Sorry, I will have to call RTFA on myself here. The article shows some badges that are red (with white AMD logos so it doesn't look like Christmas). It will still be interesting to see if they eventually shed the red the same way they are shedding the ATI brand name.

Without the red ATI logo, will they continue to use red as the brand color of their graphics products? Or, will people now be choosing between AMD green and Nvidia green? It may sound superficial (because, by definition, it is), but rival groups always seem to have different colors. It makes for a nice mental distinction when looking at their products. My only guess is that it will probably look like the "AMD Vision" logo or might even be an extension of that branding.

Cue one of my favorite flavor texts from Magic: The Gathering.

We have the same thing here in Arizona as well. http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2010/03/02/wtf-lawmakers-no-more-creating-goat-people

It's pretty clear that most repliers only read the first sentence of your post. Hoping that this was meant to be a joke, I congratulate you for a job well done.

A piece of fine art is more than just a pretty thing to look at. Some artists' works become pieces of history. When people start forging a piece of history it is pretty bad. At it's most innocent a forger creates and sells a copy of an already existing piece of work. At it's worst, the forger creates a new work by forging the style of a respected dead artist and sells it as one of that artists newly discovered pieces. In the latter case you are altering historical records. If you don't find fault in that then there is nothing more to talk about, but I and many other people view such actions as particularly heinous. It should also be noted that there is a difference between a forgery and a reproduction of a piece of art. A good and ethical artist can make good money producing reproductions.

First, I am not an educator and I do not and have not claimed to have the answers to how to achieve these goals. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that these goals are the kind we should have. I like to think that we can have lofty goals with no idea how we to achieve them.

Furthermore, you have idealized the situation with the very large fallacy that you are building your argument on. That is, the assumption that people who try hard will always succeed. There are plenty of parents who try to give their child the best, but simply cannot give them the same kinds of opportunities as kids whose parents might not work nearly as hard. Sure, a lot of these children should not have been conceived in the first place, but here they are and they need help. Ignoring them only makes the problem grow.

You flipped his point around to fit your argument. He is not saying, "good parents should suffer to support children with bad parents or in bad situations". The point is that, "a child's future should not suffer from having bad parents or being raised in a bad situation". As a prosperous country, we (in the USA) should be giving all of our children the opportunities to excel to their potential. That is the point. I can't understand how any person, regardless of country, could disagree with that.

I hope the files did not include the full dossier of Ding Chavez and his detailed plans for hostage rescues.

"PC Gaming" is not equal to "Gaming PC"

Don't get me wrong. I know television is a profit driven business and even the most profit driven shows can still be entertaining. I was ranting about the notion that the longer a series is on the air, the better it must be. In that same line of thinking, people seem to view the end of a series as some sort of failure. To this end, many shows seem to prefer drawn out, slow story arcs that in some cases just keep branching and never come to any clear resolutions.

That phrase, I believe, illustrates my point. People view these shows in terms of how long people could be interested and not as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Sure, some shows are meant to be "monster of the week" episodic content. It just frustrates me that people find it unacceptable for a show with great ratings to write an end and move on to new projects.

I really hate this idea. If there is a story to tell, then it should get told. Keeping a show going for so long is a purely profit driven paradigm. Two good examples. "Heroes" should have ended and the end of the first season. Instead they refused to really resolve anything so they could keep the same thing going for more seasons. "Lost" completely jumped the shark and played out more like Ad-Libs: TV Drama Edition the last time I watched it(which was quite a while ago). "The Office"(USA) did copy a good deal from the original series, but then decided to go in a different direction. It is now more like a sketch comedy/improv show than a real story driven series. I still watch it because I happen to like sketch comedy/improv, but the story and characters are getting a bit absurd. One funny thing is that "The Office"(UK) actually involved the fact that the cameras were filming a show, but the fact that the cameras in "The Office"(USA) have been there so long without any story involvement is almost comical.

Yeah, I [in the USA] had never even heard of Torchwood before that episode. Was it ever aired here? It's on my Netflix queue now.

If by "invasion of Earth", you mean "wiping out of all matter in this and every parallel universe"[1], then yeah that's about it.

So how much does Google pay for it's usage of the Internet?