Bare NAND is presented as a block device. NAND SSDs are also presented as block devices. That does not imply that they are equal. SSDs have a controller that does remapping on the fly, in many cases on the fly compression, bad block handlling and much more. Bare NAND does not have that layer. That is why the ACs comment should be moderated informative, and you should be moderated "plain wrong".

So, no, he doesn't have the wrong definition of nutritious. You just read the first two paragraphs or so.

He also has the completely screwed-up definition of nutritious:

How can something that reduces your exposure to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria not be “more nutritious” than food that doesn’t?

Nutritious means to provide nutrients, not to exclude other stuff. And he also jumps to an unsubstanciated conclusion in that sentence. Minor exposure to pesticides might not be harmful at all. Minor exposure to bacteria is in many cases beneficial, since the immune system builds up immunity...
His article is at least as flawed as the study, and thus can be ignored.

How many AirPlay-compatible TVs are there?

Anything with HDMI.

So my TV is AirPlay-compatible? How come my TV doesn't come up as an Airplay device? There is no such thing as an AirPlay-compatible TV, atleast that I am aware of. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

So you ask how many TV's I can stream to, but then bring up a small subset of TV's that support your WiFi streaming.

Because you specifically said that the i-products could stream to the TV, when that is obviously not the case. AFAIK, there is not a single TV being sold that has AirPlay-support. Again, feel free to correct. There are, OTOH, thousands of different models that do support streaming from Android devices. They don't need to have WiFi, but it's nicer that way.

How is that any different really?

Now, let me see:
System that requires extra hardware, cabling, power. Versus system that has built-in support. No difference there, obviously.

I'll bet you paid more for your TV than I did for mine, and with the extra money saved you can buy an AppleTV to work with whatever modern TV you have.

It was quite possibly more expensive than yours. But the price difference I paid for a "smart" TV, vs. the otherwise identical "dumb" version was somewhere between $30 and $40. I haven't seen AppleTVs in that pricerange, at least not yet. And buying an AppleTV doesn't make my TV AirPlay compatible. I'll just be connecting a HDMI-device to my HDMI-compatible TV.

Why would you prefer a system which limits the TV's you can buy?

Because I don't want more crappy boxes underneath my TV. I don't want more cables messing up the living room. That's not a very hard concept to grasp, is it?
Why would you prefer a system which limits the devices that can stream to your TV? I can stream from Windows, Linux, Android and iOS directly to my TV effortlessly. For me, that makes sense. Why would I buy an extra device that can only stream from OS X and iOS, when my TV supports streaming from pretty much any mainstream device/operating system available?
(Yes, I consider AirPlay OSX/iOS only. It's a proprietary protocol which has horrible support on other oses)

You should try it again, there's more uptake than you think (it's cross platform across a lot of different platforms). Google doesn't show police either.

Well, I don't think I'll be trying Waze every other week. It isn't growing that fast. Google has had proper traffic info since this summer. Waze has nothing yet.

Remember that one time when Google implemented turn-by-turn directions for iOS maps app? Yeah, me neither

How do you propose Google make changes to an app that Apple developed in-house? The Google maps app wasn't written by Google. It was written by Apple. Throw your feces in the correct direction please.

1) Porting it should be really easy. For Apple. Because the Google Maps app wasn't written by Google, but in-house in Apple, using the Google maps API. So Google has to write such an app "from scratch".

It can, using AirPlay.

How many AirPlay-compatible TVs are there? Oh, so you can't stream to the TV, you can stream to another "accessory" that is connected to the TV, and adding to the already bad cable mess. Excellent.
My android devices can stream to my TV. Using wifi. Not a single cable, no extra devices, nothing.

Like the AC said, get Waze. This has crowdsourced traffic... but also Apple wil be offering crowdsourced traffic to (in fact because of the Waze partnership it might even BE Waze traffic data).

Meh. I've tried Waze. Concept good. No uptake among locals. OTOH, google maps gives me pretty accurate traffic info.

