Tablet focused design is why Flash isn't as ubiquitous as it once was and why javascript has gotten (slightly) less annoying. It is certainly not the reason why Yahoo is shuttering is web directory.

Yes, you are wrong. Back in 2007 AMD started releasing developer documentation and support for the development of open source drivers. This is the "Radeon" driver that you may see in repositories, and it's pretty good at this point. I don't know if 3D is fully supported, but for desktop stuff it's stable. That's in contrast to the Nouveau open source driver for Nvidia cards, which is reverse engineered.

What you may be thinking of are the closed source drivers for Linux: Nvidia's closed Linux driver is better than AMD's. AMD's used to be notoriously bad, but it's gotten better over time. To my knowledge it's still not as good as Nvidia's, but they're both usable at this point.

It was just a matter of setting efficiency standards, if they just banned incandescents then we'd be stuck with some equally inefficient option. By setting fairly rigorous standards they keep the focus on the important part without dictating how that goal should be met. The fact that this precludes one particular outdated technology is a feature of that technology, not the legislation.

If you want to invent a futuristic super-efficient incandescent bulb then you're welcome to do so. The fact that you can't isn't because the man is holding you down, it's because incandescent bulbs are horrible.

I don't think that's true, a monitor will outlast a video card by years and years. The difference between G-sync and Adaptive Sync is that if people start buying monitors with Adaptive Sync Nvidia will start supporting them. Everybody wins. (except Nvidia's bean counters)

Like most complaints about the government that I see on Slashdot, this never happened. They set energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, that's it. Some companies decided to meet those requirements with CFLs, some with LEDs, some with high efficiency incandescents.

Also, CFLs aren't new, they've been around for decades. This wasn't a matter of needing further development time, this was a matter of poor quality. Probably not the conspiracy that the article is speculating about, but who knows.

Not according to the article that the GP linked. Do you have some more authoritative source?

$350k for a cancer researcher? Crap, that's far more than I'd expect. I actually RTFA thinking that I'd tell you off for making up a ridiculous number, but that is indeed what it says.

I shouldn't complain, better that it goes to someone doing something useful than yet another financial stooge, but it's still a big number.

But why would you want to? The interface is completely different.

Yeah, this isn't so much encouraging news for net neutrality as it is a discouraging illustration of our willingness to censor. Though, as I recall, a large number of the breast complaints were form letters sent by a single organization.

In some countries this wouldn't fly, but the US has pretty weak anti-trust laws and Microsoft is not in a dominant position in the tablet market anyway.

There's no blanket prohibition against giving away your product to achieve marketshare (in the US) - this is the Gillette model, after all.

This is on the nose. I'd love decaffeinated coffee without the additional costs and loss in flavor from the decaffeination process, and it's not as though this would impact caffeine seekers in any way - caffeine can be added back in whatever proportion you'd like. They already do something like this with many products: all milk is skimmed, for example, then some of the fat is added back to make 1%, 2%, and "whole" (3.25%) variants.

How about a British prince then? They're basically just celebrities.

I think the point he was making, a well-trodden point, is that wealthy / famous people have more privileges, including legal privileges, than normals. From the bizarre amount of attention this has gotten you'd think this was new and shocking ("What?! Pornography?! On the internet?!?!") as opposed to an everyday occurrence.

It's certainly a valid point, and it's important to keep bringing it up when something like this happens, but it isn't exactly new or insightful. I don't know why he did the stupid karma disclaimer.

That's a reasonable point, Russell Edwards doesn't matter to this story. Though it's easy to guess why he was mentioned - he likely wants a little fame / notoriety / credit for his part in this. A journalist can get further by stroking egos than not.

That's likely true - just throw in whatever facts you know in order to flesh out the story a little. I wonder a bit about the interview though which would lead to that question.

This is slightly off-topic, but why this?

Why do they throw his age in there? Why does it matter? Is that in any possible way related to the story? I'm not calling out this story in particular, I see this all the time. I'd like to know the motivation behind the trend.