I once got curious about that myself, so I downloaded some of the full size black and white TIFFs from the NASA site. (I'd link them, but I'm not sure where the archive is today.)
Anyway, if you bring up the shadows a long way in Photoshop in some of the pictures you'll find some little dots that look a whole lot like stars.
If you'd like to test this for yourself, take some photos of the full moon with a telephoto lens. The moon is extremely bright, as nighttime objects go, and the amount of exposure needed by the camera to capture a photo is short. Edit: The moon will be properly exposed, the sky dark.
There's something called the Looney 11 rule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_11_rule. Basically, you can set the camera to these settings and obtain a reliably exposed photo of the moon. There's a similar rule for objects on earth which are in full sunlight called the Sunny 16 rule. The important thing to note is that there is one camera stop difference between these settings. Objects in full sunlight on earth reflect twice as much light as the sunlight reflected from the moon. And in terms of photography, that is a trivial difference.
Try those Looney 11 camera settings indoors sometime. There's not even enough light in your house for those settings to work. You'll see the lightbulbs, some reflections, light coming in through windows, etc, but not much else.
The important point to take away is the difference in the amount of light between the stars in the sky and the surface of the moon, is significant. It's large enough that it doesn't fit into the exposure latitude of color transparency film used (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_latitude), and is very deep in the shadows of negative film if it registers at all.
But rather than take anyone's word, this is something anyone who has a camera can try for themselves.
I am not sure this is the complete explanation.
On Earth we do not see stars because of light scattering (Rayleight and Mie) [0].
In the outer space there is no scattering and the light from each star represents a tiny point in the picture, but this point is bright. After all it comes from a sun. But the original image [1] has a dark background as well.
Maybe it is due to the fact that jpeg compression losses small artifacts or something else.
On some pictures it is possible to see tiny white points such as in [2]
We see stars during solar eclipses, so it is the scattering of the light of the sun that obscures them. It really _is_ the exposure issue, since the surface brightness of the Earth is that of full daylight and so full daytime exposures were needed. Stars will never show up unless longer exposures are used.
Here is an over exposed photo of Earth by Apollo 16 from the lunar surface, with stars visible:
The technical mechanics are similar, but that seems to be the extent of it.
Apple (silently) changed the "failure mode" of batteries from reducing autonomy to lowering performances. Ars shows their power mode as "Recommended", I would guess the observation is a side-effect of that, with the laptop switching from "charged" to "charging" power mode (lowering components performances to charge faster). I saw no note about that, I'd like a re-do with a laptop configured for "best performances".
Of course Microsoft kinda shot themselves in the foot by limiting power input to 100W and designing a laptop with more peak draw than this.
No; in the SB case, tablet battery is being drained while connected to the AC. This is counterintuitive and undesirable (imagine you have a gaming session, then commute).
I don't agree. Polish Government is under attack by the western propaganda because it finally wants to remove the post-colonialism which started after Communism collapsed. How would you explain that food prices are almost same in Tesco or Lidl in Germany and in Poland but a Polish cashier earns £400 a month and a German one £1200?
Ask the union that negotiates the wages on behalf of polish cashier? It's not like the wages in Germany magically started rising or Lidl is well known for philanthropy in Germany. The unions went on strike for the wages and still do. It's money hard fought for.
In any case, I don't think this is something you can blame on "the EU", as many people do. Many many Poles do use the benefits of the EU (just as others do, and rightfully so), either by having infrastructure built (look at the whole transit road from Warsaw down to Bialystock, the A1, ... tons of EU funds went into that) or by using the EU rules to work abroad with little to no friction (just have a short peek at the number plates that travel along the A1 now for christmas, you'll see lots and lots from all EU countries). It's certainly not all good in the EU, but what the polish government currently does - blaming all problems on the evil EU while claiming all benefits for the great polish government - is certainly a recipe to alienate friends and supporters.
If you shut down whole industries so unemployment rate is 25% people are scared of organizing strikes.
Then suddenly foreign capital comes, re-opens shut down companies and magic happens - it wasn't worth to shut it down, Polish people can just work as hard as foreign, but they are just scared of striking.
If this company is owned by foreign capital it is and this is called post-colonialism and it happens in Europe as well. Standard foreign citizens have nothing to do with this, just the politicians.
I'm guessing this correction would make it more confusing for more people than it would help.
Perhaps "AngularJS" and "Angular 2" would make an appropriate compromise between being correct and being clear to people not as familiar with the Angulars' release histories.
You can build whatever you want but if you don't tell anybody you'll fail.
There are hundreds of successful companies with rubbish products but great business connections and marketing.