That's part of what I can't understand about Mozilla's attitude. They say all these crappy features are fine, because you can just install extensions to revert to previous behaviour. But then they say you shouldn't install extensions because they're badly written and cause problems with the browser. Honestly, as soon as Chrome figure out how to scroll under Linux without using 100% CPU, I'm switching. I hate the UI, but I'm 95% of the way there already with Firefox so it won't be that much of a stretch.

No, last I checked the cards have six DisplayPort sockets on the back. But there's a big price premium for them, and it is much cheaper to buy multiple dualhead cards. It's a moot point though, according to the FAQ Linux support is only in the planning stage so it's not really an option for Linux PCs.

However if DP daisychaining was to work, presumably you'd need two sockets on each monitor - DP in and DP out/passthrough. I have two screens with DisplayPort inputs on them, but neither of them have an out/passthrough socket so I don't think I could daisychain them anyway.

Multicard multimonitors work fine (probably on most platforms) for simple things like advertising displays that only run one or two programs, but as soon as you try to do anything complex - full screen single-screen OpenGL, multimonitor OpenGL, changing screen resolution, etc. it quickly becomes apparent there's not a huge amount of testing going on for that kind of set up. Application support is lacking too. Only a few of the more popular apps let you select which screen to use when you want to go full screen for example - you'd think it'd stick to whichever monitor the window was on, but usually it just uses whichever screen has pixel (0,0) on it. And good luck if you want a full screen program spread across only a subset of your monitors...

Thanks for the reply. I'm currently using Xinerama (without TwinView, as some of my screens are in portrait mode) with the "Awesome" window manager which works fine (apart from the nVidia bugs like OpenGL freezing on one monitor until you switch virtual desktop on another monitor), but I was thinking more of the physical connection for four screens. AFAIK Intel don't make discrete graphics cards so it sounds like I'd only be able to go triple-head before I have to pick from one of the closed source camps ("closed source" referring to officially supported manufacturer's drivers.)

I've decided to do the same with my next PC, after growing tired of the lacking multimonitor support under nVidia (sure it's usable, but still very buggy.) But what are Intel graphics like with multiple monitors? I currently have four screens connected via two nVidia discrete cards (no onboard graphics) so how could I achieve this with Intel? The fabled DisplayPort daisy-chaining hasn't seem to have materialised, and the one-to-many DP adapters are still stuck at very low resolutions.

Not from a copyright holder's financial standpoint. If you sue a private citizen you won't get much money out of the endeavour, so the idea is to make piracy seem so bad individuals won't do it, because it's not worth suing them all. But when you sue a company for piracy, they are very likely to send you a lot of money. So having businesses pirate software is a great way to get more out of them than you would with normal licence fees (since they are probably using more copies than they would have willingly purchased.)

FYI my Unikoo one (also RTL2832, arrived two days ago) can tune below 30MHz and just over 2GHz. The tuner chip actually goes down to 0Hz but the sensitivity seems to drop off outside the advertised range (i.e. strong signals only. I can tune into the normal AM radio band at ~1MHz but can't see any signals.)

But on that note, does anyone know where SDR newbies like myself can go to discuss these things? There are a bunch of extremely narrowband transmissions all over the place and I have no idea what they are and I'm hoping someone else might know. I'm also looking for a program like HDSDR that runs under Linux, and I have a ton of other questions that seasoned hams will probably just roll their eyes at, so it would be nice to find a forum or someplace that is beginner friendly!

FWIW I have three 8" floppy drives and am happy to help anyone try to recover their old 8" disks with a low-level read from a Kryoflux. Just ask on their forums.

It's interesting, I used to think the same thing but then we switched to Win7 at work. After a few months getting used to its quirks, I have to say it's much nicer than XP. Reading your comment reminded me of when Windows 98 came out and people were saying you'll never get them to stop using DOS.

And of course I would be weirded out entirely based on the medical evidence that a significant number of people take on personality traits of the heart donor. Granted it's a long way off scientific proof, but there's enough there that I would reserve judgement until it was investigated thoroughly. Nothing at all to do with belief in 'magic', but rather understanding the limits of my and humanity's knowledge.

No, but the help text only referred to the Windows version, not Freecell in general. Their point was that the algorithm that they use to generate games only produces solvable ones.

I'm not sure if it still works in recent Windows versions, but with XP and earlier there was an easter egg where you could request game -1 or -2 and it would present a neatly ordered and unsolvable game, just as you describe. I guess this was to prove that an unsolvable Freecell is easy to create, which makes their algorithm all the more special as it only produces solvable games. I am curious how they achieve this.

If you've got no idea at all where your keys are then why not? Might as well look in all the easy places first.

I think using normal stars would be much more difficult, if you're talking about navigation beyond the solar system. Things like brightness will change considerably as you get closer, and motion will appear to increase too. I think measuring the pulse rate would provide the easiest means to identify a given star. Doing this for a bunch of them and fitting it to a known table would be relatively straightforward. I wouldn't be surprised if you could even figure out the current date and time based on the pattern being emitted by a bunch of pulsars.

Google only caches the page text, it still loads the images from the original source. If you click on the 'text-only version' link at the top right then it skips any external content and loads almost instantly.

Just for the record, I too dislike the trend of explanations being posted as videos, but the reason why I linked to a video in this case was because of the nature of the topic. Reading about software defined radio is one thing, but actually seeing the analysis take place in real time is far more interesting in video form. Watching what the radio waves do, and how they sound different as you tune in and out of different signals is something you can only get by watching a video.

Had it been just about anything else I would have gladly omitted a video link.