While DirecTV's Chairman is crowing about his viewers lacking an interest in paying for an "extra box" on top of what he provides? Viewers will continue to drop DirecTV service completely, once they use boxes like AppleTV and realize they're saving a lot of money by streaming video content and doing "pay only for what you want to watch" with iTunes store movie or TV series purchases/rentals. So yeah, he's right... They only want one set-top box. Increasingly, it won't be his.

The problem I see is we've got 2 evils... and no clear "lesser" to be found!

Obama is the evil we already know, except likely to be amplified by the fact he'll be a lame duck if re-elected. (He can go full speed ahead with those "Green initiatives" he wanted so badly, but backed off on a bit, etc.)

Romney is the evil we don't yet know (though we're getting an increasingly good idea of just how evil the guy will be in the office of president).

Screw it .... I'm supporting Ron Paul until the end, just because the man offered people a pretty compelling alternative to the status-quo duopoly they're trying to shove down our collective throats. If I have to write his name in on a ballot, so be it.

I honestly don't consider you "part of the problem" if you truly think you're voting for a lesser of the 2 evils expected to be among the only 2 electable people for the position. The problem is the Republicrats who have a monopoly on power/money/influence and are just as concerned with hanging onto that control, long-term, as they are getting one of their factions elected over the other one in a given election.

But as I say ... This is one of those cases where I'm finding it really difficult to say Obama is "less of an evil" than Romney would be, or vice-versa. Both of them will "stay the course" of taking us right off the cliff.

Yes, but isn't this potentially just a matter of these individuals choosing not to use the agnostic label for themselves?

I find that most people I talk to are confused about the differences between agnostic and atheist. Many get the terms completely reversed or believe they "mean the same thing". At what point do you simply accept that more people get the basic idea of "atheist" (as one who chooses not to practice or participate in any of the organized religions) than agnostic, so you use the label more readily understood?

I once talked to a self-proclaimed agnostic with what I thought was an interesting take. He said being agnostic was about "simply knowing that it's impossible to know" any specifics about a god/creator. So essentially, he was agnostic because he felt there was no compelling reason to accept any one religion as more likely "correct" as another. To him, atheist didn't fit his views as neatly, since atheists tend to take a more pessimistic view about a creator or god. Perhaps not an absolute "There is no god!" statement, but a "I won't believe one exists unless new evidence comes to light and compels me to do so." attitude.

I suspect the ability for users to disable secure boot makes a legal challenge to this moot. At best, MS might be compelled to make secure boot opt in. I.e., compel users to enter firmware to enable it.

And I expect it to be a sales boon for Apple. People annoyed by this will go to the mall and buy Apple. They won't go home and try to install Linux.

No. Motherboard makers face the same requirement. And, as I understand it, this requirement does not apply to server hardware.

Whatever you think of MS and Red Hat, this is a problem tht every Linux distribution needs to address. Rhetoric about freedom and urging lawsuits won't change anything.

  Users will be able to go into firmware and disable secure boot, but I don't think many will do that just to try Linux. They are much more likely to just go buy a Mac. Especially if there are initial problems when this is rolled out.

Folks who dual boot Linux and Windows could be really screwed because an unsigned bootloader will be seen by Windows as malware, with an MS update eventually coming down to disable it.

I feel the same way, but for a different reason. TomTom has utterly failed to release a quality product that works as-advertised, IMO.

I've used quite a few in-car GPS systems over the years, and used them pretty extensively, as I worked as a courier for a while using one, and used others to find customer sites while doing on-site computer service work.

Here in St. Louis, MO, for example? We have a lot of zip codes, and a lot of municipalities. The TomTom's I've used barely have ANY of our zip codes in their lookup tables, so when you try to enter an address starting with the zip, it's worthless. Additionally, I've entered street addresses that don't come up on a search either. Without the ability to narrow it down by the right zip code, I'm left trying various city names. (You'd think "St. Louis" would do the trick as a "catch all" around here, but again -- there's no telling with the way TomTom has things arranged. Sometimes I have to guess if perhaps, the address is indexed as being in Arnold, Fenton, St. Louis, High Ridge or Mehlville.) Sometimes, I never do get it to locate the street I need -- and I have to resort to scrolling around on the map with my finger, until I find it on the screen. THEN, when I tell it to take me to the location I tap on, it *finally* displays the street address it couldn't locate at all on a lookup!

