I had to build my first computer from an article in Radio Electronics. It was called the Mark 8 and had an Intel 8008 processor. It was programmed from a front panel and had a whopping 1K of RAM.

And for those 16 bit programs (I am looking at you dBase) I run Windows 32bit.

Says the guy looking for a pay raise in the longest science con in history.

i --- you dropped this.

This already doesn't work with the Do Not Call registry. I have telemarketers claim that they get "one free call" to every number. So they call EVERY known number for customer A. Then they get a new client, customer B. They change the business name under which they are calling and start at the beginning of their list. They NEVER STOP CALLING damnit. When you go to the FTC site to register a complaint, right there on the form they ask "Have you asked them not to call back?", rather implying that the feds will take no action unless they have called repeatedly using the same business name. Now you figure it makes sense to make it easier for the crooks to do this "one free call" with cell phones? Save yourself some grief and throw your cell phone in the trash if this goes through.

It looks ok on mine, perhaps you could be more specific.

Of course "4G" in the US is nothing more than a marketing term. The "4G" from one carrier is not the same as from another, and none of them provide the performance that the 4G standard actually specifies. The comparison is more like apples to oranges to monkeys to motorcycles. The pricing still really comes down to whether you can profitably recover your infrastructure investment in a country the size of the US as compared to a country little bigger than the state of New Mexico.

These choices remind me of a theory of handgun ownership. Either no one should own one, or everyone should own one. There is little similarity regarding the actual issues at play, so please don't examine the analogy too closely.

If I had mod points you would get one. Macs are now and always have been safer simply because a PC exploit reaches so many more machines that it gives a better return on the hacking effort than doing an equivalent exploit on a Mac.

I see that many of you have expressed doubts methods and parameters of the experiments. The journal name gives you a clue to the problem. i.e. "Psychological Science".

Nuff said.

To summarize the article that you seemed not to have read, Shannon is cited as writing the seminal paper to which you refer, and in it created an existence proof for error correction codes. He did not, in his paper, actually go so far as to create an ECC. According to TFA, Shannon is credited with creating the entire field of information theory. Not a bad accomplishment. Hamming was noted as actually creating ECCs and laying the foundation stone for coding theory. It's probably why they named the codes after him, hmm? Many codes more suited to today's computational needs have been developed since, but someone had to be first.

I don't know is on second.

Ok, that really did make me laugh.

Good grief man, you are a /. reader and haven't upgraded your comp since your PPC? I sense some missing geek cred here.

Repeating your point, regardless of typography, does not make it any more valid. Just because your supposed point was dismissed does not mean it was missed to begin with. If you say something often enough, it does not make it true.