I have a mouse (the one currently at my right hand side) that is perfectly useful this way. I middle-click without any issues at all. I have another one -- also made by Logitech -- where the spring force of the click function significantly exceeds that of the scroll wheel's detents. The only way to middle-click reliably without scrolling is to reach forward and press down on the leading edge of the wheel, where it basically can't spin under the pressure. Luckily I only keep that one around as a backup. It also has a tendency to occasionally "spin out" and send the cursor (or viewpoint) flying around randomly for about 300 ms.

You'd be kinda foolish to only add one can at a time though. When you needed the last five, why not put all of it in at once? For that matter, why not have a single five-gallon can? It would certainly simplify refilling.

Of course, you'd still be well within your rights to complain about the misrepresentation of the fuel capacity.

Also, swoop and squat. No computer is going to help there either. However, having the computer active may help demonstrate that there was no way to avoid the collision, and that it was not your fault.

The most obvious example of this would be polio. It has an incubation period of six weeks, during which the infected person is highly contagious. Stack a cold or flu on top of that so they're sneezing and rubbing a runny nose all day, and you have a full-blown outbreak from a single source.

If you stayed home for every cold or sniffle, you wouldn't have a job for very long – especially if you work in an environment with lots of children, such as teaching or day care. Also, the kids aren't going to be kept home for every little sniffle, because that would mean one of the parents (quite possibly the only direct parent) having to take time off work to do so.

Citation.
Citation.
Citation.
Citation.

When Chuck Norris throws an exception, it is always fatal.

If that isn't a hit to performance, nothing is.

If you want proof of this, just visit /baphomet/ on 8chan. They're planning attacks in response to being attacked. They've doxxed the guy who led the campaign to get 8chan's domain suspended (which of course didn't work for very long). They flooded his "Rate Your Teacher" page with complaints, in a manner very similar to the flood of complaints (seven in a few hours, after two months of silence?) that got Internet.bs to pull the domain.

I'm not saying doxxing is justified. I'm saying they had very specific reasons to go after someone, and they had nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Gamergate. They did it because their home was attacked.

You don't adjust the arrival time at point B, you adjust the departure time from point A.

I didn't. I proposed that if everything was done on the level, that they come out and show it to restore public faith. They probably won't, because even saying "we used legal tools -- see, here are our warrants" could have negative consequences for the Police State mentality, even if that mentality does not apply here.

They may have averted their own Charlie Hebdo event, but sadly, the credibility of both sides of the "War on Terror" has been shot to hell -- primarily because of the actions of government which they thought people would take lying down. Most of them have, but even if they aren't in the streets protesting, they'll still roll their eyes and say "yeah, right".

Let's assume for the moment that this is completely legitimate, and an opportunity for the authorities to win back some respect. If so, they should carry the ensuing trial(s) openly for all to see. "We used surveillance programs to detect X, Y, and Z and couldn't have done it without them because A, B, and C" is exactly the sort of rational argument we'd like to see. If it turns out they did it through traditionally acceptable (like warrants) means, this weakens the argument of being able to do an end run around such procedures. Obviously this would be unwelcome from an authoritarian perspective, but it might win back some trust from those of us who do respect the actions of legitimate and responsible investigators.

The city government of D.C. likes tweaking the nose of the Federal government. Ever seen one of these? It's a D.C. license plate, and it reads "Taxation Without Representation".

Giving an ineffectual finger to the Feds is a pastime for them.

Yes. That's probably the problem. Still, if it's that simple to shit on an entire n network, this thing had best have a decent wired connection available.

I have an E-350 laptop, and although it has only two cores at 1.6 GHz, it can easily keep up with 1080p video. (Having maxed it out at 8 GB of RAM doesn't hurt.) The thing that tends to be an issue is WiFi bandwidth. If wired to the network (it has GigE) or if the file is copied to local storage first, it's fine. Otherwise, you're just asking for the darn thing to burp several times during your movie.

Even 100Mbps Ethernet (using some old three-pair cable already in the wall) can prove insufficient for pulling 1080p off the NAS box, if there's any kind of contention at all.

How many people have actual mechanical-ringer phones any more? I have one specifically for the purpose of being heard anywhere in the house, but don't actually use it to talk.

Not when the gas stays in the tanks (at least until the liquids run out) and the liquids do the actual work.