Windows 8 (and 7) scale UI just fine. There are, and always will be, unruly apps and do not cooperate and don't scale their UI properly. And of course, when you're scaling bitmaps by non power-of-2 factors, like 125% (such as in TFA), they're going to look like shit, no matter if it's Windows or OSX.

Companies do this often. HW is not B&N core competency. It will never be a premium brand, which means they will be competing in commodity space with thin commodity margins and cutthroat competition. They should concentrate on books, real and electronic, and do better and innovate there.

I mean, this is not bad, losing the ability to drive even if you like to to it. Think of all the time you spend driving, and what you might be able to do with it now that you have it available again. You can do work, read a book, watch a movie, study, learn something new, sleep. Now that you don't need to see out the windows, you can have heavy tinting, you can be nside the car naked, masturbating, having sex, having an orgy even! There will be a whole range of things we haven't thought of yet that we'll be doing while in private transit. Surely, you will be able to find something enjoyable to do.

The point is you're assuming what people like and don't like, based purely on your own experience, which you deem to be "normal" and "typical". This is a common attitude. I don't drive very often, and for me driving, even on city streets during rush hour, is enjoyable.

This is all beside the point. Driving is now a candidate for automation, regardless of its perceived enjoyability. Lots of things that many people used to enjoy have been automated or otherwise went the way of the dodo. It's just not a factor we should be considering, and there's no benefit to arguing about it. If you enjoy driving, you'll just have to find something else to enjoy while your car is driving itself in the future.

Stop trying to explicitely criminalize individual behaviours. Doesn't work. Distracted driving is distracted driving. How is texting different from arguing with your passenger or yelling at your kids in the back, or any number of other things people regularly do that do not involve cell phones or texting? All are equally dangerous to texting, and perfectly legal. But being caught with a cell phone stuck to your ear is pretty obvious. Much harder to catch "distracted driving". It's all about politicians being seen "doing something about it". Causing an accident while texting is punitively punished, but causing an accident because your girlfriend was giving you shit is just something unfortunate that could have happened to anyone.

The point is, _someone_ wanting to read your archive in the future (or a completely alien civilization) cannot do so if they can't make sense of the data. You assume the media will survive. That's why you're worried about this in the first place. If not, then you assume the reader will share your fundamental knowledge, concepts and technologies, in some form.

The whole point is, it's 1,000,000 years later. We've gone to the stoneage and back twice. Who knows what happened. You can include plans and blueprints and primers, but building something you've never seen before, like an optical drive or a display or a binary computer requires a massive amount of fundamental technologies and understanding. It's a whole way of thinking. For example, we use electrons to power and operate computers, and convey information via a flat image in the visible spectrum to perceive with our eyes. Even math, who's to say it is the universal language? We assume it is, but maybe we just don't know any better, maybe our math is too primitive, or makes assumptions that are cultural, not natural.

Obviously in response to a post higher up.

It's a ban. Using weasel words and technicalities doesn't change it. Incandescent can't meet the "efficiency" targets, laws of physics say so, therefore they will eventually be non-compliant, ie, illegal, ie, banned. Not everyone can afford a $50 (or even $5) light bulb, when they might only live in an apartment for a year or two.

Something to think about next time you fill out an online survey or petition that collects your email address. Read the fine print much?

In nominal terms? Wow, just add a bunch of 0s to your currency, voila! instant economic success!

Well, this is kind of a general complaint, isn't it?

These days, consumers really have no clue about ANYthing. How much research do you do into anything you buy? How much research do you do into the food you buy? the car you drive? the place you live? the place you work? the place that holds your life savings?

If you're like most people, probably zero.

Lets face it, we've gotten used to our omnipresent government regulating things to be safe for us, that we simply assume everything we see on the shelf is safe, whether it's been certified or not. Even when it is certified, you cannot make that assumption, as the mountains of daily FDA recalls tell us.

Consumers need to take responsibility for their purchases, and demand real testing and certifications of products, not the fake feel-good veneer we have now.

There should have been clearer separation between content creation, content delivery and "last mile", each handled, potentially, by a different company. With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works, content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure. Historically though, this is not how the technology and processes have evolved, obviously, so we have to deal with the system as it is.

I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems. Who would hook into it, how, at what physical location, and at what cost? Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards?

... and?

Yes, thank you ACs, we still know squat all about the ozone hole, except that it has mysteriously disappeared, something you are causally linking to some minor human action, which was to take decades to be implemented and play out. Maybe it went away because of forces greater than the human activity of the western hemisphere?

The same could be said of global warming. While CO2 is increasing, temperatures are decreasing globally, and northern polar ice is growing. Glaciers aren't melting, and Antarctic ice isn't shrinking one foot. There is well proven and documented research that shows temperature increase as correlating to CO2 concentration increase. We could roll back CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels, and that would reduce global temperatures less than .5 degrees. The thing with CO2 all the alarmists are missing is that it has very rapidly diminishing effects the more of it you stack. We could add twice as much as is there already and you would barely be pick out the temp difference form the noise. Maybe something else is at work here, hmm? I'm looking at that big fiery ball in the sky, the source of nearly 100% of the heat input into the planet.

I could have also thrown in there acid rain, and how all our buildings and trees would melt one day because of it. Although it was certainly a measurable problem, like global cooling, ozone hole, global warming, and unlike them was almost entirely attributable to human activity, however the dire predictions were again simply hysteric and wildly exaggerated, making a mockery of the whole thing, and confusing the issues.

We have enough problems on this planet that we don't need to make up new ones to spend money on. There is real air, water and ground pollution happening all over the place. It is much more immediate and much more dangerous to the environment and humans than any fantasy we've come up with to date. Except we don't need a world government and oppressive regulations regime to solve them, and it's not sexy like polar bears and going green, so no go on that front.

Memory protection. handle1 and handle2 are obviously within the process's own memory, and can be reused. But if the handle points to some memory space (buffer, handler, kernel struct, whatever), that the process does not own (regardless if it did in the past), the access should be disallowed. A process can't just willy nilly read and write whatever memory it wants. I can't just set handle1 to a random value and start writing away to it corrupting something else.

In your example, though, handle2 could not be 1000, because the program has not closed handle1 yet, so as far as it knows it is still valid. When it tries to write to it, however, that should fail, because the kernel internals it was pointing to have been flushed and closed. If those internals have been re-used by another process, the access should be disallowed.