OK. You're being a little short-sighted. I can't run ProTools or Adobe Audition on any tablet. Or really even any laptop for that matter. Some work just takes a nice big honkin' PC that sometimes needs special hardware put inside. Or maybe I want to buy a brand-new PC with a really expensive top-end video card. Or maybe I found out that my powersupply just isn't large enough to power an i7 and the array of harddrives I need to put in it. Or maybe I want to switch out the storage system for something really off-the-wall.

As long as there are optional components, there will need to be PCs that accommodate those options, not necessarily for upgrading Ye Olde hardware. It's about customability.

Really, I think it's hype. I cannot ever see a time in the future I would buy a system that I cannot configure and upgrade. As long as there are high-performance games, there will always be a need for new graphics cards. As long as there is a need for speed increases, there will always be some new bus technology. I really am not worried for Newegg.

uhm... say! Do you eat eggs?

That's still proper punishment.

I'm replying to your sig. I love The Princess Bride.

Well, good day! Rest well and dream of large women.

And yet their calculation of how much piracy cost is still inaccurate and arbitrary at best. If Adobe decided that Photoshop should cost $150,000 and I decided to pirate it, it doesn't mean they lost $150,000 in software sales. Simply because I don't even make that much and could never afford the product at that price no matter what.

But what is also missing from the equation is the benefit Adobe gains if I *do* pirate their software. If I am a home user, and I pirate Photoshop, and I learn the software and become quite good with it, and if I land a job doing graphics, my employer will ask what software I want to use. I will more likely say "Photoshop" because that is what I know. Thus, in that instance, they actually got a sale they probably wouldn't have otherwise, because I would have just learned Gimp or some other free graphics editor, and just suggested to use that instead.

Sound impossible? I just described my situation exactly.

Look, I know this Ted Nelson is a brilliant guy and all, and I've seen his Xanadu creation, and it's a nice thought. But honestly, there are too many layers to things to be able to draw a solid line for what links to what. What part of an excerpt do you link? Back to the original book? Back to the dictionary for individual meanings of the words? Simultaneous links to other commentary? See what I'm saying? A word or phrase could have a multitude of links pointing every-which-way. It would be incomprehensible mess. Not to mention, it doesn't fit with the current state of Intellectual Property rights at all. It simply cannot work that way, as good as an idea that it is.

Uh, you forgot to ask for the service tag. :-)

Why? I like the news.

Sorry, your little quality of life index thingy is invalid... it didn't have Texas on it.

Now wait just a gosh-darn tootin' minute here. I disagree 180-degrees. Who can guess what is going to be significant in 100 years? I am not an expert on anything, but I say that an encyclopedia is there to educate on a specific topic or subject, regardless of its triviality. IMHO, a really good one should include all subjects known to man regardless of their notoriety. I don't even mind if the information is 100% accurate if the article wants to offer some conjecture, as long as it is advertised as conjecture. I personally read the wikipedia articles because I generally know nothing about the subject at hand and need a starting point to do my own research.

That is damn interesting.

You seem to equate being paid salary with more hours means working for free. You probably already know, but just because you're paid salary does not mean you can't be paid overtime. So if this looks like a move to get "free work" simply because you're salary, don't let that fly. It's likely illegal if that is the case, and if you do let it fly, then you are really causing detriment to the entire IT industry since if I balk at working for free, and you don't balk at working for free, it weakens my position.

I just wanted to respond to your post. I don't want to argue, and I really have no agenda: believe what you will. But let me ask a few questions: Do you believe that there is any afterlife at all? Or does our consciousness vanish into nothingness? Do you believe that you have a soul or a spirit? Is this human body you occupy just a vessel? A kind of avatar with a connection to somewhere else? Or is this just an elaborate biological mechanism that has somehow created for itself a sense of "you"-ness?

There is something I have noticed and wrestle with personally. I see evidence for an afterlife. I have been told too many stories and heard too many accounts of people with near-death experiences, and the strange thing about it is that they are pretty much consistent among those that have them at all. In other words, I don't hear that this person had an awakening to a 7th dimension where we eat colors and see sounds, and then this person over here has an experience where they awaken in a world of spaghetti. No, they all involve waking up, seeing themselves from out of their body, usually floating above the room and describing what others are doing in the room, there's usually a tunnel of some type, there is usually a feeling of engulfing surrounding love and belonging, bright light that seems to be God or some deity, and there is a sense of familiarity and welcomeness. They all seem to say that when this happens, it as if they are awakening from a dream: as if this life we are in was the dream and they are now awake and in the true life; it seems that clear to them.

Now, when I say I've been told stories, I mean to me personally. These have been people I knew, trusted, who I don't believe have an agenda, and in many cases these experiences defy or contradict what they know from the bible. This is over the course of 30 years, between people of different walks of life and whom have never met each other and certainly never corroborated their stories.

Well this bothers me a little bit. To be atheist, one would technically have to believe in no greater power, no afterlife. But yet, here sits this evidence staring me in the face.

What do you make of it? Your thoughts.

After I read that part of his comment, I figured you could take it either way. But what I really thought was, "What an elitist prick."