I think this was supposed to be 250 mWh (mega-watt hours, not mega-watts/hour). Gasoline produces 33.41 kWh/gal, so 7500 gallons would be 250 mWh.

While I don't agree the post-PC age is upon us either, being "post" doesn't mean "non-existent". The examples you gave--high-end gaming, graphic editing, computation, software development--are not typical consumer activities. In the past, I could visit a complete stranger's house and safely assume they would have personal computer in the form of a desktop or laptop. Today, I could quite possibly visit a household that had nothing more than mobile phones and game consoles. In the future, it's going to be the rare specialist who has a traditional desktop system as their main computer device in their household.

I think some people are confusing a device attached to a keyboard and mouse with a PC. I think the future is possibly a "docking station", but it might even be a wireless keyboard/pad combo or even less traditional forms of input. Of course some people will own wired mice and keyboards plugged into a giant stationary tower, but that's going to be an exception rather than the rule.

Facebook was pushing real names long before it sold out to advertisers. The reason social networking sites were pushing real names (and by association, real people) even before the advertising is so you can find people. Social networks aren't just about socializing with people you're already socializing with. Just this week, I had a friend from high school that I've long regretted being out of contact with find me on FB and now we can catch up. That would never have happened if he could only find me by searching for D4rkL0rd.

It took a computer model capable of modeling 3,000 equations to tell Portland that more walking and biking would reduce obesity? How is this not common sense? Are there people who don't think getting more exercise will reduce obesity? Is this a symptom of our society that we need to wait for a scientist to tell us with mathematical formulas and experimental studies that heat burns things and light makes it possible to see things?

If 3 of the 5 things mean extra work and that's the explanation for the delayed release, then why doesn't that delayed game come with those 3 things? I think it would be reasonable to get a PC game if it meant a delay. I would understand that the developer needed to use some of the profits from its game to develop the PC-specific features of the game (although budgeting time and resources in advance would be preferred).

The complaint is that the game is delayed... for a version of the game where the developer pressed the "recompile for PC" button and little more.

Since the reference is to standard DVD-sized discs, it's reasonable that the 100x is to standard DVD capacity, which is right around 5GB.

I believe today's article on fanboyism is relevant here. We might have a built-in predisposition to agressively defending a "brand" and ignoring any evidence that another brand is either better or indistinguishable.

Simple solution... don't allow encrypted traffic. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

And no, I'm not being serious.

You should try using bold type and adding exclamation points.

From every photo I've seen of Afghanistan, it looks to me like they have a surplus of sunlight. I understand solar power can't replace fuel for everything, but couldn't it dramatically reduce the cost of cooling troops? What are the roadblocks and/or definciencies of alternative sources of power?

This might be the most egergious use of "cloud" I've seen yet.

That's easily solved too. Increase storage... exponentially!

The dependency on a good OS and a competent admin?

You know what else is in Group 2B?! Gasoline! Gasoline causes cancer! OMG we have to get off gasoline NOW!

Seriously though, the quote I took from that same Wikipedia article was "[...] less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals." In other words, if you take "science says it can't prove god exists" as "science says god might exist", then yes the headline is correct.

I think it's more accurate to say "not all sales" are lost. Possibly even "most sales", but not none. You're right there is a subset of potential buyers of a game that would never even buy the game at full retail. But are you sincerely claiming that there are *no* potential buyers who given a choice between retail or not playing the game at all would choose to go without? I don't buy that.

That doesn't mean I believe we should end second hand sales. Game devs are complaining about a "theoretical" lose of sales. Wallet makers are losing sales every time someone doesn't steal my wallet, but no manufacturer is going to claim theft is good for their sales and we should avoid prevention of theft. Second hand sales--and borrowing/loaning (a scenario where *nobody* makes money I would point out)--might be counter to profit-making, and possibly carry the seeds of communism, but they are arguably a good thing for a healthy society, and if that means someone doesn't get to make quite as much money as they could have, so be it.