I agree with you.

Having a unified memory is a nice thing, but i expect it will only make a difference in something like the PS4, where you can target a specific architecture, which has GDDR5 as main memory, and doesn't have a discrete GPU. These two points are relevant: if you have "normal" DDR3 you loose a lot more than you gain by having UMA, and this will not change a thing in discrete GPUs because the PCIe bus is going to always be in the way of the GPU accessing main memory.

I think it is more a "nice to have" than a big step forward. The difficulty in programing GPUs lies in the different algorithms one must employ, and while having to copy memory back and forth between the CPU and GPU is a nuisance and something to be avoided, that usually isn't a dealbreaker, though i admit it is useful in some situations.

Seriously. It's the biggest item on the page.

£300 GBP are $482.
That's what ARM is bringing.
BTW where do you get a netbook with an 80 GB SSD?

Well, that strategy worked for Samsung, so why shouldn't it work for Nokia, given that, at the time, Nokia had a better position than Samsung?

I also live in Europe and we also had a winter to tell our grandchildren about. Since 21st December we've had exactly 1 (one) day of rain. And in the Autumn we've had maybe 5-6 days of rain (though one of those was a deluge).

In Portugal, locked phones are the norm, but according to a recent law (which i believe is an EU directive), the carriers must unlock the phone when the contract ends, free of charge. Furthermore, during the period of the contract the customer can request the unlock for a reasonable fee (which last time i looked was indeed reasonable).

I believe this is a fair state of affairs, as the phone are effectivly subsidized.

I bought a T68i in 2001 i think. It still works.

My wife had a SE (don't know the model) from 2004, which she used for about 3 years. It is being used since then by my mother in law. That's 7 years of daily use!

I believe SE had better quality than Nokia in the early 2000's.

As an example, this sentence in Portuguese: "Vamos evitar o uso de papel, gastar papel implica em gastar Ãrvores"

This sentence isn't correct Portuguese. It simply doesn't make sense in Portuguese. Maybe it makes sense in Brazilian Portuguese, but not in Portuguese.
So, i wouldn't expect Google Translate to get it right. But actually, translating it into:

"We avoid the use of paper, wasting paper implies spending trees"

is a better translation (of incorrect) Portuguese than:

"We avoid the use of paper, spending paper implies spending trees"

"Gastar" in the given context is better translated to "wasting" than "spending". At least in Portuguese.

Wasn't one of the reasons Amazon used to kick wikileaks the fact that they were getting DDoSed? And that it hurted their business?

So a DDoS directed at a site in EC2 is disruptive enough to kick them out, but a massive DDoS directed at Amazon is nothing special.

I think Anonymous at least proved that the real reason Amazon kicked wikileaks had nothing to do with DDoS.

+1 interesting Wish i had mod points...

You're right, they can't. But the video shows 2 rings in 3d. And those rings don't close on one of the dimensions.

In 2d, a circle is closed, spanning the 2 dimensions. In 3d, a ring is closed in 2 dimensions, but isn't "closed" in the other, so you can use the 4th dimension to link 2 rings.

So, to get an example similar to the video in 2d you might think of 2 (infinite) lines that you have to move past each other. Adding a 3rd dimension makes this trivial.

On the other hand, a circle in 2d is a sphere in 3d, so trying to link 2 circles in 2d is equivalent to trying to link 2 spheres in 3d, which isn't what the video shows.

PS. My manifold knowledge is very rusty, so what i'm saying might be totally wrong. It makes sense to me though.

If the Fed engages in "open market operations" and buys newly issued T-Bills directly from the US Treasury then it absolutely does create new money. The Fed buys the IOUs from the US Treasury, writes the balance into the accounts of the Federal Government (the Federal Reserve keeps the accounts of the United States Government) and poof new money is created (an increased account balance in an electronic database).

The Fed doesn't buy T-Bills directly from the US Treasury. That's a deadly sin in monetary economics. That would be monetising debt, which any Central Bank is (explicitly or implicitly) forbidden.
What the Fed actually does is buy (junk?) assets from banks, who in turn, buy T-Bills from the US Treasury.
If you can't spot the difference you don't know how finance and politics work :)