But without the need for BIG RAT.

Exactly what I meant. firefox on linux noscript and without flash is fairly safe

actually i've been making a fair amount of money off of those fake AV programs lately too. I think it's called Total Security or Cyber Security or something like that, insinuates itself in the AV section of the action center. After the first couple systems i got pretty quick about removing it, only took me 15 minutes for the last system i cleaned. Just kill the active process, delete the CS folder from program files, remove the browser helper object and set avast to a thorough scan of all archives. Incidentally, ALL the systems i've cleaned to date have had norton 2010 installed. Lately i've taken to recommending that any customers with norton just remove it regardless of existing subscriptions and install Avast. Haven't had a single complaint yet about the viruses resurfacing in the cases that took my advice.

makes it somewhat suspicious that TFA claimed that Norton was one of the best rated malware programs out there, and that Avast was hardly average. Sounds highly questionable.

It turns out not to be needed for our kid, who loves a bunch of different books, but I tried to motivate learning to read by nearly refusing to read him comics. That wasn't because I think they're bad, but because comics (once that use the medium well, at least) don't read aloud easily. As the reader, you constantly have to be deciding the chronology of which sounds/thoughts/voices come when, and whether to whisper, and when to say, "and Batman's thinking..." or whatever. And then you've got maybe a bunch of panels with no words at all, and do you say anything for them or let the pictures speak for themselves?

Blah, It's just not fun for me reading those aloud. So, they're reserved for solo reading.

I find it interesting though that Microsoft Security Essentials was one of the top three AV tested, with two "good" ratings. It also happens to be free. Maybe Microsoft is learning lessons from the past?

You can search for Google in http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/

You mean, like sports parades?

Sorry - my bad. Guilty as charged.

And there is also the issue - was the hypothetical 256 kilosample/second MP3 made from the analog original or resampling the sampled source.

If interested, my other post in this thread may be useful - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1435342&cid=30018812

I tried a number of sampling schemes with a number of program sources on my system. Then had the sources switched for me (electronics are in another room from my speakers, so it was blind). On some material, I could hear significant differences from the original - where the original was an audio CD - sampled in the first place.

That's not scientifically acceptable - but perhaps it's a probative anecdote.

Such insight.

Your brilliant hindsight is a common flaw of youth. Displaying great wisdom when you have few facts and only one chance to do the right thing is harder than simply passing judgement on decisions made before you were born.

You'll see. Your grandchildren's generation will call you to task for missing the obvious solutions.

Time makes fools of everyone.

I thought the exact same thing too. I thought switches on wall sockets were used everywhere, and never gave it a second thought.

The concept of this material reminded me of Bob Shaw's science fiction story "The Light of Other Days" in which "slow glass" is used to capture scenes and images which could be released later. Interesting!

I recently flew from LA to Fiji. On the way forward, you land two days after departure, on the way back, you land at the same time you departed...

It's pretty disturbing.

slight "feature" you don't note: when MS releases a new version, you need to buy it or you won't be able to open the new version either. So in effect, you keep paying over and over for the exact same thing.

My custom-compiled kernel is 2.6 MB after optimize-for-size. I think you're in the wrong decade.

Of course, I don't consider it "working" unless it has all the drivers I need. YMMV.

The problem with mexican flu (that's the name btw.) is not that the disease in itself is particularly deadly. The problem is that it's a H1N1 virus.

H1N1 are the proteins found on the mantle of the virus. The problem is that no human can develop an immune response to either H1 or N1 (as that would be deadly). If a virus were to infect a cell, and the mexican flu would infect the same cell, there is some chance that the mantle of flu would be copied around the much more dangerous virus, which would beat any immunity or vaccine we currently have, would react differently to most treatments and be capable of spreading through open air (through coughing).

If such an event were to take place, that event has a good chance of making the 1917 flu pandemic look like a tiny issue. That disease literally blocked the world economy for over 2 months, making millions of victims.

The problem is not the flu in the H1N1 form. The problem is that pneumonia might "be infected" and transform into an H1N1 virus. The problem is, in essence, the evolution that it might cause in other viruses. Cases of gene transfer between viruses are well-studied, and the current consensus is that it's commonplace.