I could go either way. I think though as long as it doesn't require a third party tool it's "native" just not "out-of-the-box".
It is used natively though, just not in a way you may like. When the security warning pops up and the screen dims a bit that's actually a different desktop environment.

Interesting fact but this isn't new to Windows either. Win2k and maybe even earlier had native multidesktop support. They just didn't ship a default front end for it but they've had a free tool available for years that let you set it up.

My Windows 7 laptop does everything I need for Windowsy stuff, so I won't be replacing or upgrading it unless I win the lottery.

Sadly, my 10+ year old 3.8GHz Pentium-pre-Core2 box is finally dying, so I'm in the midst of shifting my development and personal stuff over to the laptop. I've used Windows for years as a developer so it's not *too* painful, but I'm going to miss Linux. Linux just *works* without getting in my way; I can't say the same for Windows, even on trivial issues as to which widgets get auto-focused when you open them up (who is the brilliant idiot who came up with the idea that the file browser should focus on that damned library panel instead of the list of files?)

If they'd just made it as thick as the camera it still would have been thin enough and they may have been room to add a bit more battery juice.
Classic crApple form over function BS.

Bipolar Disorder, Psychosis and Schizophrenia for Dummies who know a little physics etc.

Life is generally in a good position when it has potential (like gravitational potential in the case of high ground) and the capacity to use it in a controlled fashion. That means balancing in a position that would otherwise be considered an unstable equilibrium in the sense of dynamical systems theory. Our bodies are at their most efficient when well balanced (just watch a good dancer to see this in action) and our brains are at their best when similarly balanced. If something disturbs the equilibrium, this disturbance and the required correction can be used to understand the disturbance. This is how stimulation affects us.

Now consider a simple example of a balancing physical object, but with no control mechanism: a spinning top. This has three states--spinning upright (when the gravitational potential is near its maximum), wobbling (when the gravitational potential is slightly lower, in which case it behaves erratically and gives up its energy randomly until...) finally we have the fallen over state. This is what medical people term depression. The simple solution is to get upright and balanced again, but this is hard in our modern overly complex society, and the result of trying to get up is often a lot of wobbling, which gets diagnosed as things like mania, psychosis and schizophrenia depending on how exactly this wobbling manifests itself. The key is to get balanced before you get pushed over, and that is hard when the medical mental health people seem to have the idea that you fix a wobbling spinning top by knocking it over and gluing it to the floor.

Trying to understand mental health in a 'sum of the parts' way is just dumb, but it is the obsession of the medical fraternity, and is to the extent that it is politically very difficult to suggest otherwise. How our genetic code creates us is an approach that misses the point that without the environmental context in which that genetic code develops, it won't develop, so you need to understand the environment as well (and that means understanding the entire world in complete detail, which is rather a long way the other side of impossible).

Viewed as an equilbrium seeking system, 'mental illnesses' like mania and schizophrenia are just seen as things like oscillations and resonant modes that are being excited by either an appropriate drive, or are resonating within the equilibrium seeking system. The biological stuff is just an implementation detail in much the way that transistors on a chip are implementation details of your python program that you are running that you can safely ignore in most cases. Medication is basically trying to solve a software problem by randomly pumping noise into the processor. A computer will crash instantly if you do this, but humans are rather more robust, and can survive for a long time in an unbalanced state. They are, however, rather unproductive in this state and won't tend to find life enjoyable. But they can survive for a long time, but can become desperate to get out of such states.

Last year was a very mild winter, so I can't see this year being anything but harsher.

Nah, I google with bing all the time.

Then have both.

Unlike 16 bit to 32 bit it most simply is a recompile about 90% of the time unless you have assembly or something specific. My guess is the ugly Netscape API for the plugins which Chrome used to support until last year and of course Firefox is built upon this.

Newer atoms anyway are 64 bit. In the old days this would have been obsoleted in 3 years. I would have laughed at you in 2004 if you told me most things are still 32 bit 10 years from now. XP is still freaking alive too in a few places. I am just surprised what happened?

But the web unlike MS Word 2003 can't keep staying old and these things are slowed down by supporting obsolete platforms both hardware and software. Smooth scroll still does not work right in chrome because XP is so ancient and they still have to support it.

As browsers become more and more app platform engines it is essential to use cpu instructions included after the Pentium IV in this day and age. It is 2014 and 10 years is enough. XP is the sole reason 32 bit is still around.

