"Although mitigatinos such as ARB_robustness [...]"

Nice Microsoft, nice.

Whilst I believe that WebGL _could_ become a vector for attack, I think this is actually "We want to push DX not GL, let's stick to NIH by saying it's dangerous instead"

I read the article, but I don't really understand why this is 'taking on Apple'. Yeah, it's trying to undermine the app store via Facebook apps, but if that were a huge tactic against Apple, surely it would be working already? (Surely Facebook is accessible and usable with apps as-is without this 'Project Spartan'? In which case if HTML5 apps via Facebook were what people wanted, surely they would already have a big stake in the iOS audience?)

Apple didn't even mention it. At all. It isn't stated anywhere on Lion's feature page and has only been discovered by users testing preview versions. Nice try at a negative spin though.

In a lot of places this just isn't practical at all, mainly just because of power. I can't justify leaving my machine powered on 24/7 especially since I don't use it every day necessarily. Hence I actually turn it off each evening.

I've corrected what I meant to the original post, but I'd just like to point out that under some (non official) variants of ISO 3166, EU is a region code for Europe. It is not as rare as you seem to think it is

I love the way you say you live in the EU under some kind of crappy assumption I don't. I live in Europe too, and I'm aware that EUR is also the Euro. What I was saying is that it's not unheard of for people to (wrongly) refer to Europe as EU or EUR as a form of 'country code', even though it refers to the European Union or the currency.

My mistake here is that I skimmed over where the summary said 'member state' and missed it. Clearly the summary was referring to the actual EU and not the country code. So the summary writer is a moron. My mistake.

Even if that is the case, you're still being a pedant because if you RTFA EU or not EU has squat to do with the issue - the article never mentions European Union or laws against up-skirts at all. What the articles and summary presumably meant to say is that these countries share common conservative outlook on this kind of content or something (because if it was an EU directive then all member states would presumably be effected)

EU is the short code for EUrope in some cases (although normally it's EUR) but if you're going to be really pedantic, yeah, they're not in the EU: But they are in the European Economic Area (EEA) even though they're not a member. That's good enough

It isn't an "ask slashdot" or news, and it isn't even useful information. Yeah, you can put old OSes in a virtual machine. So what?

"what you can expect in the newest kernel" and "points out a few bugs" are the same URL

When I think of this kind of thing, I get the impression we're trying to solve the wrong problem. Would it make more sense to develop chips and systems that could be embedded _inside_ people? That way they could continuously monitor the person (somehow) and a 'tricorder' would simply extract data out of the systems inside the person

'How the heck can they do this, given that Honeycomb is licensed under the Apache Software License v2?

Err, because no one is going to step up and stop them, that's how

They got BSODs by 'overloading' GPUs. By doing what, continuous high-stress activity? In which case, surely they should be sufficiently ventilated etc. isn't that the real issue - surely it's not possible to kill GPUs by just making them a lot of work? Imagine if CPUs did that, we'd be pretty screwed by now

If they don't mean high-stress/high-throughput activities, what do they actually mean - overloading them with textures or something?

...because if MS have are their usual selves, they'll be planning to duplicate the exact same scheme for Windows 8 and beyond

...Pfft, nah, I have no issue with Linux, but I couldn't help adding that in there..

The free / disruptive logic is critically flawed, because a huge majority of people don't even know what an OS is, let alone whether it's free or not. The only way you could spin this is if you said it's free for phone manufacturers - which is a fair point - if they don't have to pay for it, it's more likely they'll put it on their phone. That's an argument against MS - but not Apple. Apple is defined by their software/hardware mix being unique, so to spin it as 'it's not free so it'll lose' makes no sense (Apple doesn't give out their OS to anyone, free or paid)

Same as what they were doing against Apple. They accused Apple of using the wrong font size in their court documents (hence claiming they were invalid) rather than actually fighting the case. They really are at the pinnacle of the BSing