Sounds more like a heating story.

You're reminding me that I haven't fired up my SPARCcenter 2000E and associated RAID cabinets in far too long.

This comment on a site that gets excited about neon glowing tubes in transparent PC cases...

The thing is, the absolute worst thing about the Microsoft system is that it *is* so overly backward-compatible. It sticks it with awful crud such as lettered drives, unversioned dlls, and encourages pathetic solutions to architecture changes such as "Program Files (x86)".

Well, since this seems to be the place for lots of anecdotal evidence... I've been running 6.1 since the first beta with no issues.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would point out how wrong that summary was. While this might be par-for-the-course journalism at the AP, nerds should at least have some inkling of what they're talking about.

1. Make sure it's not all lowercase in 'file'.
2. In Safari, type a space after the 3rd slash to activate the checking.

superior technically in pretty much every way

Now if they could just make one that didn't run Android. I regret daily the money I spent on my Tab 2.

But from the headline, I'm excited to see that psychosis causes marijuana. Groovy!

Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.

I don't see that they could be. There's no way (AFAIK) for a company to prove who clicked the "OK" button. Certainly there are arguments that could be made about the likelihood that a certain individual did so within a given scenario (for example, Jane buys a new computer and is the only person with access to said computer; the likelihood is that Jane is the one that installed additional software on it and agreed to the EULA). That said, I don't see how they are realistically enforceable in many (most?) circumstances. Anyway, having someone that is completely anonymous to one of the parties of the contract bind the contract buy anonymously clicking a button seems to be a rather weak contract.

Additionally, the contract as it is submitted to me is inherently non-negotiable. So if I were to go into the EULA text and redline certain features that I don't agree to and then click OK, I've agreed to a different set of circumstances but Adobe (in this case) would then have to have the ability to confirm my agreement. That doesn't happen. So I would think the contract is still in limbo at that point. In the meantime, they've given me access to the software per my modified contract. That seems like implicit agreement. To be honest, I've never tried this so I'm unaware as to whether Adobe does an integrity check of the EULA during the process.

Any IAMA contract lawyers out there that could confiirm or tear apart any/all of my reasoning?

So... how is the code going to get rewritten so that the compiler can then optimize it? If that question confuses you... RTFS.

Another reason they may not want their driver code visible is that they do have benchmark detecting and circumventing code in their drivers, which might be somewhat embarrassing if it were on public display.

I must have missed the WWJD expansion.

I used to play with a GOP politician from Guam (in the same guild as him), but I suppose the fact he wasn't an evil Orc Rogue but rather a good Dwarf Priest made his WoW playing okay. Sigh.