Wow, I didn't even know Matrox was still in business.

This is so ridiculous and Southwest is so full of shit!!! One of these planes weighs 84,000 pounds (without fuel or cargo) so making it 472 pounds lighter is only about one half of 1% of the plane's total weight (again, empty). Statistically, there is far more variation in total weight (plane + fuel + cargo) between one flight and the next, so what amounts to less than a quarter of one percent in total weight is completely negligible. I can't believe the gall of Southwest claiming that this is an environmentally friendly plane. Airplanes are about the worst polluters on the planet. While it is true that every little bit helps, this is so little that it is almost not even worth mentioning. I mean, that's like saying that it would have been much better if a guy was murdered by being stabbed on 19 times instead of 20. There's really no difference at all.

@Jack

Douche much? Seriously, just because someone (Raaj) questions the integrity of the author, who by the way is supposed to have some journalistic INTEGRITY, that doesn't mean that he's on Microsoft's jock. There was no crying or whining in that post. And you clearly have no credibility when you obviously hate Microsoft. MS pisses me off too but Raaj's comments were about the author, not MS.

And for the record, Apple actually didn't create the first retail store or chain of stores. So clearly Microsoft is not copying Apple. If anything they are copying Woolworths or Sears Roebuck which each opened their first retail store chains well over a hundred years ago. Only an absolute moron would claim that Microsoft was copying Apple by opening retail stores. Good job!

@jepzilla

Sorry to challenge your statements again but what you are saying about the universe being probabilistic is based on the 'theories' of quantum mechanics, which are generally concerned with the laws of physics at the sub-atomic level. Fields in the areas of macro-level physics, which are generally outside the realm of quantum mechanics, mainly rely on definite outcomes, not probabilistic outcomes, and many things in these large systems are accurately and precisely predictable.

To be absolutely truthful at the most basic level, many of these ideas will not be understood and actually cannot be understood until such time as a unified 'theory of everything' is proposed, tested, and generally accepted by the greater scientific community. We are a long ways from that happening, as is apparent in theories proposed by major offshoots from String theory and 'M' theory which take completely different paths to propose their solutions to these problems.

@jepzilla

I see some of the logic that you are using and don't disagree with all of it, but I do have a problem with your explanation of why the timeline disruption theory makes sense. The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that if multiple, competing theories exist to solve a problem or predict an outcome, the simplest theory is almost always the correct one. So if it is "impossible" for a bare Higgs boson to appear, then why would destruction of the LHC be the most likely thing to prevent that from happening. Wouldn't a more simple explanation to this problem of a bare boson existing be that when the LHC is fired up and is fully operational that no experiment will cause a bare Higgs boson to appear, that the experiment itself would just fail? I mean, it is a much simpler and more likely theory if the machine doesn't produce the theorized result rather than this wacky idea that the theorized result is somehow tied to a time disruption event designed to prevent the result in the first place. That's really pushing the boundaries of credibility and according to Occam's Razor that idea is far too complex to be likely, let alone possible.

Just saying...

Have any of you left your electronics device in direct sunlight, especially during the summer? How did that go? Did they still work? How about if you do it several times a week for several months at a time. I predict that these phones will be failing all over the place due to the heat of direct sunlight. As we all know (or most of us anyway) heat and electronics do not mix, so how can this be a good idea?

See, that's your problem right there. Why on Earth would you be watching ANYTHING on ABC?

Nice catch! That's hilarious because Engadget just had another post today about a Croatian group stealing it's logo and then there's this one. Haha!

How many people actually read books in direct sunlight? Pretty much no one does who actually cares about their eyes or skin or the distracting brightness of the sun reflecting off of all surfaces in the vicinity. I'm with Robert, this isn't practical for most people.

Heat is the enemy of all electronics. Almost without exception electronic devices work better and better the colder it gets. Near absolute zero conductors become super conductors and lose virtually all resistance to electricity passing through them (which is a good thing). So no, leaving your e-reader to bake in the sun for hours on end will definitely shorten the life of the device. Notice I didn't say 'might' shorten the life. It will DEFINITELY shorten the life of the device and it is doubtful that it would last very long at all in direct sunlight.