Mm, sort of. Yes, Cr correctly has one outer electron, while it is surrounded on all sides by elements with two outer electrons. What I really don't like, though, is that the noble gases look so unhappy and incomplete. The halogens don't look just one dot short of completeness, etc, etc. Clearly the author has chosen…

+1, precisely. Except I'm not positive Mann's words should be heeded, at least not with heavy filtering. The impression I get from these comments, at least, is that he's more into boasting about what he's learned than saying things that are actually contextualised to what he's supposed to be talking about.

I congratulate the author for nailing the the "Should you buy this" section. It's been so obvious all along, refreshing to see it written by an author.

Many *people* do very little with their computers. Many people do only things that Chrome OS can do perfectly. Many people like ease of use. Many people have lots of money. Many people like a computer that boots up in seconds. Many people like beautiful, high resolution displays.

Bam, and there you nailed it on the head! This is what makes every anti-Chrome OS flame deeply entertaining, it's someone putting their hand up and saying "I am completely self centered and am not aware that other people have different needs and wants to me."

We already have super (and ultra!) capacitors, and compared to electrolytic capacitors, they are astonishing. But they just don't hold a candle to real batteries though for the purposes of energy storage; even a lead acid battery is better in terms of Joules per kilogram.

Yes, you're quite right — there may be more subtle effects going on, all I was pointing out is that claiming that 50% is a "do not pass" point of doom is quite absurd.

Please do not make a point of recharging once your phone hits 50% charge. The percentage on your phone's battery gauge is adjusted so that it shows you 0% when the battery is at its lowest *safe* voltage, not its lowest voltage. Phone says 0% = battery at safe minimum.

+1, spot on.

+1, it's been quite some time since I've seen so much wisdom packed into two words.

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain properly. There are *256* numbers between 0 and 255 inclusive — so you want 256 to the power of 150, not 255 to the power of 150.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I find this article deeply lacking. At no point does it lay out a true difference between quartz and mechanical, and then step through any reasoning as to how this difference leads to an improvement in accuracy for one over the other. In fact, I've written a paragraph-by-paragraph…

I retort with http://www.mentallandscape.com/Venus_Visible.htm , and the main image on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus ). NASA's site can claim that they "enhanced it to see what a human would see", but straight off the bat, the image is taken with an ultraviolet filter; and the contrast in the image is…

Oops. If each pixel were a value between 0 and 1, then by your logic, the number of black-and-white pictures is 1^150. Which equals 1.

[Citation needed]

Right... because positive and negative ions like floating in the air next to each other without... I don't know, attracting and cancelling out?

Thank you, fully agreed. The first sentence is basically as bad as saying "The MakerBot *creates* plastic using 3D printing." No, it just re-shapes it.

Allow me to summarise this article.

Can you explain how you choose _which_ images you want, in advance, to give up the ability to recover lost details in highlights and shadows? I think I'm missing a feature of Cuba that makes it particularly resistant to the failings of JPG...

Two things for me, which probably seem really minor and silly to normal people: