Here's the kicker: turns out we've *all* been trolled by an ex-Navy legislator who put the aircraft carrier thing in there purely to draw attention to the complete waste of time and money that this study represents. And it worked.

I'd love to see those cubelet components made compatible with Lego. You could have the best of lego model making with robotic interactivity (and no, Mindstorms is not the same thing.)

No, the "astonishingly dumb" here is the people who didn't read the comments to learn that the embarrassingly stupid stuff like the aircraft carrier was removed in a later draft when they realized how embarrassingly stupid it was.

No. And No. There have been plans to try to replicate it in the absence of a good explanation. But now there's a good explanation.

Did it ever occur to you to think "I thought this result had been repeated elsewhere, but then this story wouldn't make sense. Maybe I should check before asserting so definitively something that makes me look completely clueless"? I'm guessing "no".

The other problem is that we know of now way to exit the bubble once you're in it, since you are causally disconnected from the rest of the universe, which makes things a little tricky.

The good news is, that's not what the the three year experiment was for. It was actually about other properties of neutrinos entirely, and they just happened to notice this timing anomaly.

Nope. Frankly, I find the whole slave outfit thing kind of creepy and fetishistic. I like my fantasy princesses sassy and competent and in control, not in chains.

Your mom.

The same principle works with whiskey (or whisky, if that's the way your preferences run). A small glass of whiskey with lots of ice requires more calories to heat up to body temperature than are contained in the drink. You can sit around sipping whiskey all night and lose weight like crazy.

The expression "more optimally hydrated" is an oxymoron. You can't be more than optimally hydrated.

Interesting. I heard that the origin was from an old statement that "we only know what 10% of the brain is for", which got transmuted into the popular myth. At the risk of dividing by zero, I think we have the makings of a metamyth about the origins of this myth...

OOH, vidoegraphy pro. You make a wild string of assumptions and assertions in your first post — internal reflection means lens flare, lens flare means three-bladed iris, this camera doesn't have a three-bladed iris, therefore ooga-booga NASA hiding something.

What he said. Considering how spectacularly wrong this article is, even to the point that Apple has issued a clarification for the benefit of the hard-of-reading, don't you think perhaps you should withdraw the article, or at the very least update and correct it?

Then try reading the whole contract, including the part where "Work", with a capital W, is defined. It's more than a little silly to think that you can understand one clause out of context without knowing what the most important noun in it means.

It's not vague at all if you actually read the contract — which I'm sure you would do before entering into a commercial commitment, right? — rather than relying on gizmodo's misleading out-of-context excerpt.

I have no idea why you (and others) are so determined to be wrong on this! egojab already quoted the precise wording of the agreement that defines what a "Work", a defined term in the contract is, but let me repeat it here:

"There are user reports of it happening all over the internet, including in Google's own forums," according to the VERY ARTICLE YOU ARE COMMENTING ON. You're entitled to your own opinion on this topic, but not your own facts.

...because the only possible kind of internal reflection is lens flare, and lens flare requires a three-bladed iris, is what you are saying? I checked with my wife, a professional photographer and photography instructor, and she says that technically speaking your explanation is "full of shit". Being unfamiliar with…

+1 And marsh gas.