I'm rather happy with the little Samsung S150G "Candy Bar" phone that I picked up at a dollar store; it was on sale for 50% off, so it only cost me $5.
The only down side to it is: I have to buy prepaid Tracfone service cards (which have either 60, 120, 200, or 400/450 minutes and 90 extra days of service, or a 1 Year (of extra service) and I think it was 700 minutes), of which the smallest minutes-denomination is available here at the low price of $19.95. (I think the 1 Year cards are about a hundred dollars. I usually get the 120-minute cards, though; they cost about $40, if I recall correctly.) But on the other hand, my phone comes with automatically-doubled minutes for life, so there's that.
It's also not a flip-open phone, so the screen gets smudged and smeared every time I make a call — but it's easy enough to clean it off.
As far as battery life goes: I have its display set to the dimmest setting (and only rarely increase the brightness), and I have the display set to turn off after five seconds; sound profile is almost always set to 'Silent' with no vibration.
I leave my phone on all the time (though I don't often use it), and it lasts for about a week — if not a day or two longer — before I have to charge it. It also only takes about two or three hours to charge.
I've noticed an odd quirk with it, though: if you cross from one Time Zone to another, you have to turn your phone off for a while (maybe as long as an hour or two, but I've never timed it) and turn it back on — otherwise, upon crossing into the new Time Zone area, the phone will constantly report "No Service", even if you ordinarily would have service.
The phone has Internet access, but it's slow, and also terrible because the screen is (for websites, at least) tiny — plus, it costs minutes to access the Internet; I personally view it as a waste of minutes, but perhaps others might be handy in an emergency or something.
It doesn't come with a data cable, unfortunately, but the phone has a MiniUSB or MicroUSB port in the top (usually for the charger(s), or the earbud that I never use); I've borrowed a friend's Kindle Fire HD's USB cable and it fit perfectly.
I think it's a good phone, though. I can call people when I need to, and — if I really need to — I can text people (for a cost of 0.30 minutes per text (or, in English, 18 seconds — but the phone instead shows the silly fraction)). I rarely have problems with service anywhere — the only times I have really had problems with service was when I was crossing Time Zones, and also inside a friend's house that is apparently a Faraday cage for cellular phones (and, in their words, said house is "made of middle fingers" — it's a pretty terrible house).
Alternatively if you want to save even more money then you can get really good results by mixing a black matte paint with a metallic paint at a ratio of 1 to 3.
Am I correct in assuming you mean a mixture that is three parts black matte paint and one part metallic paint? Or do I have those backward?
I myself am looking in to getting a projector sometime down the road, because I'm quite tired of all this ridiculous 'smart TV' nonsense; I miss the days where a television, upon receiving a signal from the power button (either on the TV itself or on the remote), simply turned on — and, in three seconds or so, was displaying a picture.
TVs these days just don't feel like televisions to me. They seem more like all-in-one PCs: they have RAM and CPUs and GPUs and probably 3-D accelerated graphics and rubbish such as that, rather than simply being a tube or a screen designed to display unfiltered whatever signal is being sent to it from the device you've hooked up to it. The image now has to be processed before it can be displayed, resulting in sometimes unforgivable lag (while playing video games) between pressing a button and seeing the button's action happen on the screen.
Somebody give me a shotgun and some rock salt; I've some kids I need to chase off of my lawn.
Ummm, ugh. This and poutine, two reasons to think that long cold winters do bad things to the human mind, not to mention palate.
Americans think cheese is a rubbery long-chain polymer which needs to be dyed orange. It's not even legally cheese, it's "cheese food" or something similar.
There's a dish in the US called Frito Pie.
Seriously, don't even talk to us about poutine -- fries, gravy, and cheese curd are at least recognizable foodstuff. Some of the shit you guys eat doesn't even meet the legal definition of food in a lot of countries.
I would just like to state for the record that, as an American, I think 'American pasteurized processed cheese food/cheese product' is an abomination, and that production of it should be stopped. I personally prefer cheddar, myself -- of varying degrees of sharpness, depending on how I'm using it -- or pepper jack cheese.
Scrapple looks kinda like charred meatloaf. I'm almost curious to try it, but I'm not sure if my stomach would enjoy the experience afterward.
Twinkies were -- ah, who am I kidding? They're pretty much the definitive junk food. (But they were better before Hostess 'came back'. Now they're smaller, rubbery, and have way less cream filling than before. It makes me sad.)
I think Frito pie is a Southern thing -- possibly just a Texan thing, since I'd never before heard about it until I saw an episode of King of the Hill wherein Hank Hill mentions 'Frito pie with Wolf-brand chilli'. I have had Wolf chilli before, though -- and, in my opinion, it's pretty terrible.
Time. It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
It kind of got away from you, 'eh?
I'll drop my two cent's worth here...
For a long time, movies have been losing their appeal to me. The "theatrical experience" is not near what I expect anymore.
