I loved the idea and for a couple of years I was using Bitcoin as a currency whenever I could. I even sold some speakers to someone over 1000 miles away on Craigslist once since they were willing pay me in BTC in advance.

At this point though, and really for the last 3-4 years or so, it’s fairly useless as a currency and it’s an environmental nightmare.

Get the Synapse and with the cache on rails accessory for your laptop. It's an amazing bag.

Tom Bihn Synapse 25 with their Cache on Rails accessory for my laptop. Made in the US with quality materials and workmanship.

I work for a small company while my wife works for a large corporation. She makes more than I do, but I work less hours and don't have to deal with the politics.

Mechanical watches, think Rolexes, have smooth second hand movements but they are acutally still ticking, just about 6 times a second. The Apple Watch, on the other hand, has a second hand with 60 ticks per second so that the second hand is about 10 times smoother.

Some "hi-beat" watches tick 10 times per second (still well below 60). Seiko's Spring Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Drive) offers continuous movement, but it's not completely mechanical (a quartz oscillator controls the escapement). I would rather have one of these than an Apple Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m-5YpNUwgc

(Edit: only now have I noticed it was already mentioned in another comment)

Correction: Rolexes tick 8 times a second (or 28.800 beats per hour, as is used by watch people). 6 are the vintage ones.

You are wrong. The movement moves at 8 Hz per second, but it actually takes two cycles to actually tick once, so it's actually 4 ticks per second.

The old watches tick at 3 times per second on 6 Hz movements.

No, I'm not. It's 8 ticks per second. I have one and I have checked. Look at this video of the hand up close (it's a 28800 bph movement):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxgahvNH3q0

I don't know many mechanical watches (especially Rolex) that ticks at 6 times per second. That requires the balance wheel to be beating at 12Hz.

Old Rolex tick 3 times per second on 6 beats/second balance wheel movements, and modern Rolex do 4 ticks per second on 8 beats per second movement.

That's incorrect. The seconds hand moves 6 times in one second on my 7S26 movement (21,600 bph). On a modern Rolex, it would move 8 times in one second. You can check this with a high speed camera (such as the one in the iPhone 6). Nonetheless, there are vastly superior mechanical drives out there that are continuous (Seiko Spring Drive for example).

True as long as there are sufficient number of pixel density to movement of 60 ticks per seconds.

Antialiasing.

And Bulova has the Precisionist line that moves much more smoothly:

> In 2010, Bulova introduced the Precisionist, a new type of quartz watch with ultra-high frequency (262.144 kHz) which is claimed to be accurate to +/- 10 seconds a year and has a smooth sweeping second hand rather than one that jumps each second.

Huh. Cool. I always wondered why they didn't make quartz second hands jump in smaller amounts. Something difficult or not efficient to achieve, I guess.

By the way, Seiko has had a movement for some time that is rated to +/- 5 seconds a year. I think it was on a special edition of the Grand Seiko line (already rated to around 10 seconds a year, so you'd get 5 seconds off less. Yay!)

No webview.

So I guess you don't use any Apache licensed products at work either? Since the only reason Facebook added the PATENTS file is to keep the new BSD license in line with their old Apache license. http://www.apache.org/licenses/

Apache 2.0's license clause does not have an equivalent to "The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging [...] that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable."), which is the problematic part as it means that you can't even defend yourself if Facebook sues you.

The Apache version is:

> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

This seems equivalent to me, is the Facebook one broader?

That says that if you claim that the thing being licensed violates your patents, your grant to their patents covering the thing is terminated. Facebook's patent grant has that, but also invalidates the patent grant if you claim that any of their patents are invalid (which you are likely to do if Facebook sues you for violating one of their patents).

So what if Apache committed something that is infringing on your patents and you sue? Does that mean you would have to stop using that specific apache licensed software (e.g. hadoop, maven, etc)

You lose the patent grant for that specific product: e.g. if you sue someone over a patent infringement in Hadoop you lose the patent grant for Hadoop, but not Maven. This may or may not mean that you have to stop using Hadoop.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm using my best guess. But you have to be on the offensive and sue Apache to terminate their license, Facebook's license says even claiming their patents are invalid terminates the license.