Oh, I didn't know that, thanks.

But, the final user who doesn't have to program on Windows cannot make Word or Windows Media Player run on a specific core, can he?

Of course the OS chooses on which core a process/thread runs on. Generally speaking it doesn't let the final user choose because it is of little usefulness in everyday computing, but for these kind of tests, the OS will control and tell which cores are working fine and which are not.

Chip makers could have their own testing software, which they don't disclose. I think very few people would be interested in a tool for stress-testing their CPU. Benchmarking would probably be more popular, as it is already for GPUs. The reason memtest exists is that at one time, RAM memory was more frequently failing than anything else in the computer, and that it was useful to have a piece of software that tested it completely. I don't think there is the same kind of need in the general public for testing CPU.

Games already are on the very limits of a platform. They already are optimized to the breaking point. There’s nothing left.

That may be true for a very small number of games actually... Games use whatever resources they need, and sometimes, it is not everything. If that were the case, all games would have mind-blowing graphics. No game would ever have a memleak, no games would have any bugs. This is very far from reality, as some gaming companies release games that are not optimized correctly, with poor graphics.

And schedulers are becoming quite good... Beginning from scratch is not really going to work better.

Microsoft spends almost twice as much as Apple as a percentage of revenue on marketing.

The conclusion that I draw is "Apple is better at marketing, it achieves more with less money". This has nothing to do with quality.

Yeah, multitasking a third party instant messaging is soooo hardcore!

Huh? I drove my parents car a lot when I was 18-20, and I am taller than both my parents, so yeah, adjustable seats are cool.

I also used my parents PC before I could buy my own. And I've used friends and family's telephones from time to time too. I've played with colleague's iPhones and let them play with my Android phone. I let friends and family use my computer at home. I would set user accounts should I want to hide something, or let them use it for extended period of time.

Interestingly enough, I know a lot of people who shares their computer, phones, cars, whatever.

if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data

Apparently it runs Linux. This might not be a problem

The fact that it is a modern computer is exactly the point. By the way, the iPad has the same restrictions as the iPhone and it is not a mobile phone. I can't see how you could define this as something else than a computer. So what if it isn't upgradable? I don't see any reason why I should have restrictions on a piece of hardware I own.

The laws for statutory rape are invariably applied in cases where a legal adult is having consensual sex with a *teenager*, not a prepubescent child. And adults having sex with teens is *not* paedophilia.

Yes I agree with that.

I strongly suspect your average prepubescent child isn't willing to engage in *consensual* sex.

A prepubescent child might be more easy to manipulate than you think... And for the offending adult to convince himself this is not rape, even with a functioning set of morals (well, not very functioning :s). This is speculation, as I really cannot put myself in the place of a paedophile, as I cannot imagine the thought patterns said paedophile would go through.

Yeah, well, when my 'mobile phone' has more computational power that my 15-year old 'personal computer', where do I draw the line?

Added to that, there's also more hard drive space, more RAM, a better sound card, a better video card. The only thing smaller is the *screen*. Now the screen of an iPad is larger that that of said 15-year old computer. So, how exactly is it NOT a personal computer? Because Steve said so? Sorry to be unconvinced.

Well, is seems pretty likely actually... A 2-D movie is generally played at 24 frames/seconds. A 3-D movie is played at least à 24 frames/second/eye (ie 24 left frames, 24 right frames), if you use 2-D glasses (which would filter away say all the left frames), you still get 24 frames/second, which is like a normal movie.

Now some 3-D technologies plays the movies at a higher frame rate (I think 144 frames/second in all, though each frame is repeated 3 times (see RealD)), so one still gets a high enough frame rate.

Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?

I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.

Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act.

It is still illegal, which was the only point I was trying to make, no legal way to have sex with a child.

Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children.

There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.

I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power? In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts? This is a honest question, as I'm possibly prejudiced in these matters.