claimed. What would that imply?

I tried them multiple times shifting my focus to different aspects of the image than directed just to see if it had any effect and it was no different.

Computer algorithms are not "the results of math". The result would be what the computer outputs. To me (and again courts may see this different) that means you can write a program with the intent to duplicate the function of another legally, however you can not legally just rip off the same code.

It isn't entirely useless, you can still get the link for your results, it is just overly annoying. I also found that it was NOT flagging youtube sites, which I found interesting.

I also have a friend that wasn't too computer savy and she used to call me all the time trying to fix windows problems she had until finally she decided to buy a Dell with Ubuntu on it. What made it work for her is that she didn't try to force everything to work how she was used to things working. She knew it would be a learning curve and took the time to relearn how to use her computer.

She now NEVER calls me asking for help and frequently talks about how happy she is not having to use windows anymore and how many fewer problems she has. Ubuntu can be used by the computer illiterate. It just can't be used by stupid windows users that think if it doesn't work like windows it is broken.