Yes, but they were in Germany for a bit, which, while I've never been there, seems to be a bit colder in the middle of the winter than they showed. It's all a moot point, however, cuz I'm not one to nitpick on such minute details in a movie.
Yes, but they were in Germany for a bit, which, while I've never been there, seems to be a bit colder in the middle of the winter than they showed. It's all a moot point, however, cuz I'm not one to nitpick on such minute details in a movie.
Thank you Captain Obvious. I'm just saying, it could be either. Either way, it doesn't seem to be either December or February, based on the weather...
But, is that Dec 2, or Feb 12?
But using misleading titles is Gawker Media's forte! There is maybe 1:1-trillion chance that all of the bolts seen in the picture would strike the same object in the same instant. Given that the average lightning strike lasts in the tens of MICROseconds, 20 seconds is an eternity for a strike.
The sound waves may be directed, but they can still bounce off whatever they hit. The surface it hits, unless flat, would disperse the sound waves, and since you couldn't hear the speaker unless you were in it's line of sight, it would seem like the sound waves came from the deer head.
Right, but that's because they're wearing shoes. Footwear traps in the sweat that would normally be evaporated away. The OP never said anything about shoes. I'm guessing/assuming they were referring to wearing socks/sandals. If you wore a garment as close-fitting and insulating as a sock/shoe everywhere, I'd imagine…
You're right! Put some cotton between my toes and I instantly feel as if I'm being spied upon!
Yes, thank goodness. Because as we all know, socks are, in fact, the solution to smelly feet, not the cause of them.
It's suspended from the center of the ceiling. I'd be impressed if you could trace a 12-14 gauge wire from a picture taken ~2-300 ft away in a small photo.
You're right, because when you increase a device's level of detail/resolution, it loses the ability to display a lower res video. How in the world do you watch anything less than full HD?
Because, you know, computer monitors are primarily for watching movies, and not, say, TELEVISIONS. And Lord knows I want my monitor resolution optimized for watching cat videos on Youtube, not doing real work.
Maybe we should have just settled on the Model T and been done with it. Would have saved a ton of money in development.
Why? 1920 x 1200 would be better than that. I'm always a fan of higher resolution. I don't see why we should declare 1920 x 1080 the pinnacle in display technology and quit innovating/improving.
It's $3 on Android Market, but $1.50 on Amazon App Store!
...they're still able to be read from all corners. Just look at the damn picture.
I believe what you are referring to is actually the volume knob.
While I would enjoy a higher res screen, I do enjoy the backlit keyboard, when it's dark and I want to hit keys I don't use constantly while typing, such as the top row function keys, or when I want to type something short and don't want to have to homerow my hands to find the keys.
They're just as deceptive with their description as Gizmodo writers are with headlines!
No more bitter than coffee. Which, if your coffee is bitter, yer doin it wrong. Roasted coffee beans are delicious. I've eaten a few here and there. Same as with chocolate-covered coffee beans.
I guess right. What do I win?