Unfortunately, Windows' security model is somewhat different to X's, and under Windows you can't just have two processes rendering into the same window without them being written quite carefully to cooperate with each other. Chrome is able to do this, but AIUI the method they use to make it work is (1) so complicated nobody else has even tried to make it work and (2) relies on a hack that fails if they try to have one of the processes as 64-bit and the other as 32-bit. AFAIK, Chrome is the only browser that runs NPAPI in a separate process under Windows.

Varies depending on the precise implementation. The smallest I'm aware of is the Allwinner A13, which has a 176-pin package. It's possible that some application-specific chips have fewer: the A13 is designed to run with external RAM and NAND flash, high colour LCD display and multiple additional external peripherals, which explains the pin count -- but if you designed a chip with onboard RAM and storage for an application where monochrome display was standard and you only wanted to talk to a handful of peripherals, I'm sure you could get the pin count down to something a lot more manageable.

No. Firefox is 32-bit because it has to support NPAPI plugins, which are mostly (if not all) 32-bit DLLs, and Windows can't load a 32-bit DLL into a 64-bit process.

gameboy tetris is too easy. if you want to make sure people are paying attention, you want a version where pressing the 'drop' button at the wrong time is instant death. The gameboy version just accelerates the block, IIRC.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02861092 finding that under 60kW of radiation of the same type as wifi, 90+ hours of exposure is required to prevent plant growth over a radius of 50 metres. So say you're looking at 900 hours exposure (i.e. about the length of time the referenced expirement would have taken) and for simplicities sake 60mW (which is more power than a wifi router actually emits), the radius receiving plant-killing levels of exposure would be about 0.5cm. If you put your plants right on top of the router, they may suffer a touch. Otherwise, they'll be fine -- which suggests something went wrong in the reported experiment other than wireless interference with the plants.

No, he didn't. According to the story I read, he installed another hide in a separate vehicle after seeing the drug money and realising what it was.

Many people may have no keys at all.

If they can break keys in "a few hours", you don't have to make their top 10 list for them to break your key. "A few hours" per key = a few thousand keys per year. With most targets staying under scrutiny for multiple years, this means you probably only have to be in the top 10,000 to have your keys cracked. I'd imagine it's fairly easy to end up there by mistake.

Really? They're in Tesco in the refrigerated dessert isle, right next to the cheesecakes. Live a little, wander around a supermarket and try something you've never tried before. I did that last week and ended up with a tub of Marshmallow Fluff. Hope they consider that in a couple of versions time... :)

If you mean "dairy milk" it is worth noting the legal battle that Cadbury's have had over whether it can actually be called chocolate or not (it has too high a proportion of non-cocoa-originating fats for at least some definitions). It apparently cannot be sold as chocolate in the US, and the EU were considering implementing similar rules at one point (although a compromise was apparently reached). By US labeling requirements, it would have to be sold as a chocolate-flavoured bar containing partially-hydrogenated vegetable fats. The stuff Hershey's sell under the same branding is completely different, and is actually chocolate.

Most of us brits with taste consider it an embarrassment to the nation, and are rather glad that Kraft have taken over -- they can keep it, now it's not *really* British any more. We're happy to have Thorntons as the only remaining nationally-distributed British-owned chocolate manufacturer, so we can now claim to make some passably-good chocolate, even if it's not *quite* as good as the Swiss or Belgian stuff. :)

Some would argue that having a codebase that's so hard to understand that static analysis tools get confused about what it does is a bug in itself.

Or, to put it another way, "static analysis tool fails to detect many potential errors in code whose authors use the same static analysis tool to find and fix potential errors." Which is hardly surprising.

Ostensibly.

There is a study that keeps being brought out to justify the use of polygraphs in job applicant security screening. The only problem is that the study was studying an entirely different use of polygraphs (determining whether the test subject performed a specific act where direct physical evidence is available), and security screening is known to be an area where they have substantially lower accuracy -- and they only just barely managed to be better than chance in the study. Paraphrasing the words of the American Psychological Association, there has never been a study examining the use of polygraphs for security screening which is not methodologically flawed, and there is no known physiological reaction to lying that cannot also be caused by other effects (e.g. stressful situations, particularly like you might experience in, say, an interview for a job you really really want). So, no, at least for the purpose under discussion here: polygraphs *are* complete pseudoscience, and there is no statistically significant correlation that has been demonstrated in a methodologically sound scientific study.

I don't know about your jurisdiction, but mine has "unfair contract terms" legislation. One of the Act's cited examples of a term which is unfair and therefore not enforceable in any contract is a term which:

has the object or effect of
[...]
enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid
reason any characteristics of the product or service to be
provided

Quoting from government advice on interpretation of this law:

Where circumstances could prevent the supply of the
goods or services agreed (or a version of them that the consumer has
indicated is acceptable) then the consumer should be able to cancel the
contract, and receive a refund of prepayments.

A term which could allow the supplier to vary what is supplied at will –
rather than because of bona fide external circumstances – is unlikely to be
fair even if customers have a right of cancellation and refund. The
consumer should never have to choose between accepting a product that is
not what was agreed, or suffering the inconvenience of unexpectedly not
getting, for example, goods for which he or she may have an immediate
need, or a long-planned holiday, just because it suits the supplier not to
supply what was promised.

If you have similar legislation in your jurisdiction, you may want to challenge the decision not to supply what you paid for in court. You may be entitled not just to a refund, but also compensation.

IANAL; this is not legal advice; consult a legal professional before commencing court proceedings; etc.