What is it with Asian men and creepy long finger nails? Dont they have clippers?

I can say, working with tiny screws for laptops, having some finger nails with a lil length make them easier to pick up.

I agree with you in general. I think it will be a successful product potentially. I just think people are going to find themselves disappointed given all the hype. I just don't think the technology is satisfactory even on the cutting edge. It would be like all (even the best) portable mp3 players sounded like finger nails on chalk boards. Apple came along and made an affordable "finger nails on chalk board sounding portable mp3 player" and we all expected everyone was going to be jumping to buy one rather than simply continuing to listen to their nice home stereo instead.

Just as a first order critique. Do you really think gamers are going to settle for 640x800 screens that subtend even wider visual angles? With 800 pixels over 90 degrees you're talking about a nyquist frequency of 5ish cycles per degree. That ain't exactly a retina display. That's like a tenth the resolution of a retina display on a linear dimension, or one one-hundredth the number of total pixels.

I think this thing will have a highly anticipated launch and peter out as people find themselves preferring to game with their traditional interfaces instead.

good thing I did not ! ! !

*dead like a doors finger nail.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What was he going to do with the finger nail clippers?!?

>> ^braindonut:
I think I'd have been far more convinced if she had done the whole thing with a chalk board.


You mean, like, finger nails on the chalk board?

When cats do it it cute and cuddily, when gwiz does it it's all screams and finger nails.

Gizmodo had an article about some guy getting his finger between 2 neodynium magnets. Losing his finger nail from it.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5156490/guy-loses-a-chunk-of-his-finger-in-neodymium-magnet-accident-nsfw

I kept on expecting it to continue to back up only to reveal the universe to be an atom in a speck of dirt in the finger nail of some alien...

^dghandi
"The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance."

As far as this point, there is one instance where this might arise: if all the evolutionary intermediates between apes and men were still alive. It would probably be pretty hard to determine who is "a man" and who is "an ape" based off of their mental, physical, or even genetic makeup. Luckily we don't have this problem because all the intermediates are extinct--thus we can easily distinguish between a "man" and an "ape". However--even if they were not extinct, there is but one criteria to distinguish which is which, and that criteria is not arbitrary: reproduction. Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Recall my definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are thus a sort of "social contract" between men (or at least the same species).

It is only logically consistent to apply "rights" and thus, morality, to your own species. Thus, we define rights in terms of a social contract between men. Every other species is in competition with you. Again, to apply this in any other manner would be to say that a lion cannot morally eat an antelope. Likewise, it would mean that humans could not morally eat plants or animals--and there is no way to reconcile that with "the right to life".

>> ^imstellar28:
the morality (and thus legality) of an issue cannot be derived from arbitrary decisions.

The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance.

We, at some point define a group we call persons, and that is the criteria we use. The question is simply can we agree on a definition, or do we abandon any criteria for rights and justice?

At some point in the continuum of life we acknowledge a distinct person, and we have responsibility as a consequence of that acknowledgment. An analogy would be that you and I decide to do something together, such as pick fruit from a tall tree, in which my participation is necessary for your safety, let us say I am holding the rope you are hanging from. I have the right not to get involved, or to back out while we are getting the ropes ready, etc, but once I am holding you 50ft of the ground with a rope your moral relevance overrides my freedom to abandon you. You do not have a right to have me hold the rope, but I do not have the right to let go either.

upvote for such clean and tidy finger nails.