Have you considered, oh, I don't know, unchecking the box that says "Open iTunes when this iPhone is connected"?

If only there was "article" you could read that might tell you. From TFA: The same researcher that took Google's money last year for exploiting Chrome, known publicly only as 'PinkiePie' was awarded $40,000 for exploiting Chrome/Chrome OS via a Linux kernel bug, config file error and a video parsing flaw. So, it sounds like Linux. Google fixed this by patching Chrome OS, not Chrome per se.

What's consuming the rest of your time? I bet you have an hour or so to spend at the gym before or after work if you really want to. Or could you do it during your lunch break? Also, you'll want to change what you eat--the Mountain Dew isn't going to help you. (Not bragging, but I'm a full-time graduate student with two part-time jobs and still manage to work out for about an hour a day--and I still have time to make my own dinner, which lots of people also insist they don't have time for. You might try that, too. In fact, I grow (most of) my own dinner in the summer, too. On the other hand, I don't have kids or anything that might require more time at home.)

If you still insist that you don't have time to work out, do it on the way to work: ride a bike instead of driving (or taking the bus/train/etc.). Maybe add in an extra ride over lunch. Lots of people, myself included, do this where I work. Even better, do it for all your errands and you'll save on gas, too.

You'll have to put in some effort, and the chances of you being able to do that at a sedentary job aren't that great. But it's worth it. You'll feel better in the long run.

False. That's why the post you quoted mentioned that it was a faulty assertion and specifically mentioned city streets vs. state or interstate highways. For the former, which cyclists are for more likely to use, most funding comes from municipal revenue. This is something every citizen pays. The gas tax is more important on the latter two, but cyclists aren't even allowed on interstates.

For a discussion on this issue with data from Seattle and the state of Washington (where this rep is from), see, for example: http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/we-all-pay-for-the-roads.

Well, it's rendered as HTML5 with some help from JavaScript. Speaking of JavaScript, however, my quick testing suggests that PDFs with JS code are not well supported; they show a yellow bar at the top suggesting you open with another reader.

This, coupled with the fact that it's written using rendering tools Mozilla has already had, suggests that it should be about as secure as their browser in general. More if you exclude Flash and Java.

First, I'm not sure why Slashdot chose to run this article as opposed to any of dozens of others that actually explain the situation better, not that it matters because nobody reads them. Apple is not blocking Java applications. They are blocking only the plug-in. Further, from what I've read, they were not blocking Java 6, only insecure (well, more insecure) versions of Java 7 applets. Additionally, you can get around this with just about any Web browser besides Safari. Finally, at the moment, at least, the latest version of the plug-in is once again perfectly capable of running.

For competent reporting on this subject, see, among others, the MacRumors article about the most recent block.

(Besides the lack of true push support, of course, but Google's app does support it--or at least I assume it does. I've never found a compelling reason get push notifications for e-mail on a mobile device, personally.)

Is there a problem with IMAP?

No big deal, they're just doing some Verizon math.

Nonsense. It's not an object; if you compare it to analogous phrases in other languages (e.g., German "Weh (ist) mir"), you'll find that the "me" is dative. English doesn't have a clear accusative-dative distinction anymore (although we still generally call English objects accusative), but the OED confirms this history, and it certainly makes more sense in the typical dative sense of "woe is (un)to me" rather than your "I am woe." In any case, it doesn't really matter anymore--the syntax is odd in Modern English and it's just a fixed phrase that seems to have slipped through history without much change.

It is released, at least in the preview sense. I'm using it now (you can sign in with any Microsoft account, like an MSN or Passport one of old, in addition to the new outlook.com ones). Won't switch, but might make a new account for a junk address if I can get POP/SMTP access to it.

Complete nonsense. The interrogative usage appears to be standard based on its OED entry (1a). What you're thinking of is the fact that "anymore" is generally considered a negative polarity item, which requires an interrogative or negative context to license its use (example: "Clothes are expensive anymore," meaning "...nowadays," acceptable only in certain dialects; compare with "I can't afford clothes anymore," a negative context which should be fine for everyone--except, of course, nutty prescriptivists who recite "rules" that are completely baseless and which they themselves often don't understand).

Even in the regional or colloquial, non-NPI context there's nothing "wrong" about it--in fact, it appears to be standard in Irish English. For what it's worth, the OED dates this usage back to at least the 1800s--certainly not within the last decade, and not originating in Philadelphia. But most importantly, what is part of the "standard" variety is completely arbitrary (and perhaps even somewhat abstract). There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of "anymore" to mean "nowadays," even if you don't accept it as part of the "standard" variety.

Actually, when I go to the store, I can buy produce (or meat) from local farmers--or I can go to the farmers market, subscribe to a CSA, grow it myself, or use any of various alternatives that will allow me to know more about the product. At the very least, I can buy according to some legislated standards (e.g., USDA Organic) that I am OK with. Similarly, instead of starting my car (which I definitely do NOT do with a clean conscience), I can walk or bike. I can use renewable energy instead of coal for the lights, and I can use LEDs or other efficient illuminators.

I think you have a point, but I think tech is different because, short of not buying it at all, you don't really have these alternatives--at least according to this article.

Actually, despite the name, the app could show either males or females. (Yeah, I know, it's not cool to RTFA.)

Not to mention, they aren't that expensive (especially for downlight replacements) and their price is falling fast. I haven't been able to find many ESL bulbs, but a quick search online reveals that they aren't exactly competitively priced compared to LEDs, and their wattage seems to be a bit more than CFLs for the same amount of light (and both are more than LEDs).

Additionally, LEDs, if they last long enough, will cost less money in the long run. I've affordably replaced most of the bulbs in my house and have no regrets. For some niche applications, other bulbs may still be necessary, and hopefully LEDs will become more appealing to the average person within the next few years in terms of price, directionality, and so on.