Sure - but the bit where it remembers what you picked last time, orders the search, and more or less minimizes the keystroke isn't available in 7. For example:[windows][s][h][a][down arrow][down arrow][enter] will get me sharepoint designer 2010 instead of sharepoint designer 2013 (no I'm not trying to start a flame war about sharepoint, it's just a program I have to use multiple versions of and the first example that came to mind). It's a way shorter search-and-launch than the way you do it in 7.

Actually I prefer 8 to 7. At first it was a bit tough to get used to, but now I find myself missing features anytime I have to use a Windows 7 machine. The Windows key and typing a few letters of the program I want to launch is probably the biggest new feature for me - it's as fast as a Linux terminal autocomplete and works for any installed program or searchable document (proper indexing is important). Right clicking the start button is probably the other feature I like a lot that 7 doesn't have (well 8.1 has it).

Unless he transmitted any information to Oculus before formally resigning from Zenimax - such as things like, you know, texting, emailing, talking, illicitly copying data to his gray matter, entangling photons, collapsing wave functions by observing, etc...

Yeah? Well the original Athlon 64 dual core isn't compatible with modern Window's operating systems. The instruction set which prohibits it from being used was around at the time, AMD just didn't put it in.

At least the AC didn't say minivan - that implies kids and you don't see expenses like that until it's time to pay for the nursing home.

No no no. They've said that range isn't the issue it's refueling time that's the problem! :)

It will be interesting to see how this "diagnostic game" field develops with the aging of generations familiar with electronic game platforms. Calibration of the test to the subject could become far more critical when we have a greater prevalence of sexagenarian gamers. It'll be similar to the problems one might encounter giving a cognitive vocabulary test to equivalently aged persons - one of which is an English professor. Without some intelligent means of accounting for differing patient baselines in gaming ability, false positives may present a greater problem in the future than is experienced now with these source papers.

I see you've dealt with Verizon billing before too.

I disagree, at least in the extent to which survival at the end of the trip (be it one way or not) is not a reasonable probability. It's not as simple as "do you want to take that risk?" Risk implies probability, but planning for a one-way trip is a certainty.

An organization does not have the ethical right to ask for this certainty, especially when there is no chance that the asking could be done without some form of coercion (i.e. implicit do it for your country/honor/science/show you're not a coward/etc...). We don't even ask this of our armed forces. When people join, they know there's a risk (i.e. probability) that they may die - and in fact that they may later be ordered into a very bad situation - but those are situations (often in the heat) where plans went very wrong, or situations involving the kind of math where you spend infinity to gain infinity. And even in that example, the action was voluntary by situation, not by designed plan. We have no such pressing desperation in scientific exploration.

We can design exploration plans that allow for something other than suffocation or starvation as an end point. I would say that exploration with pioneering and settlement are ethically reasonable places to solicit volunteers. Even sustained exploration where limited resources are not an assurance of death (i.e. "an ongoing mission to seek out...") could be reasonable. But I think any mission which involves planting a flag, running a few experiments, and then opening one's helmet is ethically flawed - especially when patience will let us solve the intrinsic survival problems.

Meh - doubling capacity is so last century. Look at optical media - just by punching a hole in the middle you go from zero useful storage to a lot!

P.S. Ok, so I punched a hole in my Bards Tale character disk so my sister could have her own side (and not screw up my stuff).

Nah - there's a process called a hazard analysis that should reveal the potential hazards of what somebody is doing. Why these aren't performed at an academic institution is a separate problem. The problem in academic institutions which doesn't exist in either corporate or government research labs is a lack of line management responsibility. The university culture generally allows for throwing a professor (or even a department) under the bus when something goes wrong and OSHA has allowed them to get away with it. In other areas it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that line management is responsible for safety.

For example look at NIST Boulder's plutonium incident - the director of the entire facility is who lost the job because it was his responsibility to have a lab safety program that was sufficient and effective. What is only just starting to wake up academic institutions is the fatal UCLA lab fire which the university was able to plead out of criminal charges, but the professor in charge has not. While the university had some pretty stiff penalties as part of the plea bargain - all of the accountability has come down on the professor and not the university management chain (i.e. with the criminal charges against the university, it should have landed at least at the VP level). I don't think universities will actually foster a safety culture until core administration accepts that the responsibility for doing so is theirs - and this is not likely to happen as long as a professor can be thrown under the bus (whether or not he or she deserves it) and administration escapes major personal (as opposed to institutional) penalties.

Hmm... I think the most important part of funding education in this manner is to link programs or schools (possibly even the college level) to the degree taxed. This would have the intrinsic effect for limiting the degree program to the employment base that will be able to utilize those jobs. The reciprocal funding should then be able to manage gradual changes in employment demand - and large demand shifts could be funded through government or corporate "scholarships" which would be in effect a future tax credit. You could also allow for traditional payment for those who wish to make it through school without future tax burdens (i.e. I had zero debt at the end of my degrees - a combination of scholarship and work).

As a more critical immediate reform for education funding/loans, I think there should be a loan cap based on some multiple of the average yearly income expected for that degree (and that multiple shouldn't necessarily be greater than one). I think it's borderline criminal to allow young kids to pursue a degree while simultaneously loaning them money that you know will be many times their expected annual income - and then making sure that there's no way out of that debt - not even bankruptcy.