The thing is with a petrol/diesel/lpg/etc powered car you can drive until the tank is nearly empty. Then at a conviniant location along the route stop, fill the fuel tank, go to the toilet, stretch grab a snack etc and be back on the road quickly. Especially if you have more than one person in the car and so can share the burden of driving this allows travelling for long periods with minimal stopped time.

With an electric car so far you can't do that. You have to go out of your way to find a charging station (which are far less common than petrol stations) and then wait a considerable time for your vehicle to charge (how long depends on the particular station but even tesla superchargers which are few and far between apparently take 40 minuites to bring the car to 80% charge)

What about vets? do they take any oaths that would prevent them acting as executioners or assisting in the planning?

And like all companies some sucker paying $x for y% of of the company does not imply that there is anyone who will pay $(x*y/100) for the whole company.

all widely used 32-bit linux ports still have 32-bit time_t (x32 has 64-bit time_t but that is not widely used and it's debatable whether it counts as a 32-bit system). While x86-64 is taking over on the desktop and dedicated servers many embedded systems and low cost hosted vms are still 32-bit (the latter due to the lower memory footprint).

Afaict it has, the NTP "DATE" format provides a 32-bit era number and a 32-bit era offset number which between them provide a 64-bit seconds count. The NTP "timestamp" format uses a 32-bit seconds count but AIUI that is only supposed to be used for comparing to other nearby timestamps.

On the other hand in a language like C or java any code that needs to work with a custom numeric type (complex numbers, integers modulo something other than a power of 2, integers larger than the compiler supports, matricies etc) becomes a horrible mess of function calls (or macros in the case of C) that obscure the maths you are trying to write/read.

Chrome/chromium stopped working properly on at least some systems running kernels without the tsync feature (which is a very new feature). At the time people assumed that google was intentionally requiring the new feature. Chromium is one of those programs where the only reasonable way to support it is to keep upgrading to new upstream versions. Even Debian breaks from their normal policies when it comes to major web browsers.

It's one thing to break with your normal policies of "security and major bugfixes only" for updates to a web browser. It's altogether more contraversial if doing so requires making changes to core system components to support said web browser hence why this situation blew up a few days ago.

Google has now clarified that chromium is supposed to work without the kernel feature in question.

Where things get tricky is the "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL. AIUI a storage or distribution medium containing two unrelated programs is a derivative work of both those programs but thanks to the "mere aggregation" clause it's perfectly OK if one of those is GPL and one is propietary.

So the question becomes what level of interaction/interconnection/integration does there need to be between two works distributed together such that they no longer satisfy the "mere aggregation" clause and hence violate the GPL. This becomes especially tricky if the interface definition is under a GPL-compatible non-copyleft license such that both the GPL and propietary work could have been created without reference to the other. There is also the question of whether interfaces are copyrightable at all (see the recent oracle VS google lawsuits).

Heres an article from 2009 which talks about similar things happening in Dubai.

http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

Just configuring openssl is not enough. Theres at least THREE different SSL libraries in common use on linux and the chances are you have applications using all of them.

The SSL implementation is NOT part of the kernel.

uhhh.. it's actually very hard to find a modern motherboard which still has an LPT port..
No it isn't. I just looked at LGA1150 boards on newegg, sorted by price and found serveral with paralell ports on the first page.

It doesn't help that at various times MS and their OEMS have made this a PITA with many machines not shipping with "clean" windows media, some keys only working with some media, keys printed on the machine that required a phonecall to activate and so-on. At one point they were even threatening companies who used their vlk media/keys to reimage machines running under OEM licenses though they later backed down on that and introduced "reimage rights".

A comparision of a first generation desktop i3 (which is slightly newer than a first generation i7) from january 2010 to a current generation desktop i3 from may 2014 (there was a slight speed bump released in july but anandtech don't have that one in their list) can be seen at http://www.anandtech.com/bench... . We see that performance has less than doubled in over four years

We see a similar comparison when we compare a first generation desktop i5 from september 2009 to a current one from may 2014 http://www.anandtech.com/bench...

I'm not sure i'd consider it insane for a high end desktop part to have double the performance of a contemporary desktop part. I think it's more that we just aren't making the massive jumps in performance anymore that came from the move from 1->2->4 cores as the typical core count in the mid-mainstream or that came from retiring the crappy pentium 4 architecture.

Even within one generation the good/better/best breaks down once you start looking across product categories, an "ultra mobile" i7 can be considerablly less capable than a "mobile" i3.

Like most stuff marketers come up with it's pretty clearly designed to mislead customers into thinking they can have both an ultra slim lightweight machine and top-tier performance.

Please provide a source for your claim.