don't they already do this? i suspect they do.

How can it be better than not racing, when it is not racing?

Separated by cause: Software bug vs Hardware bug.

see, that's the problem. consumers don't care for a better product, or rather, they do not select a product based on objective criteria, their sense of value is distorted by marketing tricks. That's why i mentioned human nature. Companies know this and they use it to their best interest.

This idea will be received with open arms, here on /., I'm sure.

I'm somewhat worried (absolutely petrified, I should say) about the effort spent on advertisements. I guess considering human nature it is a necessary evil, but still...

all secondary cells nicd/nimh/liion/etc have a characteristic voltage curve. They start at well above their nominal voltage and can drop well below

the memory effect is very very unlikely (practically impossible) to happen in commercial hardware, even if you try to demonstrate it.

it can only present itself when the battery is discharged and recharged under the exact same cycle for thousands of cycles

it's been observed in satellites but there is no scenario where this will occur in commercial usage. Only under laboratory conditions.

yeah you're right i confused it with what sapolsky said in one lecture about schizophrenia, where a person with this condition can not recognize underlying meanings or colloquial speech (eg "raining cats and dogs" to a schizophrenic is exactly what it says on the label.)

but isn't the inability to reckognise blatant sarcasm an indcation of some sort of psychopathy? (schizophrenia?)

No. Think again.

The atom *is* the indivisible unit of matter. You have atoms of some element... let's use Fe. Once you divide an iron atom you no longer have iron, but *subatomic particles* which no longer comprise matter, neutron stars and bose-einstein condensates notwithstanding.

Did anyone pause to just look at the numbers?

it's mostly fat and sugar. Neither of them are detrimental, of course, but one 100 g chocolate bar has something between a third and a quarter of daily calories. Do people realize what does that mean?

and more interestingly, at least for the ritter sport i happened to have checked earlier today, the 73% cocoa variety has *more* calories than the 50% one. Initially one might be excused to think that it is weird... it is more bitter, how can it be less "healthy"? Doesn't take long to think that 1) it is cocoa *butter*, which is *fat* 2) you won't need to eat as much to satisfy your tastebuds. The 73% one is 100 g portioned into 64 pieces. That's less than 2 grams per piece. Tiny piece, yes, but they pack a punch and they are less than 20 kcal.

Recently i've started noticing that to eat properly healthy is very expensive and time consuming if you are preparing only for yourself. Certainly, as one finds tricks and combinations, to save time and money.

Don't read this as gloating, but where i live i have access to really high quality foodstuffs and i consider myself lucky that i am not in the UStates. I'd sell my granny for a proper texas burger tho... Wendy's and mcdonalds don't really count, do they?

... the foot-shooting, that is, for what? Ten years? For as long as i can remember on /. , that's what we always say. Yet they are still here...

Anyone got any hard data to determine whether they are gaining or losing from all the foot-shooting?

it can not be "solved"

it's not a matter of ingenuity

if the process allows offerring the product to the rightful consumer then it can be copied.

can't get around the idea that you can set one bit the same as another bit, which is the basis of everything digital.

holy shit

a three-digiter

quick, where's my bug-net, before it flies away