Eveyone keeps quoting the "do not evil" mantra, but we have something a lot more solid on Google's own site:

Source: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

I'm not taking sides, and the details have not been announced, but it better not go 180 on the statement above.
By the way, the official press releases from the companies are set to be out on bad-news-Friday. Not a good sign...

I entirely agree with your sentiment. We've watched over the years Microsoft turn into what they hate (IBM), and now we get to watch Google turn into what they hate (Microsoft). That said, if you want Etherpad on your own server, Etherpad's full open source code is available.

You may be hitting the wrong blogs. What I read, coincided with my own opinion: interesting technology, but little advantage over competition, and high complexity, means you won't see mainstream adoption over basics like email.

Of course, maybe I unintentionally looked for blogs to match my own opinion. So.. what were you looking for ;) ?

And there's another side to this story. How would 2D DVD/BR copies of these movies sell? There's no significant market penetration of home 3D cinema equipment to consider otherwise, and that's a significant part of the profits of movies in the last 15 years.

The only data we have is on Avatar, which sells great regardless of the format, because it has gained vast popularity and mindshare around the fact it's the first mainstream, high budget, live-action 3D blockbuster to hit the cinema in years. There's only one "first" in a category, and no other movie would enjoy this side effect, just by being 3D.

What I really want to see is, how much would a Resident Evil 3D: The 2D DVD, and Saw 3D: The 2D DVD would sell, especially as those are built entirely around 3D gimmick shots.

The problem with that "if" you're constructing is that merely a diversion from a real discussion. Anyone could easily list a number of other historical "ifs" to sharply counteract yours. And by doing so both sides of the conversation would achieve absolutely nothing, beside cheap entertainment.

We have the current situation in which WikiLeaks is acting, we see how they're acting, and we see how affected people and organisations are reacting to them, today, and in reality.

If you want to say WikiLeaks has done wrong in reality then, of course, list your concrete factual points, and we may or may not agree with you. No "ifs", time machines and historical paradoxes required.

WikiLeaks is in its essence just a Wiki site. A web site. It's clear that publishing text is in no way unique to that site, you can do it on any site. Hopefully the government isn't saying that free communication is the real threat to national security.

WikiLeaks didn't commit any of the acts in the leaked documents, it wasn't their job or responsibility for keeping those documents secret, and they didn't leak the documents from their origin: some unknown source did on their own will, and sent them to WikiLeaks.

All WikiLeaks did was take those documents, make a cursory check of authenticity, and publish them.

Of course, by doing so, they become an easy target for people who are willing to turn heads away from the actual problems that lead to projects like WikiLeaks, and instead blame the messenger.

The real problem (for certain people) is that WikiLeaks is now a vivid symbol nurturing an environment where people may not simply do something because it was ordered from above, and especially if it's in conflict with basic human rights and morals.

But by loudly blaming WikiLeaks for the created situation, they only serve to further strengthen the very symbol they want to destroy. Somewhat ironic. As long as WikiLeaks is on everyone's target, and not their anonymous sources, more and more whistle-blowers will choose to trust them with their data.

You seem confused a little. The marketing/branding event "Windows XP" happened 9 years ago, yes. But the last time Microsoft updated Windows XP was few days ago, and they update it for today's threats, not those from 9 years ago.

Do you remember we had SP1, SP2 and SP3? SP2 was six years ago, pretty big update. SP3 is from only two years ago.

Of course, Windows Vista/7 can be more secure in some select scenarios, due to some select features it introduced. It's not as black as white as you want it to be.

P.S. Greek phalanxes and Apache helicopters are separated by about 3000 years, not 9 years, you get scores for drama, but I gotta take them back for lac of accuracy.

You talk about Grand Central which helps people with parallelizable code write parallelizable code.

The GP is talking about code which is hard or impossible to make parallel since it's intrinsically linear (no pieces of it can run together with other pieces of it).

Also even if it was theoretically possible for a fraction of the software, you need to make untold number of developers invest time and resources to rewrite their already working programs to work in at least 12 busy threads.

If you don't already use software which can make good use of 12-cores, which some professional software does, but most software does not, we're at least 5-10 years away of you utilizing those. And by that period, it'll be time to buy a new Mac again.

I can tell you right now: they won't struggle.

To US citizens, most other cultures are obscure and unknown, but thanks to a very successful propagation of US culture abroad, everyone is familiar with the American pop icons, fashion, style and mindframe, many even down to the little nuances.

How can you compare equal-sized factories in US and China, when US barely has any left.

Isn't it nice you can look that up on Wikipedia with your "Made in China" computer?

Also look that up: China population vs USA population. The number of literate people in China is 4 times the entire US population.

I know some people are easily confused by poor English and stereotypes. But their asm, c++ and hardware design skills are quite competitive.

Talking about it, how's your Chinese?

I'm talking about memory bandwidth starvation, and you tell me you solved this by overclocking the cores. What's your logic? That's what TurboBoost does: overclocks the cores on the fly.

And TurboCore is simply AMD's name for a simpler TurboBoost-like feature.

If by full speed you mean the scheduler is going missing in action while serving the other virtual core, then yes. Each virtual core still shares resources with the other core, whether the core is used or not. HT is faster with highly parallel tasks is that parallel instructions may use different execution units inside the CPU, but some units are in use the whole time and need to work in "interleaved" mode when HT is enabled.

I enjoy your exercise in naively extrapolating trends from few years ago, but I don't think the average users consults a chart in order to see how heavily he should multitask. The tehcnology has been good enough for most user scenarios for quite some time now. The current bottleneck is the user, who's simply happy with what he has on the desktop.

In fact, everyone is increasingly using mobile devices to do work that was previously done on desktops. The same mobile devices running (relative to the desktop) underpowered ARM chips, and where, apparently, multitasking as a concept itself is considered at most "nice to have, but whatever" rather than increasingly important.

What I said above is the clock rate is not of your key concern here: memory starvation & cache-size is. Equivalently clocked 4 core system will have worse per-core performance than a 2-core system.

Sure, if you heavily multitask and your tasks are all CPU-bound (some of which you mentioned, are not, by the way), then you'll have overall better system "snappiness" on a 4-core system. But each of those tasks will be running slower than otherwise.