What kind of casual cooks bacon in the oven?

Options?

Which is one reason why Google has shied away from SD cards in their Nexus series.

I'd rather the carriers quit being greedy as that has more advantages than adding an SD card to your phone. I have unlimited data from VZW still so I don't really store anything on my phone.

I've done disk images past 1TB. It's an over-night kind of thing...

There are a lot of factors that go into why Google doesn't use SD cards, and I generally support them. Then again, I don't feel like I need a lot of storage on my phone. I have a 16GB Moto X and I've never felt like I didn't have enough storage.

I guess it goes to show that anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

SDHC supports up to 32GB. SDXC supports up to 2TB. The hardware of any recent phones that can support 64GB cards, the Samsung phones come to mind, should support 128GB cards as well.

As long as you're not trying to read all 2TB consecutively, it'd be ok.

Both 64GB and 128GB would be (should be) SDXC. So, anything that supports 64GB SD cards (probably most phones with microSD cards) should handle a 128GB cards just fine.

I think I've had more SD cards die on me than microSD cards. Maybe it's because micros usually stay in a device.

Looks like they lifted that limit 8 November. So it was a little while after this post. Good for them I suppose. Crashplan already has ~4TB of my data, so I guess they missed out on me. Though I'm sure I actually cost Crashplan money.

Bandwidth is the major killer. I've come across a few 4K videos on youtube, but they're far from the norm. Maybe some day we won't be at the mercy of the cable companies and ISP and tech will grow at the rate we're willing to accept it.

I doubt it. Unless it's driven by a massive amount of 4K content (TV, movies, etc.). I mean, that's what it took to get 1080p to be so common.

I don't think 4K will come that fast. My primary monitor is still 1680x1050. And when 4K is popular, gaming on it will be reserved for the top tier cards first.

What is "high or max resolution?" It might hit some issues at 1440p, but that isn't standard resolution yet, especially if you're only spending $800 on a PC. Newer games might force you to turn down the AA a little, but if you're playing at 1080p, 2x or 4x AA looks very nice.

I'm not including the price of a monitor, m/kb, or OS, because I'm assuming one is replacing their current computer and has those already. You can get an i5-4670K, which is more than enough to play any game. The only CPUs above that are i7s which, apart from a few $1000+ versions, just add hyper-threading which isn't…

If you limit yourself to a GTX 760, i5-4670K, and no SSD, you could come in around $800. That would play everything out right now without missing a beat.

I don't think there's anything wrong with laser mice. I also don't think other mouse tech would be expensive because of the limited resources we have but rather because it's something new so the cost has to cover the development along with any new hardware which needs to be manufactured. Laser mice are need the same…

Accelerometers, gyros, and magnetometers would do. They'd probably cost more and be less sensitive though. Laser mice can already track on nearly every surface. My mouse is 8200 DPI and I don't want anything less than that.