The Atom Z2460 beats most phones in benchmarks, and plays in an even field regarding power usage.

Compared to most phones produced last year, yes. Compare it with HTCs One X or the Samsung Galaxy SIII (or the iPhone 5), and try again.
Also, it beats few phones on GPU performance. That, and power consumption, is probably why Motorola slapped a crappy 540x960 screen in the phone.

Also, the Motorola Razr i has a 1780mah battery while the old Razr M had a 2000mah. Both are specified to run roughly 24h.

Spec sheet for the Razr i says "Up To 20 Hours". That's make it worse off for power consumption than the old Razr M.
Seriously though. Are those actual standby numbers? Do these phones have to be charged atleast once daily, without being used?
I easily get 48h+ on my Galaxy Nexus with light usage (a few phonecalls, some sms/gtalk, checking twitter/mail). It's got a 1750mAh battery.

IE doesn't break compatibility with web standards every single release. What IE breaks with every release is bug-for-bug compatibility with older versions of IE. The competent solution would have been to build your company's web site to be compatible with the intersection of the set of web standards with the set of features that some version of IE supported.

The "company website" is doing just fine. It is the applications that aren't.

If they web developers at your company are competent, they can even handle cases where IE doesn't support web standards and never will. For example, IE is never going to support mathml, but you can get support for it through mathjax.

Did you read my post? Didn't think so. Reread my post, read the bit about external vendors/apps. Also read the bit about these applications having no real alternatives. Then just fuck off.

Chrome isn't an alternative at all. But if it was, there's a good chance we'd have about the same release cycle as with IE. Ie, IE6 -> IE8.

Because company intranets often use specialiced apps. Often catering to a unique need, written by specialists in a not-IT-related field. In most of the cases we deal with, these are basically irreplacable apps developed outside our company. These do in most cases, not have commercially viable alternatives.
Which means we have to test the new browser release with 600+ apps and make sure they don't break. This in it self takes a whole lot of time and work. When the troublesome apps are identified, they have to be fixed. Some we can do in-house, other we depend on vendors to fix. Now, this shit costs a lot of money and resources. We went from IE6 to IE8, which reduced the cost somewhat. I expect the same will be done when IE10 is released.

We can't. We depend on specialist applications for which there are no alternatives. You would have known this if you bothered to read my post.

"Don't pick someone using ancient technology". Good for you that you have that choice. If you had bothered to read my post, you would have noticed the part where I said there are several apps for which no alternative applications are available.
Also, "Not using IE" isn't an option, since most of the external apps require IE. Having two browsers for handling different applications is going to be a heck of a mess.

When you conclude on the best solutions by ignoring basic facts of my post, you are displaying gross incompetence.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

So we deserve to be left out in the cold, because we have a need for applications that have yet to be upgraded to support IE9+? Our IT department employs 260+ people, and while you may claim that they "haven't got their shit together" I know these people pretty well, and they're pretty competent. IE8 is three years old. That isn't stoneage. And since IE breaks compatibility every single release, that means that more than 600 of the applications we provide (most external, some internal) have to be updated, re-tested and pushed. Almost once a year. Are you f*cking kidding me?
Chrome with their incremental upgrade model is a complete no-go. We can't have the browser suddenly upgrading and breaking a critical system either. Firefox has major revisions every other week, which is even worse for an enterprise setup.

In a small IT shop with Office and little else, being stuck on XP and IE8 would be gross incompetence. For a large company supporting more than 3k applications, it's not so much a choice. And it's not as easy as switching to other applications either, since many of these are specialist apps for which no alternative applications are available.

Businesses are switching to Windows 7 only because all the new computers they buy come with Windows 7 installed. If they could still get new computers with Windows XP installed, they would buy them.

What kind of business would do that? The brand new Dells we purchase are reimaged with a ready-made XP-image. We don't care about what OS the computer comes with. This is pretty common, and you apparently know nothing about enterprise management.