I see no reason to believe that the picture in question has been created by using several photos and copying/pasting people or heads around, but the lighting DEFINITELY looks "fake" (heavily edited) to me. Not only the light, also the colours. For example, the old guy (2nd from the left, holding the left child) - his head just looks unrealistically bright. Or the glasses guy two to the right of him. He definitely is in the shadow, yet his face is not dark at all. And the colours - on the hackerfactor page, compare the face of the guy holding the right child in the "fake" pic with his face in the picture just below that one. In the unedited pic, his face is a dark red/brown, completely unlike the world press photo picture.

So - completely faked? No. But definitely heavily edited, and then it's a question of whether they wanted heavily edited pictures in their competition, or instead want "unaltered" pictures. In other words, whether they want pictures which "wow" the observer because the photographer captured a special, noteworthy moment or because the photographer used Photoshop to make a picture TECHNICALLY "perfect".

This is not true. I am able to run several of my games which I bought over Steam without having the actual Steam client running - by simply starting the game executable from Windows Explorer. Steam DRM is NOT a requirement for all games distributed via Steam. Granted, most do use it though.

Because support for XP mode will end next year, too.

XP mode won't fix what this whole thing is about, that support for Windows XP will end next year and continuing to run it will turn into a security risk. Windows 7's XP mode is nothing else than running Windows XP in a VM, and Microsoft will officially stop support for it next year, too.

Microsoft not selling Win 7 licenses anymore does not mean that there are no unsold Win 7 licenses around on the market. So Dell probably still HAS licenses sitting around and won't be able to sell computers with Win 7 anymore once those are gone.

This is pretty much it. I remember back in the lat 90s/early 00s, when I upgraded the motherboard/CPU/graphics card of my gaming machine about every half year, because the newer hardware actually gave a huge benefit in gaming performance. I remember not being able to run new games at decent settings until I got the next upgrade, because you constantly kept running into hardware limitations (CPU not fast enough, graphics card not good enough to run at more than 800x600, etc.).

And there was tons of new hardware which actually gave benefits (from the "this new screen can run 1024x768 at non-interlaced" to graphics cards switching from ISA to VLB to PCI to PCIE, to graphics cards actually using 3D (old 3dfx cards, then Nvidia TNT and so on) to RAM increasing more and more to hard disks increasing in size and so on).

These days, it does not really matter much if you have 8GB or 16GB RAM, if you have 1TB or 4 TB disk space, if you have a Core2 Duo CPU or a current i7, if you have a GeForce 680 or still a 460. It all still works fine, more or less. Only if you want to play the absolute latest 3D action shooter in the highest resolution at the highest details settings - then you actually need a high end CPU and a high end graphics card. But there are not that many of those games around, and most of the time they are not actually fun to play anyway (except for the short "ooooh nice graphics" moment). So why upgrade? There's no need to anymore, except if you actually like building PCs or if your old hardware is acting up and you need to replace it because it is failing.

Win98SE runs just fine in VMware Workstation, hardest part was finding all the "latest" update rollup packages for it on the internet, since the built-in windows update is no longer supported by Microsoft.

That's why real men used DolphinDOS for their C64/1541. It could read a whole floppy disk in 4-5 seconds.

Exactly. And since the button is connected to a computer, any malfunction big enough will result in the button doing absolutely nothing at all when you press it to turn off the engine.

As I understand it, he DID charge the car completely, as in "the display said charge completed". What he did not use was the special option, battery damage causing "100% charge, long range, do not use all the time" charging option,

But that was not the problem anyway, what caused him to be stranded was that the car battery decided to lose over half its charge overnight due to low temperatures, which caused the range to go from "can easily make it to the recharge point" to "cannot make it to the recharge point at all".

I'd like to see more real life tests like this, with real life problems, because those show best that electric vehicles simply are not a good replacement for a standard car yet except for VERY specific situations (like only driving less than 20 miles a day AND having a guaranteed recharge point at your place of work).

Pah B2000, newfangled crap! (looking at the HP 9000/712 in the corner)