"This éclair is over one million calories. Twenty-five pounds of butter per square inch. Covered with chocolate so dark that light cannot escape its surface."

Oh snap!

Yes, the tech exists. I already said that. But it doesn't exist in an Ipad form factor—which was my point. Galaxy Note is close, but from what I've seen, the pressure sensitivity isn't anything that could rival a good Wacom tablet.

You might be right. I have no idea. It would probably make more sense to create a smart, active stylus that handles relative position and pressure, and transmits to tablet over bluetooth. I'm sure the tech exists to do this already, but size/weight are crucial for pen input.

I know I'm perceptionally challenged, but I laughed a little when it looked like the rotor blade would chop off the rear fin.

I call foul, unless you disclose your country.

I can see it now...throw a party, guest cover this thing with half full wine glasses and beer bottles, then some drunk idiot stumbles by it and jengas the entire table.

It's like the 30 year fashion tend circle, but accelerated for the digital age. Bell bottoms = 1970/2000. Tight jeans 1980/2010. Posts about RFID on Mythbusters = 2008/2012

I think there might be a little Jeter seed in there too.

Things I want, but won't get:

Did I miss some portion of this thread? Who are you quoting?

Yeah...I think you have me on the thermal imaging. I thought the plant itself produced a higher heat signature, but now that you mention it, the lights make much more sense. I was under the impression that any thermal imaging used in court had to have a warrant, but you're probably right there too.

That's probably because law enforcement agencies require a warrant for thermal imaging, meaning they are not allowed to just sweep large areas with thermal imagining unless they already suspect an operation. If they were allowed to systematically sweep entire parks for unregistered growing, then those operations…

I completely forgot what we were originally talking about. Back to the main topic. I don't know if I have the time or patience to download 1:1 rips of blueray porn. Even with broadband, that's a lot of time. It would definitely make the difference and would be worth it for a visually stunning movie, but for porn?

Eh? Wouldn't that mean stretching 16:9 or 4:3 in width to fill the frame, using their respective, native height for the scale to fit? I also assumed "extra space" meant blocking on the left/right to preserve aspect ratio, again using the respective, native heights to fill the frame for 16:9, 4:3.

No one noticed the operation it must have taken to cut over 5 metric tons of ice? That's not exactly a smash and grab. I guess Pategonia is pretty isolated.

HD content encoded for streaming usually maintains the pixel count, so if it says 720 or 1080, you are still getting 720 and 1080 vertical pixels, just like cable or Blueray. The big difference is that HD content for streaming may use more aggressive compressing, leading to a slight loss of detail or digital…

I used to program Flash for websites, so I'm no stranger to that control panel. However, this is local storage only. Re-read the first paragraph: "Adobe has no access to this list, or to any of the information that the websites may have stored on your computer."

True, but do you really need to see every hair and pimple? "Near HD" is good enough for me. It, um...gets the job done, so to speak.

Honestly, why do people still download porn? You can stream it for free. It made sense back when ISP's weren't up to par on speed requirements for quality streaming, but everyone with a good broadband connection can stream HD quality now. Just browse Chrome in incognito (CTRL+Shift+N) when porn surfing. Nothing on…