I don't usually do this, but ..

This!

There wasn't that much SysV init development before systemd either. It just works, no need to hack on it.

That's fine, BBC are in their right to give their videos only to those who pay. However, they're doing it wrong. The internet isn't designed with geo-blocking in mind. BBC started blocking by IP address as a pragmatic solution, and now they're trying to make the government turn their hack into law. [I don't get why BBC doesn't just mail all license payers or UK residents a username/password combo and calls it a day. I would hate it more than the geo-crap, now they have a big-brotherish record of where everyone is at all times, but it seems like the best solution for them.]

Is there any reason for enthusiasts to choose the Core i7 over this?

Salmon skeet-shooting?

So we should compare this announcement with the Mac Pro one. Apple had to share a slashdot article between the MacBook and the Mac Pro. There's not many complaints about slashvertisement on the mac post.

The post about the Mac appears just as positive, but it packs a lot more facts in fewer sentences, so it's arguably better. Both have their share of marketing language and fluff, but the Alienware has a lot more of it.

Only because there's nothing faster easily available. (and I use Scientific LInux 6, the current version, but maybe that counts as old still)

An IP casebook, finally we'll get some lawyers and judges who know computers and the internet!

In the middle of the article there's a list of charges, and all refer to a "detectable amount of [drug]". That's a pretty low standard. For example, when you're handling cash you're probably trafficking a detectable amount of cocaine.

Nah, Many sites have Facebook / Google / etc. log-ins. E-mail is required for those services I just mentioned, but it's only kept around because it's currently the most convenient option.

'

'No it's not fair, it's a matter of policy. Capitalism is "fair" -- you get money for doing others favours, and can buy favours in return. Any kind of tax or welfare disrupts this and is inherently unfair in this view. Most people don't, however, agree with the capitalistic definition of "favours" (or what ever the economists call it), or that you can accumulate or transfer unlimited amounts of such. Tax can then be seen as a fair way to dampen the dependence on the history of the system, placing more emphasis on recent favours. The rate of the tax and how it is spent is more of an ethical issue than an economic one.

The world is not fair, so a system that's internally consistent and fair, but doesn't take into account the different "luck" people have, probably doesn't agree with most people's concept of fairness.

All that said, I agree with the idea of giving everyone a basic wage (called citizen wage in my country, can't remember the English term). The productivity would probably drop as people did more useless things or did nothing, but we may also see more amazing breakthroughs, as the risk to any peson is lower. (currently, going on welfare and developing a new kind of nuclear reactor is seen as quite unaccceptable, yet there may be smart people who can't make it in academia or industry, and now have to take crappy jobs) This policy will become a necessity to have any kind of fair and humane society once automation makes even more jobs redundant, and we can only hope that people will accept the potential loss of productivity before it's too late.

There is a different effect for TVs: If you sit close enough to the TV so the eyes' autofocus is not set to infinity, then more of the TV will be in focus when it's curved. This effect applies only to TVs, which are closer than the Far point of the eye, and not to cinema screens, which are further away. The optimal curvature depends on the distance from the TV.

Principle is the same as VNC, but the leap in technical sophistication is huge

There will probably be degradation of quality. From bandwidth concerns alone, there's no way they could stream uncompressed 1080p@60Hz, that would require 3 Gbit. By using something like 50Mbps they could get better quality than the ~8Mbps we se on high-quality TV streams, and could spare some CPU power by encoding less efficiently (also: decoding video requires power on the client).

In principle I'd think the clients would have problems displaying the video (this seems to be fixed if they're releasing it). Many low-end systems can't decode HD streams in real time with CPU only, and rely on hardware acceleration. There's a lot that can go wrong when displaying high quality video streams on linux: tearing, stuttering, A/V sync, etc.

It's a neat idea, but when I move, quite soon, I'll still prefer to pull a long-ish DVI (or DP if I can get a 4K monitor) and USB cable to have my gaming rig in a different room.

Kind of ironic how the IP video connection sucks so bad, for someone advocating full reliance on the network.

Peterson has a point, some admins refuse to even look at the cloud as an option. The "cloud hugger" metaphor is wrong though, the cloud is not a new version of the local server which is more efficient, performant and clean (sure, there were advantages to having horses too (vs. cars), but no notable advantages related to the main purpose, transportation). The cloud is just a different thing altogether, like an airplane vs. a car. A good admin needs to decide if outsourcing the operations makes sense for each case, also factoring in the costs (and hope the management trusts that decision). It's easy to take too much pride in one's craft, and insist on perfect solutions, when the business maybe only needs a fairly good solution.

At an infrastructure level, using "cloud" tools (i.e. virtualisation, management), is reasonably safe. These are reasonably portable across the remote / on premises boundary, though porting requires some effort.

At the application level, if the plan is to use cloud tools exclusively, it's easy to end up with inconvenient workflows or being stuck with some provider. Inter-operation between applications is sparse. Many cloud applications provide APIs, sure, but if you need a server to call APIs and synchronise data across providers, and the business becomes reliant on those scripts, have you really gained anything..?

Episode I was well done visually and a decent stand-alone adventure film. The original trilogy somewhat fails to engage me emotionally or intellectually. Episodes II and III were just boring. Sorry for the flamebait, this is my opinion, but maybe slightly exaggerated. I probably wouldn't bother with replying;)