Yes if it aint broke don't fix it became a conservative motto here with the nerds who are approaching middle age now, but the web is still evolving and HTML 5 and HTML 5.1 will include WebGL, more AJAX, and other things where a not just additional memory addresses but also cpu instructions which no one still uses can be utilized.

When will IE and Firefox jump ship next?

First, there are two kinds of atheism: active and passive atheism. Active atheism is a religion. It is an active belief, even a need, that there MUST BE NO GOD.

Passive atheism again is of two kinds. The first is actually a form of self-worship, and is the most common; in the end, such a passive atheist ends up enslaved to many things. The second, I think to be extremely rare, but is more of an unawareness of God.

That last kind of atheism, yes, is not a religion.

As far as it goes, it takes actual believing effort to ignore or deny the gaps. Moreover, when I talk of gaps, they are different for you and for me, because I have no gap for (for example) the Bible, Noah's flood, and asteroids. You may have no gap for asteroids, but have a gap for Noah's flood. BOTH of us have gaps for the severity of the asteroid problem: is the Holocene Working Group more right, or is the traditional interpretation of asteroid frequency more right? We discuss and read and argue, but currently we don't know.

The gaps don't terrify either the Christian or the atheist, surely. To say otherwise is to be hot-winded. But the gaps are evidence that one's current working theory might be wrong. And my point was that to be SURE in your atheistic faith (for an ironic association of terms), you have to deny the gaps.

I acknowledge the gaps. Maybe that is why I can be a Christian, and yet sometimes be on the edge of despair. But that isn't all of it. Some of it has to do with the future I see. Some of it has to do with the people around me. A lot of it may have to do with my own biochemical and genetic makeup. As I wrote before, I'm not quite 100% sure what the source is. It may not matter.

Reeves showing how he 'flew' as superman using special effects, did not debunk the annual migration of geese.

Or again, the proof that 99.99999% of people do NOT have eidetic memory does not prove that Tesla was a fraud, and all his inventions nonsense. I happen to claim that I know one of few in our country who has been documented as having such memory, and it has caused her great trouble.

To put it shortly, yes thereeare frauds and chareletans.

There also exist the works of God, and there also exists healing. The first does not compare with the second.

The woman who was healed, a family friend of ours, seems to be okay with it.

The fundamental problem is you're confusing a mention of the near universal trait of humans to believe in some sort of "powerful other" controlling the universe. Some people are more prone to that "need" than others, but it *is* present in the vast majority of humanity, from those who hold deep religious convictions to those who go to worship once or twice a year for "big celebrations" and even to atheists who fall back on "scientific method" as some panacea of what is right and just and purposeful.

Rather, it is you who confuse "faith" with a fundamental urge to believe in something, whatever that something may be. One can have faith in processes, in kitschy homilies and phrases, and other such "wisdom" with no more "proof" of their validity than a theory of there being some form of god out there. Of course those who have such faith are far more inclined to call it "knowledge", and to consider it to be beyond reproach.

Faith and belief are not the same thing. Faith is acceptance of something as "fact" without evidence. Belief is acceptance of something because all prior experience has demonstrated the "fact" to be so.

First of all, religion is not irrational. You have to ignore a ton of evidence about what you cannot explain, to actively deny that there is a God.

Second, though, I think the article and the title are very intuitive, and point out the irony of the department: 'need a way to cheat death'. Because one of the real complete failures, as you have noted, is the need-to-cheat-complete-meaninglessness.

And most religions, whether utter nonsense, or really evil, or extremely dangerous, do offer some kind of meaning, even if it is false. And that is probably why many atheists, while officially of that religion, in fact end up believing in government as god. They need something to fill the void, and government really reeeally wants to.

Not that there isn't a level of dispair there: there will be. If I. as a Christian who has seen healings, and experienced the voice of good, and seen his power, can bounce along on the edge of despair, surely someone with less evidence might as well.

And I'm not 100% sure why.

The problem is even atheists still feel a need to believe in *something*. Which is silly. Planting Science as your God still means you have a God and are not an atheist.

Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't willing to accept the simple credo of "do good". Which really is all that most religions were ever telling people in the first place, with varying details of what they consider "good". People don't want to think about what "good" is -- they want someone to *tell* them so they can follow some leader like sheep.