I am told the movie starts at 7. I arrive no later than 6:45 so I can be seated well before the movie starts. So its already dark in the theater and they continuously bombard me with loud ads, keeping me from conversing with my friends. And I am considered rude for trying to communicate with my friends before the movie even starts? Ok, 7PM arrives. Movietime! More ads. Previews. Yet more ads. Coke, cars, TV personalities. When is the show? Ok, 30 minutes go by - they have screened all their crap and finally the splash screen for the feature presentation. By this time I am wondering just what I am doing here. This was delay upon delay trying to get eat the popcorn I had ( served in a little box ) so I would have to get some more. And the drinks are single served so I gotta pay for another specimen.
Kids laughing. Babies crying. Phones ringing. Lots of distracting lights from texters. The guy behind me taking off his shoes and propping his feet up on the vacant seat right next to my nose. I ask myself why oh why did I do this?
I have no idea where you live, but dang. I live in Springfield, and usually when I go to see movies, I go to the Wehrenberg Theater; I have never once encountered any of that. Then again, in regard to the texters, they usually play a short 'ad' that politely (though in a tongue-in-cheek way) requests people to turn off their cell phones and neither make calls nor text during the movie.
In regard to somebody propping their feet on the seat next to me: that's never bothered me 'cause I sit in the absolute very back anyway. For me, it's the best view (though I also know that 'best' is highly relative).
And as far as the movie starting late: it starts perhaps as much as five minutes late, but never more than that. All the ads and trivia and previews and other things that the theater does between movies happens before the movie's 'Showing' time. Exempli gratia: I went to a 5:00 showing of Man of Steel; I showed up rather early (got the ticket at 4:22), but the movie itself started at maybe between one and three minutes after 5:00, and that was after the gratuitous ads, and previews for other movies and so forth.
The only thing I have to deal with is people getting up from their seats in the middle of the movie to use the bathroom and/or get more snacks.
Honestly, I'd suggest going to a different cinema (if possible). I don't know where you are, but given your review, I don't think I'll ever go the one you go/went to.
Let's have a big convention to decide how we should call it.
It doesn't matter how you call it -- it's not gonna come.
To be honest, I'd give it up. It'd be kinda like playing Pokemon with a GameShark pre-loaded with all the codes to give you a completely filled PokeDex, all of the badges, whatever pokemon of whatever type(s) and with whatever moves you want, whatever items (particularly Master Balls) you want, infinite items... To me, that's just not nearly as fun, because about five-sixths of the game has already been completed before you really begin.
Likewise, I personally think that having 'brain-level access to all information' wouldn't be as fun; you wouldn't actually be learning anything, because (if you had the device) you wouldn't have to learn anything: you'd call up a piece of information, recite it -- either verbatim, or in your own words (your choice) -- and then, just as quickly as you recalled it, it'd be gone. After a while, you'd barely have any memory of even doing it, because there just wouldn't have been enough synapses in use at the time. It would, I theorize, make us less intelligent, as people would rely on their instant-info devices more and more until hardly even the brightest of them could function without them. Eventually, we'd probably end up with everyone's brains almost atrophying.
And then, of course, someone would probably be foolish enough to try and use their device to simultaneously access all information at once. It would end up giving its user an unprecedentedly-large burst of data, probably overloading (or almost overloading) their brain as it desperately tried to contain all of the information it was given. They would become very silly -- extremely perturbed. They'd be... a freakazoid!
Or, more likely, a vegetable.
Hey, I'm just saying that you can get a whole lot more than 1.21gw out of a single lightning bolt.
Okay, maybe I'm humor impaired. Sorry. I took the original comment as meaning that the poster figured that if BTF was any indication, 1.21gw was about all the power you could usefully get out of a lightning bolt. This doesn't consider the possibility that the bolt of lightning in BTF actually had far more kick than that, the car only needing 1.21gw of it.
Call me morbidly curious, but what sort of worse things could happen?
I must admit, I'm curious: assuming that the average lightning bolt contained, say, ten terawatts of energy -- and, just to be generous, assuming that the lightning bolt in Back to the Future contained only a mere five to seven-and-a-half terawatts — wouldn't the time circuits've been blown up due to the immense power surge?
Of course, realistically-speaking: even if you calculated everything absolutely correctly down to a thousandth (or millionth, even) of a second, the probability of managing to time the connection of the hook to the wire just as the lightning bolt struck the clock tower is phenomenally slim. Marty was very lucky to've managed to pull it off, but if he had been just a fraction of a second too early, the hook would've ended up getting pulled out of the time circuits before they'd gotten enough juice, and Marty would've ended up having to wait around in 1955 while Doc formulated a new plan; and if he'd been just a fraction of a second too late, it seems to me unlikely that there would be enough power left on/in the wire for the time circuits to activate upon the hook's connection with it.
This is additionally assuming that not only do the time circuits activate instantaneously with the introduction of the lightning bolt's energy, but that the time jump also occurs at the exact same time, and that the time jump consumes enough of the lightning bolt's energy quickly enough that the time circuits somehow don't overload before they are, via the time jump, abruptly disconnected from the conductor (the hook and wire).
I may be completely off-base, however. I have no idea; I'm not Randall Monroe. I don't think I know quite all of the intricacies of this stuff, either. I do apologize for this effectively-off-the-topic-of-the-article comment, though; this is just something that's been bugging me for a while.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.