It might also be possible to do it using a bomb or bombs with conventional explosives. The biggest current US conventional explosive bombs might be as effective as some smaller nukes. It's not implausible that they're as effective as the nukes Soviets used in the
'60s and '70s oil leak bombings.

That'd probably make the nuke-worried people a bit less worried. Although the thing to realize is that, really, the contamination from that nuclear explosion would still be orders of magnitude less than what the oil spill will cause if it's left untreated for much longer. So, if it calls for a nuke, then nuke it should be.

Funny how there's a bunch of SF movies where we use nukes to avert a catastrophe, although it's almost exclusively of the "asteroid will hit Earth" variety. Well, here we have a different scenario on our hands, and it's real, and it needs to be solved soon.

Best to have a talent for hiring people with abilities you lack.

"'ll get it fixed ASAP"

After all, it's a piece of cake.

Yes, he is played by Bruce Schneier.

The only legal action Chuck Norris takes is one where he is the judge, the jury, and the executioner.

Yes, their major problem will be Chuck Norris coming after them.

No international boundary can stop Chuck Norris.

And some don't even bother running a spell checker, i.e. you :-)

So why don't they make it illegal to possess a picturing of any crime being committed, even if the portrayal is completely fictional? Like, I dunno, people beating up, or killing other people. That should be completely eradicated from movies now, don't you think?

Sheesh...

Maybe they just operate on a five-year cycle; just wait when in 2014 they'll announce that spatial was actually better, and they'll return to it yet again.

"... Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success — The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home..."

Admit it, your first thought was "webcam stripper". Mine was :-)

The website at http://undress4success.com/ is actually quite interesting.

And, no, it ain't a webcam stripper :-)

Yes. You could have dusted off a computer magazine from the '80s and then type in by hand a game you found in one of them. On the on-screen keyboard. You could probably accomplish this in few days of typing.

(For those too young to remember, computer magazines in the '80s sometime published printed source code for small games that the readers could type in by hand to play the games.)

That's why Apple's objection was stupid.

“One of the reasons I have long supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.”

So was the chemical industry in Germany in 1940s. Appealing to these arguments is a very weak justification, IMHO. The Big Pharma can certainly hire some better speech writers than this.

As if I'm not distracted enough as it is :-)

So, you think you have it bad that your Atom Hackintosh will forever stay on 10.6.1?

Guess what, my PowerPC *genuine* Mac will forever stay on 10.5.8.

Apple is often not supportive even of older hardware they sold few years ago.

Examples:

As mentioned, Mac OS X 10.6.0 doesn't support the PowerPC CPUs while the 10.5.x did. I have a fairly strong (even by today's standards), last generation G5 PowerPC Mac that I bought in December 2005 (one month before they confirmed the Intel switchover rumors) that is now doomed to never run Snow Leopard. I could now go around and holler "APPLE BASTARDS BLOCKED PowerPC IN 10.6.0", right?

Or I could be annoyed by the fact that even when Leopard came out, PPC experience was already "downscaled" compared to Intel Leopard - i.e. no Java 6, no support for certain HD video codecs, etc.

Heck, not even Macs with 32-bit Intel CPUs could have Java 6 under Leopard. Curiously, they do in Snow Leopard, but I digress.

Recent news was that on some older (2006) Intel Mac models (some of them already 64-bit), you won't be able to install Windows 7 via BootCamp. (This one I don't care much about, but some people certainly will.)

As you can see, even their own hardware gets left in the dust. I'm not ruling out deliberate malice on their part, but I'd rather assume they recompiled the kernel and libraries with compiler options that benefit their current CPU lineup the most, and it turned out to be incompatible with Atom, and they shrugged and said, "so what? We aren't supporting any hardware with Atom CPU anyway". Even if they did it deliberately, they can just claim that they did it as an effort to optimize performance for their current hardware.

At the end of the day, there's many more Hackintoshes out there than just Atom-CPU based ones, why would they go after specifically after the Atom ones? Those aren't even competition to Apple's hardware business - Apple doesn't have a netbook offering, and they don't consider MacBook Air to be one. People buying a netbook aren't a market Apple targets.

So, I think it's much more plausible that end of (accidentally working until now) Atom support is being a collateral effect of them doing some improvements. However, if it's not deeply baked in, then I'm sure the Hackintosh crowd will manage to get around it.

In any case, they have much better chances of it than me seeing Snow Leopard on my PowerPC Mac.