To be fair, I thought that "S'more Maker" was a clever little device, for only $15 or so. I don't really know anyone who wanted to make those on a BBQ grill in the first place? But doing it the old-fashioned way, over an open flame with a stick of some sort, always leads to messy s'mores with random tree bark bits or other junk on them, from the stick you used. It might be a way to do it pretty well on a grill, and I'd probably try it just for the heck of it.

Most of that other stuff seemed pointless or too expensive to me.

The best advice I could give a wanna-be cook using a grill? Buy yourself a Weber kettle type charcoal grill (the model that's around 22" in diameter is the perfect size, IMO). I like their "Performer" series the best, because it integrates their classic grill with a rolling cart that gives you both a place to hang the lid of the grill when you remove it, a place to hang 3 grilling utensils/tools, and a swing-out bucket to store your charcoal. But if you're on a budget, just go with the regular old model for $100-150 less. I've owned a number of grills over the years, and 90% of what's for sale at your typical hardware or home improvement store for under $500 is not going to last more than a few years without rusting out or getting all rickety and clunky, with loose/bent hinges or parts that break/stop working. The Webers are built to last, by comparison. If you want proof? Just look at what's left outside, chained up with bicycle chains, at your local Home Depot or Lowe's store. You'll quickly notice that the Weber grills still look pretty good, while a lot of the other stuff has rust spots developing already, or cranks to raise/lower the grilling surface are getting squeaky and binding up.

Your typical Weber kettle type grill has a decent thermometer built right onto the lid, and for most grilling - you want to let it get to around 400 degrees. If you didn't load it up with a whole lot of charcoal and it seems to be hovering around 300-350 and just won't get quite to 400, you may simply need to open up the vents in the bottom of the grill (assuming you've already got the top ones open).

To grill such vegetables as asparagus? Again, get the grill to around 400 degrees, but grill them with the lid off, turning them several times to get an even BBQ'd look to their entire surface. 3-4 minutes is all they should need.

Other than that? I'd recommend avoiding lighter fluid if at all possible. What works well instead is placing old newspaper or paper towels under the pile of charcoal and lighting it. Lighter fluid is a pain because you really have to ensure ALL of it burns off completely before any food is placed on the grill. Otherwise, you get a lighter fluid flavor in your food ... and it can take a pretty long time to get all of it burnt off, since it tends to soak into the charcoal immediately upon using it. The briquettes that get hot enough to turn white may not have any fluid left in them, but you've usually got those outlying ones around the edges of the pile that are still black ....

I agree with the people here saying the remote thermometers and such aren't all that useful. I got a cheap one for Xmas last year as a gift that does everything that iPhone ones does, for a total cost of $20 or so -- so that's probably the smarter thing to buy if you really must have one. But IMO, the more important thing is keeping an eye on the time things are cooking. If you've got an iPhone? Good ... set an alarm on it to remind you to flip your burgers after 5 minutes or what-not, but just use the grill's own thermometer to make sure the temps are ok.

...when so many people are happy to do it for free.

The Evening Standard is fine if your idea of news is is mostly celebrities and sports. If people didn't grab it to read on the train going home after work, they'd likely go under.

Buffett's right, of course. No business can survive without making a profit. I am skeptical, however, that local news is going to save the day. Why? Because people are not as interested as they say they are in local news. My local daily paper publishes a weekly section targeting my suburb. I don't see much news in it, but I do see a lot stories about clubs, schools, kids, and churches, I once had the chance to ask the editor why they went with that rather than hard news about town government, politics, etc. The answer: We print the stories that sell newspapers. The local news market is not a hard news market. It's a feel-good gossip market.

When a newspaper shrinks and fires newsroom staff, news production in that market drops and is not replaced by online sources. We are all more ignorant as the result, and it's an ignorance that's spreading.