Typical of a government bureaucracy, this law misses the point. All the studies I've heard about indicate that hands-free or not, talking on the phone takes your mind off of driving and that's what causes the accidents. I'm not aware of any statistically significant variance in accident rates between hands-free or not. When will we start electing scientists instead of money-fueled politicians? In my life, I hope?
So the patch code for Vista et al won't fit on XP? Hardly suprising - I believe that was a different tcp/ip stack. What MS is actually saying is they won't spend the time/effort/money to develop a patch tailored for the XP stack. There's no such thing as infeasible in this business, only 'too expensive' or 'not in our political best interest'.
About six months Rupert was saying his papers we're going to a paid model, and he sounded awfully darn sure it was the only business model that really made sense. Now his son is saying the model won't work because other organizations give it away (read 'advertising supported model') for free? Anyone else enjoying the irony here? Somebody better explain to Rupert how this tubey-thing works.
493
This is great news for The Associated Press. Now they don't have to dive off of suicide hill all alone. Splat... splat.
Processed foods and raw meat, I usually buy organic. Raw fruits & veggies, I'll buy organic if the price and quality are within my tolerances. I buy/eat a lot more of the latter than the former (which is now why I'm now 30 pounds lighter and all my health problems have disappeared). I've never been under the impression that organic fruits & veggies have 'better' nutrition, although some folks do believe that. I buy organic for what's NOT in it: preservatives, dyes, hormones, antibiotics, etc. And I'm not alone.
As usual, the media tells half the story in an attempt to sensationalize it. John Stewart, please take this one on?
This is based on my own personal experience and resulting opinions, so please accept it as such - I'm not a doctor or nutritionist. First, if you have to work out to maintain a decent weight/shape, you're eating the wrong foods. I dropped my weight from 230 lbs to 185 (I'm 6'1) in six months by adhering to one simple rule: Don't eat processed foods. Fruits & veggies, nuts & berries, home-cooked bread, meat & fish - all good. Anything that comes in a box, can or jar - bad. The food supply has changed radically in the last 30 years, and we're simply not biologically adapted to tolerate it that well. The result is weight gain and sickness - high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, etc. etc. Eat like a cave man, man! If we weren't eating it 5000 years ago, we probably shouldn't be eating it today.
Full disclosure: That was 3 years ago. I've added back into my diet small amounts of cheese, eggs, and some staples that do come in bottles - soy sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, and the like, but I try to choose products containing the fewest possible chem-lab ingredients. I now maintain a weight of 190-195. Oh, and all my health problems from 3 years ago have disappeared, including that sometimes-painful bump on my wrist.
Our minds seem to handle this for us in daily life. While enduring repetitive travel (commuting, for instance), we tune out a little, our minds wander, and the more often we travel the route, the less 'immersive' the experience becomes.
Computer games could mimick this to some degree, perhaps by increasing your maximum allowable speed each time you travel a given route. This should probably be a gradual increase of some kind, perhaps asymptotic towards an eventual uber-max, would be a good place to start.
Earth and Beyond was the last MMO I played - loved it! Totally pissed when EA shut it down. Amazed at their stupidity, I could never understand why they didn't leverage the game as a conduit to move top-level players into another game or level with enticements/rewards, etc. Instead, they told us they didn't want our monthly $12.95 anymore and pissed off a huge cadre of devotees. I swore I'd never give EA another penny (and I haven't). Hopefully, many others did likewise. I'm hoping these bastards will go broke and their IP will be bought up by someone with a seat on the clue train.
Long before Windows, virtual memory was 'invented'. Given that, the term has a specific meaning. As others have mentioned, it is a method for making programs believe they have unlimited memory space, whilst sharing the actual available physical memory between numerous programs. This 'feature' has a cost - references to memory must be translated from a virtual address to a physical one, by memory management hardware (and sometimes software). Until most recently, Intel processors used a separate chip to manage this. AMD put their memory controller onboard a few years ago. In terms of memory performance, Intel lagged for the past few years because their outboard memory controller consumed extra time to do its job. Moving the controller onboard removes an electrical interface or two, thus speeding things up and generally improving efficiencies.
The original post, I thought, was brilliant. Why are we devoting all this chip real estate (or, in the past, chips), to sharing a rare resource (memory) when that resource is no longer rare? Grant, virtual memory gives us other advantages such as ensuring one program doesn't write in the memory space of another, but surely there are other ways to do that. If we did away with virtual memory and returned to the old (ack! DOS) days of physical memory references, we could devote that chip real estate, power quota, etc to other worthwhile pursuits, like making my twitter pages load faster.
You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.
