Ah, so you've got a completely normal consumer scenario down pat, then :)

And for the more complex data-binding scenarios, this is pretty much the best approach to getting it done quickly anyway. you quickly drag/drop the ui, set it up so that it shrinks/expands the right way, and then move on to doing the plumbing using the code view of the xaml. I spend more time hooking up esoteric databinding scenarios than I do fiddling with the UI (although i do enjoy using blend for the basic design aspects, i just don't need the storyboarding it provides when working on WPF)

The phone can't just remember the wifi key? seems like a rather essential feature to me.

It won't, on launch, but it'll probably catch up with one of the first few 6-month mandatory updates (the carrier can't hinder that process either, it's in the contract they have with MS), i'd imagine.

That said, i can count on one hand the number of times i've used copy&paste on my old g1. I think i did it to copy content from failed SMSs that bounced due to network congestion/no signal, and that's about it, so i find it hard to get worked up over that. Perhaps i wrote more on my phone (i tend to browse content, and issue shorter messages, c&p just doesn't seem as necessary yet), which is likely if i had access to word.

It seems like they're trying to cloud the issue, since there are two problems. One that all smartphones face: Your hand can capacitively interact with the antenna in the phone, and cause signal loss.
The other, that the Apple iphone 4 supposedly faces (And didn't in previous generations): bridging the gap between two different antennas causing noise to be effectively introduced to both, drastically reducing signal.

The thing is, you can trigger the latter problem without your hand being near it by using something metal to bridge the two antennas, I've seen that in action.

A Rubber bumper around the edge is enough to prevent problem two, and problem one just isn't as significant a loss, so it's acceptable.

Well, sure, but it's not a hard line. Over time, the offshoot that became chickens (gallus gallus) would have been less and less capable of breeding successfully with other members of the parent population (gallus) due to random combinations of genes, and some combinations being less viable.

Then you reach the point for things like horse+donkey, where a mule winds up being sterile. This is where you start to declare separate 'species', but this may still not apply to the whole population on either side just yet.

Our nomenclature for things like "Horse" or "Chicken" is simply a useful tool to describe a population of specific sets of genes. What happens if you geographically separate the chicken population into groups for a long time? Speciation. So which group do you still call 'Chickens'? Both? But if they're separate species, how do you call them Chickens?

So, to sum this lot up. Chicken is purely a contemporary term. There's no definable point at which you can go back and say "not a chicken", since you'd be playing the same game that creationists play when they make an arbitrary division between man and ape when looking at fossilized remains. There is no useful point at which you can go back and say definitively, "Not a chicken". You can only go back and say "member of ancestor species", because they could still inter-breed.

This is mostly irrelevant. A "Chicken" is just a point in time of a particular leaf point in the tree of life. Whatever creatures that were part of that tree that laid the first "chicken" egg was still able to mate with the first "chicken". The point at which you call them "Chickens" is when they're no longer able to successfully mate (as a population) with other offshoots from the tree, or the original, larger, body.

There's no hard point at which one species changes into another (which will confound your average creationist, who are constantly asking for there to be a sharp division between ancestors and child species), it's a gradual process involving thousands of mutations over many generations. Whatever laid the first Chicken egg was still a chicken, and if you go back far enough, it wasn't a chicken, so much as it was the ancestral node in the tree of life's species.
See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/chickens_eggs_this_is_no_way_t.php

Ask and ye shall receive, from an Evolutionary Biologist, no less: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/chickens_eggs_this_is_no_way_t.php

(PS, the research says not what the article promotes)

There is, via a roundabout way. The Anandtech review of the issue used a hack to get the S/N in dB.

This is only true for buying retail editions of Windows 7. OEM licenses are still either 32bit or 64bit, and not both, just like they were with Vista.

Ugh. i just had a flashback to the keypress virus.

Yep. Probably the most secure browser in the world is a 64bit one, since you can't run any plugins, and you're using one of the most uncommon stack layouts... :P

if (MAJOR_VERSION >= 6 && MINOR_VERSION >= 1)
{
      DoXPStuff();
}
else
{
      Fail();
}

And then we end up with messes like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/02/13/72476.aspx

Because when i was growing up, the tune 'kookaburra sits in an old gum tree' was a staple of my primary school activities. And i'm willing to bet we were singing it without a license. And we all know how brain-dead the recording industries are (Australia's is just as bad, if not worse, than the US's, in some respects.)

Except that that pressure has already taken place, the game already changed, but not that anyone here would believe that. That's why XP SP2/3 happened. And radical changes in Vista, and even further radical changes in Win7, such that many exploits that get released flat out don't work on Vista/Win7.

All of this doesn't negate the time-factor. Beating someone for already agreeing with you, saying "hey, this shit takes time and effort, stop beating us, we'll get to it" and then continuing to beat them strikes me as pointless, and i'm not surprised that people who acting in this pointlessly vindictive way are being ignored or blamed for active exploits.