How could he be out in the hurricane if we don't know it's coming?

RAT7 has a cord, RAT9 is wireless.

The only thing I miss on it is the Logitec N7's freewheeling mode on the scroll wheel to get through large docs (Or more typically deal with incredibly insensitive camera zooming in games).

That, and that silver wheel just above the thumb? That's a control, it rotates left/right. I have NO idea what to do with it.

You mean like when you type in about:config in Opera?

He should still have enough left.

"Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught."

You know the guy on camera had nothing to do with the attempted attack, right? He was just some innocent bystander taking his shirt off on a hot day, caught on camera, and thereafter imbroiled in an investigation which was wasting police time and inflaming the public as the actual terrorist almost got away? You know that, right?

But I suppose that's more support for your, "Nothing to worry about; all the cameras are misidentifying suspects" thesis.

Lets presume the company accurately modded the game mechanics of major league baseball. Perfectly reasonable given its heavily statistics based.

MLB has maybe 1 perfect game a year, or every other year. Lets say once every 2 years to be generous. There's 32 teams, playing 180 games (roughly)...thats 16 matches x 180 times x 2 years with a chance of producing a perfect game. So statistically, a 1 in 5760 chance of producing a perfect game.

Presuming this is a moderately successful game title, they sell...say, 100,000 copies in the first month.

The chances of this happening on the first day of sale were actually fairly good. Certainl within the first week.

If i was on the board of directors, I'd recommend summary execution for the marketing rep.

The end does not justify the means. Anything that restricts developer and user freedom in a mass-market channel should be argued against.

And anything NOT open source can be considered a "closed system". Windows is a closed system. What Apple did was to extend the closure to the developer channel, such that it provides a single, monolithic, commercial gateway to the system, which has been very rare in the industry. Not even Microsoft at their most abusive would have attempted that kind of developer lockout.

Conceptually, at least, Social Security is supposed to be an insurance policy, not welfare. The idea is (or, rather, was when it was first implemented) that people might and do live past the average life expectancy. Such elderly people may no longer be able to work to support themselves, so they get to cash in on an insurance policy against getting too old. If there's a flood in your community where it rarely floods, and you have flood insurance, you'll probably collect much, much more than what you paid in. Same with fire insurance, etc. That's the nature of insurance. And Social Security is supposed to be insurance against living past your life expectancy.

Why did we need this insurance? Because even by the 1930s when the system got going, communities were starting to fragment as people became more mobile, No longer could grandpa depend on his children (or even his community) to support him when he couldn't work any longer. The Great Depression resulted in even greater problems with elderly people not having enough to survive; hence a massive "group insurance policy" to help out those who lost the gamble and lived too long.

But now, instead of life expectancy being about 65 (as it was when the program was started), now it's almost 80. So the vast majority of people are being awarded a decade or more of their "insurance" for living past their expected lifespan. It's sort of like a flood insurance company that insured only one area, and due to dams and other developments, that community became a flood plain. Pretty soon that insurance company wouldn't be able to operate -- it would be paying out to everyone.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan, nor was it intended to be welfare. It's a broken insurance system. (People should pay attention, since the same problems with Social Security are destined for the national health care regulation when it goes from an insurance system to simply a distribution system, like Social Security has.)

Shrinking a process gives several benefits, but a quick general overview helps:
Silicon as used in chip manufacturing is expensive. It costs a lot to grow, cut and polish. It's also a mature industry, so no real breakthroughs are likely to happen to reduce the cost of the silicon. The less silicon area you use, the more chips you can make for the same cost. Next is manufacturing. Whether you put one transistor per square millimeter or 100,000 per square millimeter, the cost is the same, or at least within a penny. Coat, expose to a masked pattern, etch, sputter, clean and repeat a few times, and voila, you have a chip. Shining a light through a mask costs the same no matter the resolution of the mask. Dunking the wafer in a chemical etch bath is the same, running a wafer through a sputterer or CVD costs the same, etc. Labor costs are basically per wafer, so more components per wafer means you get more output for the same labor (and plant infrastructure) dollar.

So, a smaller manufacturing process means:
More components per wafer. Thus if you double the component density, your manufacturing costs will remain the same, and you can double output while keeping costs the same (think 32GB for the price of 16GB).

You can also make the chips smaller while keeping the same capacity (same 16GB chip uses half the silicon, thus costs 50% less to make, think 16GB for half the cost you paid last year).

Or, more capacity within given size limits. (think 64GB or 128GB SD cards, or 2 TB Compact Flash).

This is what they do with genetically modified crops. If your crop gets infected you have to pay.