But if it does the job, and it's fast and useful on modern hardware, who cares?

If you happen to listen to the Security Now! podcast, Steve Gibson usually complains every week or two about Chrome taking up more and more memory---like a whopping 250 MB---to display a single window with an empty tab. To that, I say back: I'm having trouble giving a flying fuck about a quarter gigabyte of RAM when EVERYTHING on my system can't even seem to gobble up HALF of the 16 gigs I have. And that's on Windows. With superfetch.

If the code runs well on a modern system, and it allows programmers to focus on performance by being lazy with memory, what the hell does it matter? This isn't 2005. People figured out that RAM is an important statistic in the computer they want to purchase, and OEMs started realizing that if they DOUBLE the memory in a computer for a pathetically small amount of money, it turns out that their products won't be titanic piles of shit.

Programmers are starting to realize that they can offload their sloppiness to memory management and focus on CPU cycles. If Chrome is the shining example of why that's a good thing, then personally, I think we're doing something right!

Perfect code isn't impossible, it's just a ton of time, work, and money. There's nothing wrong with shuffling the budget to take advantage of the realities of today.

Wouldn't the most sensible approach be to carve out the physical area the spectrum occupies into different three-dimensional "slices" then?

Consider a more focused triangulation of the individual handsets, to the point where you can get within a meter or so of accuracy. Use low bandwidth, non-hogging links to determine a phone's location, and then migrate the data channel to a number of dedicated antennas that are dynamically aimed at a handset. Boost the power and constrain the FoV to what's appropriate for a device at a given distance, and hand off between focusable antennas on the same tower as the target moves.

Literally just shoot people with high-bandwidth spectrum they can have all to themselves.

Those goofy hipsters!

They started the trend, let's hope they kill it, too.

So there obviously is a proper way to do this, but how does it work?

Shouldn't the service sit idle, waiting for an announcement from the USB stack about a device plug-in event, check if it's an iSomething, and then signal over to the user mode application that iTunes should launch? Isn't this what Filter drivers are for? Couldn't they stick that filter between the iSomething and the USB root hub?

I actually thought that iTunes was just absolutely awful because it was iTunes. And then I got a Mac.

Turns out that iTunes (while it's still a feature-overpacked piece of trash) is really only this terrible on Windows. On OS X, it just sucks because it's crowded and confusing, but it does run pretty well.

If he were to kill -9 himself, would that deprive him of the opportunity to write a note, or would the method simply be so violent as to destroy the note itself along with the GP?

Well, you can't just have people willy-nilly adding files to the filesystem of the device they've purchased. We should be considerate and politely ask the device if it'll alter its filesystem on our behalf, and when it tells us to go blow donkeys for wanting r/w permission to /, we sit back and acknowledge Apple's wisdom and the groundbreaking intuition of their software!

It's kinda sad that the extremely sophisticated design of that communication isn't really there to facilitate advanced functions... it just facilitates advanced lockdown. You don't tell the device what to do; you tell it what you'd like, and then ask if that's okay. Given that, I applaud The Evad3rs for making iOS devices bend to their owners' will.

Perhaps it's necessary to write it out to the file system before you can transfer it to the GPU RAM, likely due to that tiny heap issue the guys above mentioned? So you'd need to write portions of it to RAM and flush it out to the GPU, tiny chunks at a time perhaps?

Normally works great, but... looks like someone screwed up, perhaps? Maybe a debug flag that renames the file extension instead of deleting the image got left on... We could speculate for hours, but if it wasn't an accident... that's pretty pathetic. Given how small the images are, it'd be trivial to "dd if=/dev/urandom of=/media/dongpic.jpg.nomedia count=filesize" or whatever, for every single one that comes in!

I fucking wish I could pay as little to watch a TV show or movie as a comparable set of ads would return in revenue for being in front of my eyeballs.

Instead, some dickhead thinks I should pay ~5-10 cents a minute to watch one episode of his TV show. Naturally, 1080p costs twice as much too.

Get two of them and wire them in series: WAN -> LAN -> WAN -> LAN. That'll double the capacity of your tube processing power, and you're good to go!

I've experienced what he's talking about, though I can't remember if it was with HTTPS Everywhere for Chrome or Firefox. I think that what happens is that the HTML (and maybe the JS) for a particular page come down over the HTTPS link, but for some reason, the CSS and/or various other pieces don't, and get pulled down over HTTP... or perhaps they fail entirely. Like they come from a CDN or something that doesn't do HTTPS but that shares a root DNS name that HTTPS Everywhere is programmed to re-write.

Anyway, the pages look like a website designed by a badger in 1996: Line after line of links at the top of the page corresponding to what would have been a site navigation bar. Stuff like that.

The funny part is that sometimes the content you were looking for never even shows up. You just get the outline of the page and the JS that was supposed to pull it all down never got to run :P

To be fair, it's only insecure if they're lying about it.

....not that I'd care to put that much trust in my Browser vendor... Then again, I'm using Chrome. Hmmph.

Oh thank the heavens.... POP3 is so terrible that I'd actually rather be shoehorned into something proprietary but near-universally supported. I really do hope that support for it starts disappearing, because I just want to smack anyone who thinks that suggesting "We support POP" is a good answer to the "How do I get email on device or application X" question.

And I don't have a computer or an internet connection, so we should all get together and

"Bitch/whine/cry. Metro sucks, I don't have a touchscreen, Valve hates Windows, I'll never use it, cry cry cry."

That should be all the evidence you need. After all, if all these people are complaining about it as though Microsoft unloaded a dump truck full of Legos onto their bathroom floors, it must be terrible!

Windows has been a fairly lean, ever-evolving piece of tech for quite some time now, starting with Windows 2000. Any time anything changes, you'll find a subset of vocal assholes that'll go out of their way to flip their shit whenever given the chance (rumor has it that New Coke was actually better), and I personally just find it to be fucking annoying. They'll eventually shut up when the next thing to bitch about comes along.

I've used every iteration of Windows for pretty much its entire lifecycle as a flagship OS since Windows ME. They all worked just fine. XP was great. Vista was great. 7 was great. And Windows 8... Yup. Great.

There are things about every single iteration of the product that are improvements and drawbacks from previous versions. I could list them and whine like a bitch on the internet all day, but instead I just read up on how the new stuff works, learn how to use it effectively, and enjoy being more informed than the average, whiny troll.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it'll never get any better. People will never like what they don't understand, but it's very easy to read a single description and mock or hate something forever. Take the time to educate yourself of the differences in the old vs. the new. Actually justify your own opinions, and simply enjoy the fact that your opinion will be worth more than that of just about all the trolls put together.