McAfee has previously announced products to secure embedded devices, which could include implants.

Except that they are indeed saying that. Return & Exchange Policy

A large part of the problem with EVs is that current technology limits their range. To really get the most out of an EV, you have to not drive all that much to begin with. However, if you're not driving that much, you're also not buying that much gas. Even if you completely eliminate your entire gasoline bill, the total amount of money you're saving isn't that much.

One local news station recently ran a story about a dealership rolling out the first all-electric vehicle in the area, the Mitsu i-MiEV. The car costs $29,000 and has a range of 68 miles. If you were to drive the full 68 miles every day for a year (24,820 miles) in a 30mpg car, you'd use 827 1/3 gallons of gasoline, which is $3,309.33 at $4/gal. You'd be saving $16,546.67 over 5 years. A 40mpg car would drop the savings to $12,410. If you're not willing to push the limits of your battery capacity and play it safe at 50 miles daily (18,250 miles), you're only saving $12,166.67 or $9,125 over the gas cars. There are a lot of variables that come into play, but you may not end up saving all that much compared to the extra cost of the car (the 38mpg Smart coupe starts at $12,500).

However, the dealership itself says that the car isn't meant to be your sole vehicle. It's meant for known-distance commutes and quick trips to the store. Figure in the cost of a second car, even if it's just a beater or a rental, if you ever want to go more than 68 miles without stopping to recharge it. Plus, it's an ugly little 4-door Smart-looking thing. To quote my girlfriend when I opened the page, "What is that? It's horrible!"

There's no way I could get by with just an i-MiEV. However, a Volt would work out very well for me. I commute about 20 miles a day, and the nearest city with a mall and public transit is about 20 miles away. I wouldn't feel safe with a range of only 68 miles, but most of my driving in the Volt would be electric. Even compared to my 25/37mpg Cobalt, I figure the Volt (including electricity costs and some gas for longer trips) would cost me about $500 a year, rather than the $2,000 I spent last year. The 35/40mpg Volt is obviously much more economical if you never have to get into the gasoline, but the option is there if a longer trip suddenly comes up (e.g. having to drive to a remote site for work).

Despite being pretty much the ideal candidate for the Volt, I'm not sure if I'd ever actually make up the difference in price (after the tax credit). Though there are Priuses that have been running on the same batteries for over 10 years now, I'm still a little wary of the new technology (on top of being a new model). The styling isn't my first choice, but it's not terrible either. It's definitely not in the same class as my cheap base model Cobalt and I like the geek factor of the Volt. If gas prices go up significantly, the Volt would save me even more compared to the Cobalt. Regardless of savings or greenness, I don't mind the idea of lowering oil dependency. I'd feel a little more comfortable with a second gen Volt, but I'm hoping that they continue to flop and they go on clearance so I can snag one cheap (a few people managed to get brand new GMC Syclones for about 1/3 off when dealerships were trying to dump them). I also wouldn't mind seeing a (bio-)diesel option instead of gasoline for the ICE.

I really like the idea of using battery power for average commuting and such, but having nearly infinite range thanks to the gasoline engine if needed. Until battery rechargers are as plentiful and quick as gas stations, I think the Volt's hybrid setup is much more practical.

Windows Operating Systems

• Windows 2000
• Windows XP
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Vista
• Windows 7

Please note that while the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 can be used to run Firefox 10, only 32-bit builds of Firefox 10 are supported at this time.

Recommended Hardware

• Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
• 512MB of RAM
• 200MB of hard drive space

It says "recommended" on the "requirements" page, so I'm not sure if the SSE2 support is actually required or just provides additional performance. If it is required, you may be able to compile it yourself with different options to support older CPUs. A few years ago, there were a number of people doing custom builds with options tailored to specific CPUs, which disabled legacy support, required higher revs of SSE, etc. Assuming that something in the code doesn't actually require SSE2 for some feature, you should be able to use it even on older systems.

Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.

Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.

As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).

Just like nosferatu1001 said, decreasing the value of the used copy of a game decreases the value of the new copy of the game. Let's say you walk into your local BestCircuitGameShopLand and see two versions of the latest and greatest game. The first version includes all the content on the disc and is playable by anyone who puts that disc in their system. The second version includes all that same content, but the last level has an activation code that can only be linked to one specific user account. Anyone can put the disc in and play the first nine levels, but only your account can play the tenth level. Both versions of the game sell for $60. Which one do you buy?

Regardless of how you word it, these "first owner bonuses" mean the second owner is getting less than if he had purchased the product new. If the second owner has any semblance of a clue, he should be willing to pay less for this version of the game, since he's getting less. Since you know that you can't charge as much to sell the game when you're done with it, you shouldn't be willing to pay as much for the original copy.

Now, if they want to charge $50 for the second version, that's a completely different story. There are many people who have no interest in selling the game later, and would simply prefer a lower initial price. This system acknowledges that the locked-down version has a decreased value to some people and adjusts pricing accordingly. On the other hand, if you continue to decrease the value of your product without changing the price, don't be surprised when it hurts your sales.

Ok, when you buy the car, it's trunkless, without A/C, and 21mpg. Being the first owner, you get an upgrade to a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg. But when you sell it, you can only sell the original base version of it.

What a lot of people are getting at is the idea that if it's trunkless, A/C-less, and 21mpg when you sell it, it's worth less than some other car with a trunk, A/C, and 27mpg all the time. Regardless of your experience as the owner of the car, the next guy is getting less than he would've gotten with a "standard" car instead of this "limited premium experience" one. Since it has a lower resale value, the free market dictates that the original product should have a lower price.

I'm all for game companies trying out new business models. If they can sell a slideshow for $60 and then get people to pay $100 for "DLC" to actually turn the slideshow into a game, more power to 'em! However, I also think that they shouldn't be surprised when their nearly-worthless $60 game doesn't sell so well. They can charge whatever they want for their products, they just need to realize that their actions intended to increase profits (by limiting used game sales, etc.) may end up hurting their profits in the end (by reducing the value of the original product); the most basic example of this would be thinking that they can increase their profits to ridiculous levels simply by raising their prices to ridiculous levels. Even if it's possible to create a separate account for each game and transfer the full game experience upon sale, that's still an inconvenience that may (for some or all consumers) slightly lower the value of the product. You're more than welcome to attempt to make money any legal way possible, but you're not guaranteed to actually be profitable.

They shouldn't. IEEE 802 defines LAN/MAN standards. Ethernet is 802.3, Bluetooth PAN is 802.15, and WiMAX is 802.16. "Wi-Fi" is a trademarked brand name for products using the IEEE 802.11 family of standards. This new technology has as much in common with Wi-Fi as Bluetooth and WiMAX do; there's no reason for it to mooch off the Wi-Fi name rather than using its own (perhaps the "Wi-Far" suggested above, along the same line as WiMAX).