In order to apply anti-trust laws there has to be a monopoly. Google has neither a monopoly in fiber nor TV nor telephone. Using existing anti-trust laws would not likely be applicable.

I see the problem as laws haven't kept up with technology. When the original law was written (1978), there were no such things as ISPs.

Then what is AT&T's problem? The two exceptions to utility pole access are cable system or telecommunications providers.

This memo was supposedly from IBM on how to replace and clean mouse balls. It is not clear whether it was serious or in jest.

If AT&T insists on fighting this, I suspect AT&T will not be happy with Google's next logical move: Offering low cost (or free) TV or phone service to meet the requirement.

Well if you read the article, you'd see that the city does not want more poles especially when they are existing poles.

I was listening to a talk by a ROM hacker recently. He was looking at old cartridge games from the 80s and 90s and looking through them for Easter Egg comments. The first one he came across was "Jeff Spangenberg is a weenie". It was put in by the programmer who was not happy on the treatment he got from Jeff. The hidden comments ranged from dedications to humor. Some of the Easter Eggs contained threats of all sorts, but, surprisingly, a few of them were job offers. Those companies figured that someone with enough talent back then to crack the game to see the source code was talented enough to work for them.

The question I would have is how will this be an add-on? A daughter card or a separate module. With the daughter card, there comes into question cooling and engineering. With the module there comes into the question of power and bandwidth. Thunderbolt or external PCI might be the only two interfaces that could handle it but I don't know they could supply the power. Then there is the software side in that the OS has to two run on two different modes. All that into consideration, I don't think it would have been profitable.

Games will be the hardest thing about emulation. While I don't doubt that emulating the hardware can eventually be done, getting the games will be harder. Also, legally, emulating hardware could fall under exceptions like reverse engineering whereas copyright law would make games harder.

While some might think it is a grand conspiracy by Sony and MS not to have backwards compatibility, it really is a question of cost. Xbox 360 and PS3 had much different chip architecture than x86. It is possible that Sony and MS could have developed adequate chips, but it would have been top of the line CPUs. That would add significant cost to the console possibly adding $100-150 to the base model. Also the chips would have required much more cooling than the current designs.

How Sony and MS did it in the last generation was not rocket science. Those chips were significantly better than the previous generation as chips in general were following Moore's Law. These days, significant performance gains are not without a great deal of cost.

Hello? Are you reading the same post I am?

The video also is not about secondary infections and is clearly designed to spread FUD about vaccines. It distorts the words of Anne Schuchat by only showing the parts of the statement and what she was addressing. In fact the end of video it advocates for the rights of parents not to vaccinate.

Please. The whole statement is tinfoil hat thinking as if there was a grand conspiracy to spread a disease by vaccinating against it. The question that was stated didn't have anything to do about secondary infections. It wasn't stated whether immunities last as long as once believed. Also one aspect ignored by the anti-vaccine crowd is even if immunities do not last as long, that doesn't negate the fact that the person had immunity and there are much less likely to be infected with a vaccine than without.

Unless that is the entire goal of the study. Extrapolation is a tricky thing in science. The goal of the HIV study was to study how HIV affected particular vaccine by the manufacturer. Trying to extrapolate to what it means for the general population when decades of other research has already answered the same question is bad science.

[sarcasm]Yes! The incidence of diabetes is proof that the diabetes vaccine doesn't work![/sarcarm] Diabetes is a completely different thing than a communicable disease which has had decades of vaccines. But your statement also ignores history. Early diabetes science (400-500 CE) failed to look at genetics and individual factors because man simply didn't know much about genetics back then. In fairness, man also thought that the gods unleashed diseases as punishments too.

By that logic, no medication actually works.

You are missing the point. A pertusiss vaccine doesn't protect against a parapertussis? HIV positive patients doesn't get the full benefit of vaccines? In my world, that's just fucking common sense. So what?

You missed the point entirely. The study says NOTHING about the general population. It says something about a specific segment of the population. It's just scare mongering not to clearly state how narrow the study is. Just like a study that says a statin is not effective with people with high blood pressue. It doesn't say that the statin is not effective for most people.

And how common is secondary infections? Minor or major? AND it wasn't the premise of the GP: "How about this: Inject a few million people with the virus and release them into the population. " It implied that vaccines themselves were the cause of disease not secondary infection.