I've run all of the updates on OS X and I still got the vulnerable message. A couple of days after the bug was public and the patches were available, I grabbed the source from opensource.apple.com, applied the FSF patches (which required some manual intervention, as they didn't apply cleanly) and recompiled. I'm now running a patched bash that isn't vulnerable, but it's not the one that Apple supplied.

I find this really hard to believe. I've been using CFLs exclusively for over 10 years - mostly buying cheap ones - and I've never seen one that takes more than about half a second to come on. The time taken to get to full brightness I can almost agree with (this was actually why I started using them originally - having a bedside light that took a couple of minutes to get to full brightness was nice) but in recent ones (i.e. ones from the last 4-5 years) the warm-up period has been 5-10 seconds, although growing to about 20 seconds after 3-4 years of use.

Let's do it again. The last set of CFLs I bought cost 50p each (the ones before that were 30p, but that was a special offer). According to my electricity bill, I pay a tiny fraction of a penny under 15p/kWh. That means that the bulb costs slightly more than 3kWh of electricity. It's a 15W bulb replacing a 60W one, so that's a 45W saving. Assuming that the incandescent is free, then it takes 75 hours of operation for it to save money. At 3 hours a day, that's 25 days. When I first did the arithmetic, the CFLs were 3-4 times more expensive, so it worked out at 3 months.

This is why I find the resistance to CFLs so hard to understand. It's saved me quite a bit of money over the last decade.

When I did the arithmetic quite a few years ago, the break even point for CFLs was about 3 months. The bulbs I bought back then all lasted 6+ years. The cost of a CFL is around the cost of 3-10kWh, depending on the brand, so even if they incandescents were free you don't need the CFLs to last very long to break even.

Sounds like something's wrong with your wiring. I switched to using CFLs over a decade ago and the shortest lifetime I've had on one is 6 years (I think - one might have gone after 4). The first time I moved house, I brought a load with me, but they'd become so cheap that I didn't bother the last time. The only incandescents I've had last longer than a year are ones that are rarely used. I worked out that - back when they were expensive - that after 3 months of operation they'd saved me more in electricity than the cost of an equivalent incandescent, so they've been a pretty good investment.

I don't know why that's a surprise for you. Incandescents are also limited in terms of lifetime by being turned on and off. The thermal shock of taking a very thin wire filament from room temperature up to white hot in a fraction of a second is not very good for its lifetime. That's why lightbulbs are most likely to break when you turn them on.

Listening to users isn't necessarily a good thing. Henry Ford said that if he'd asked his customers what they wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse. This is especially true of UI design, because most people (even power users) really don't measure what they're spending time doing and get into unproductive patterns. The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts. Or even vaguely competent people who had read an HCI book. They went down a path of doing things that an uninformed user and a usability expert could both agree were stupid. Apparently they've improved recently, but it cost them a lot of users.

Resting and waking heart rate are often confused

It would have been helpful if you explained the difference. Google is not very helpful for "waking heart rate", but "resting heart rate" seems to be the one that you have when you wake up in the morning.

It seems that I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. In lactose-tolerant people, lactose is broken down by enzymes produced by the human body, and the reaction product is absorbed. Lactose-intolerant people don't produce that enzyme. What specifically mutated bacteria that take care of the lactose in a benign or less pleasant way are you referring to? And what statement exactly do you wish to have a reference for?

XP also tweaked the VM subsystem in a way that was quite noticeable if you had more than about 256MB of RAM (better performance), but the main feature it added was remote desktop (although only in the Pro version). I was quite tempted to upgrade from 2K for the remote desktop stuff.

I'm not a huge fan. The goal of D was to produce a better C++, but if you're designing a new language then C++ really isn't where I'd choose to start. It's not as bad as Ruby (I can't imagine the kind of person who would look at Smalltalk and say 'what this language really needs is Perl-like syntax'. Actually, I can't imagine the kind of person who'd say that about any language. Including Perl). Rust is probably the modern language that I like the most.

What I was trying to say: if the intestine does not absorb nearly all the carbohydrates that are in the food, you will get sick. Since people don't get sick (bloating, flatulence, etc.) all the time from their normal diet, it must mean that the intestine absorbs nearly everything in their diet.

I was using an old netbook (Atom N270) as a home media server, keeping it running Ubuntu Desktop 9.something. But it was too much of a pain to maintain: keeping it on mains power for a year seems to break the battery-charge-level monitoring, which makes the internal battery useless as a UPS. Too many processes insisted on writing to files every 5 minutes, which was spinning up the hard disk all the time. Also, it got uncomfortably hot with the lid closed all the time.

So I got a second-hand thin client (Via 1 GHz CPU, 1 GB internal flash drive, 1 GB RAM, gigabit ethernet) for 75 euros, installed Ubuntu Server 12.04 and a USB hard disk that has a auto spin-down feature. The 1 GiB "SSD" turned out to be too small for OS and log files, so I augmented it with a 4 GB USB thumb drive, while cursing that it is very hard to find one that performs well on lots of small writes (With 4 kB random block write tests, the throughput of most sticks is less than 0.01 MB/s). This thing takes about 13 W of power while idle (26 euros/year at our rates) and last time I looked, there are no alternatives on the market that have comparable horsepower for much less watts. The server hosts media files (MiniDLNA) and backups (snapshots) of the various computers/tablets/phones. Once or twice a year, I sync the disk with an external USB drive. If my house goes up in flames, all will be gone.

Since my media storage is mostly audio, a 1 TB drive is plenty. When I read here from people that have 40 TB of storage in NAS arrays, I wonder what they are hoarding. At 5 GB per hour of video, that's 8000 hours!

Ubuntu 12.04 server sucks for a headless server. I think it was waiting for a keypress after an unclean boot. (There was a comment on a forum of a guy who had to drive 100 miles to a datacenter to attach a keyboard and press Enter). That one was solved, but now it just hangs during filesystem checking at boot time - some bad boot-order dependency.

Network: ethernet in living room (A/V center) and work room (desktop/printer); wifi elsewhere. Visitors get the wifi password. Non-media file transfers and backups are always over ssh. (It t1urns out that the gigabit ethernet was overkill; the VIA CPU can barely saturate a 100 Mbps ethernet line, with the faster SSH cipher (arcfour).

"your body isn't absorbing every calorie you put into it. Your body absorbs until it has what it needs"

Consider what happens if a lactose-intolerant person drinks a glass or two of milk: about 25 g of carbohydrates that their body can't absorb. It will lead to flatulence and diarrhea as a result of gut bacteria feasting on those unused calories and the inability of the body to extract water effectively from a sugar solution.

The fact that this is an abnormal response shows that the normal thing is to absorb every calorie.

Does anyone know of any iPhone 5/5S users who complained that their phone was too thick?

I see no reason why Apple felt it necessary to slim the device down even more - when they could have just had the same thickness as the 5/5S resulting in no silly bulge for the camera.

Plus, they could have put a bigger battery in the case and maybe get an hour or so extra time out of the thing. Which I can imagine would be a lot more useful than shaving a couple mm off an already perfectly slim enough phone.