So, their entire evidence that the animal was extremely scared was that it "looked unhappy"?
Dreamwriter
dreamwriter-old
"Those pixels don't have to be spread around as much"
The original AR Drone app had at least one augmented reality game where you could shoot down virtual enemies. I think they also released an SDK for it to allow people to program their own AR apps.
...but the energy required to manufacture the case would take eons to earn back through the solar power, due to how little electricity the Kindles suck up on their own.
The 2011 Tesla Roadster can go 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, costs $100,000. There's only one Corvette model that's faster, and that one costs $111,000 (does it in 3.4 seconds). Sure, the Corvette that's the exact same speed as the Tesla is only $87,000 (after you get the options that gives it that speed), but of course that…
This article seems to be ignoring the Tesla vehicles that are incredibly fun to drive and can go 250 miles on one charge. They are still working on getting the price down, but they are doing it in stages - start super expensive, so make it a sports car. Drop it down to the price of luxury cars, OK, make it a luxury…
Maybe because Jewellust isn't a very good game? It takes maybe 3 hours to beat it, and then it's just boring.
Yes, in my opinion Fast Five is a fun movie and the best in the series (I bought it on Blu-Ray after seeing it at the theater), Source Code was amazingly great (Groundhog's Day with a bomb!), Thor was a decent comicbook movie (definitely better than Green Lantern and Green Hornet), and Hangover 2 was fun but almost a…
Too much hassle to take the phone out of your pocket and turn it on, when you can just glance at your wrist. Of course, that's only for real watches, these crappy ones that require pressing a button or swiping the screen to turn them on, might as well just use a phone.
It's like Gizmodo is trolling. List a bunch of popular movies and then say they really suck. Let's see, on Rotten Tomatoes Fast Five got 78%, Source Code 92%, Thor 77%, Hangover 2 35%, and I am Number Four 32%. So, 3 good to great movies, two crappy movies.
You actually believe that doing scientific research is a "do nothing" job? Do you think the scientists poring over pictures of Mars's surface are doing "pretend work" too?
Keep in mind this: you will be subject to a $16,000 fine if you record your message wrong, since there are strict rules on "robocalling". So better be careful when doing stupid stunts like this!
It's framed in a way to get people interested in studying moon pictures
But, this is a good idea. Did you read the article? It's not a guy claiming that aliens exist on the moon or anything, he's saying that if you get a bunch of college students and set them to studying the hundreds of thousands of moon pictures we have, they'll learn a whole lot about the moon, and feel incentive to…
"Plus, if the eyes are in the windshield, what do you do with the lights? Ignore them? Pretend they're just two evenly sized, symmetrical moles? Growths? It's just weirder if you try to ignore them, giving the car a sort of two-faced effect, which is creepy and afflicted pretty much every car in Cars."
I look at it in terms of time of enjoyment - a movie at the theater is $10, so if I can get more than two hours of enjoyment out of $10 worth of comic books, then it's a good deal.
Funny that the movie was considered a flop and cost more money to film that it made in the box office. Imagine being the guy at the studio who let the copyright lapse on this little unknown film, and discovering that only then when it gets lots of airplay (since it was free) does it suddenly become super popular.
My mouse doesn't leave smears on *my* screen... :P
Nope, the patent was applied for in 1996, granted in 1999. It wasn't originally intended for mobile devices.