"if you are getting burn in from channel logos, might that not be a signal to a) change the channel once in a while, and/or b) maybe stop watching so much TV?"
1) If you don't watch much TV, but always the same channel... guess what happens?
2) You mentioned forgetting to turn off the TV... same deal applies. Fall asleep watching one channel all night? Oops.
3) You conveniently didn't deal with the letterboxing/pillar boxing issue at all. If you watch a lot of old SD content, or 2.35 Aspect Ratio stuff... that's a huge deal.
1) If you don't watch much TV, but always the same channel... guess what happens?
2) You mentioned forgetting to turn off the TV... same deal applies. Fall asleep watching one channel all night? Oops.
3) You conveniently didn't deal with the letterboxing/pillar boxing issue at all. If you watch a lot of old SD content, or 2.35 Aspect Ratio stuff... that's a huge deal.
Plasma has problems. There's a reason it's falling out of favor. They are gorgeous looking screens, though... if you the drawbacks of plasma screens don't bother you, they're certainly a bargain (At least up front... that power use... woof) and those black levels are fantastic.
"the plasma-burn-in is only going to be an issue if you use your TV as a computer display or leave your TV on and leave the picture paused for _hours_"
Nope. Unfortunately, you can get burn-in by watching the same channel a lot. You know those little logos in the corners of the screen on some networks? Those are called 'bugs', and they can burn in, if they're not transparent (Thankfully, most of the networks have gone with transparent logos for that reason).
You can get burn in from watching letterboxed or pillar-boxed content, the bars on the side can burn in.
The whole screen doesn't have to be static, ANY static element can burn in...
The problem here is rather obvious:
In the end, the algorithm is looking for the video people most often find funny, rather than the video people find the funniest.
Is the video funny? Sure. I laughed. Would I say it's the funniest video on Youtube? Hell no.
So the problem is that video which get a response from the viewers saying it's pretty funny will be ranked higher, than, say, this one, which is primarily watched embedded from a webcomic, and solicits comments which in and of themselves are funny, rather than just being "LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL"
"Microsoft claims that all WOA-based systems will receive updates through traditional updating tools built into the OS, but we remain a bit skeptical. This isn't an easy promise to make given how many variations there are of ARM hardware."
Compared to the simple monoculture of existing X86 hardware, right?
If they can do it for X86, it will be a snap to do it for ARM...
Originally, Major Kong was supposed to be played by... Peter Sellers. Sellers turned down that role, because he couldn't get a Texan accent down, so Kubrick offered the role to Slim Pickens instead. And thank god, too, because while Peter Sellers was fantastic in his many other roles in that movie, Pickens' role as Kong was absolutely sublime.
Now that you point it out, yeah, that's the '56... Best picture of a first gen Nomad I could find in 5 seconds of Googling. Whatever, my preference would still be for the '57 for that Fuel Injected V8 :-)
The 1957 Chevrolet Nomad.
Large and luxurious inside, a powerful engine under the hood, a gorgeous and distinctive exterior, and the pièce de résistance: plenty of room in the back.
I've known people who are convinced that their laptop would shield them from a bullet. Because they saw this news report where one totally stopped a bullet, so that's true in all cases...
You're probably right, though... Poe's law, man.
I think you DRASTICALLY overestimate the durability of a printed circuit board. I guarantee the hollow points did the job. And, if you watched the video, he's even making her pay for the bullets, so go whole hog!
Oh no, the robots are rebelling, let's bust out the paradoxes!
"Does a torrent of all torrents contain itself?"
Possibly, but not necessarily. They could just sign away a license to the copyright, but keep it, and therefor earn residuals every time a clip/shot/scene/whatever they worked on is used.
If photography is banned then they can ask you to leave, but that's about it. I don't believe a boilerplate agreement for a ticket can assume copyright of any creative works made during the event. They'd have to actually write a contract, and there would have to be a 'fair exchange'. Contracts that are all or mostly one sided are generally believed to be null and void, from what I understand.
Crowdsourced answers offend some, news at 11...
(Cue up Anonymous now doing bulk work for ChaCha...)
From memory, so forgive any inaccuracies:
The root cause of phantom limb pain is basically when the limb is left on with the hope of saving it, leaving it attached and painful for an extended period of time, before the decision is made to amputate it. So the brain 'remembers' that there is a limb there that is damaged and painful, because it never had a chance to heal.
The box tricks the brain into thinking it's back, and controllable, because the person is told to mirror their phantom limb's movements to their real arm, and the actual mirror makes it look like it's really there and doing what it's told. The pain disappears right away because the brain thinks the limb is working properly... the pain will come back if you only do one treatment, but repeating the treatment reduces both the frequency and intensity of the pain until it's gone for good.
At least, that's my understanding of it...
Correct, whoever films it owns a copyright on that footage. If you took a cell phone video, that footage is copyrighted by the person holding the phone, and you could, thus, show that, provided the copyright holder was amenable. Similarly, the newspaper photographers on the sidelines own the copyrights to the pictures and videos they take...
The REALLY fun bit is when you realize that multiple people have copyright claims on the footage used! The camera man, the director, the video engineers (I think), all have aspects of copyright on the same footage. It's a funny, stupid, incomprehensible mess...
Nope. Facts can't be copyrighted. The NFL just throws that in for intimidation purposes.
Well, the first mistake was getting the H2...
Both of those third-party web browsers use Apple's Javascript engine. Chrome doesn't.
Apple wouldn't let it on their App Store, and they're not going to piss of Apple more by releasing it on Cydia...
While possible (I've imagined what it would take as well), it would be very difficult to pull off currently, and a normal LCD wouldn't be able to do it.
The normal way (that I've seen) is to use half-silvered mirrors and mount the actual display around the ear, so that you can see the display at a focus-able distance, while still seeing forward...
What I WANT is a display that adjust its focus with my eye, so that something not in focused doesn't have a highlight perfectly in focus, so the highlight blurs with the object it's highlighting, for it to not have a stutter effect that most current Augmented Reality effects have, and for it to be populated with a selectably shareable database... Get horrible service at that new restaurant near your house? Share it with everybody so they can see the review when they look at the building! Got something you want to remember, but keep private? No problem, it'll appear every time you see it, but nobody else will!
The future is so futurey, I can't wait! STUPID TIME! LET ME GO FORWARD FASTER!
"while HUD itself is only in one eye (and off to the side) because it's not transparent like Tony Stark's tech."
This is actually a pretty tough problem, because the eye simply can't focus on something as close to the eye as a typical glasses lens. The usual solution is to place the actual screen further back, and have it reflected into the lens... having a transparent LCD on the lens, while doable, would just be blurs to the wearer. Le sigh, I want the present to be more futurey, and I WANT IT NOW!
