And what about a tabbed and paned interface loses the ability to see two windows side by side? You can easily have 3 windows maximized at once, with different panes and drag bars between them for resizing the 3 workspaces. I'm just talking about getting rid of the window borders and crap you don't need in order to work with multiple windows at once.

No, only 22" widescreen, but you obviously missed the point about dragging the tabs to create panes, or workspaces, where by you still get to see 2, 3, or however many windows side by side or tiled in a grid. You just lose the cruft around the window frames and the ability to see 3 pixels of the desktop between your windows because you didn't drag them exactly to be side by side.

I think most people are missing what I said here. You don't give up the ability to have two windows side by side if you can't size windows arbitrarily. You would drag the tabs into different workspaces which would create a divider bar, letting you have as many things side by side, tiled, or whatever. You just give up the extra cruft like window frames and borders. Each app gets a tab, and multiple tabs can be visible at any given time.

Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized. As far as I can tell, you'd be better off with the taskbar in windows being like tabs, and being able to drag tabs together to form split pane views for side-by-side work. I hate having to manually drag the edges of windows, and I hate when they are not fullscreen (or minimized). Yes I know about "Tile Windows Horizontally" but it just makes extra fluff for the borders of each window compared to a tabbed/paned view. Pretty much a big failure on OS X that their Maximize doesn't even always make a window full screen.

My Hyundai nearly always shows 3mph higher than my GPS. My GPS always agrees with the street-side radar things that flash your speed at you exactly. I never actually compared the long distance odometer readings to actual distance traveled to figure out if the speedometer needle is just aimed a few degrees too far to the right, or if the calibration of the axle rotation to distance traveled is just slightly off. I suppose it could be either one, but it's less evil to think that auto manufacturers just want you to drive slower and saver by tricking you into thinking you are going faster than you actual are that it is to think that they are trying to inflate their MPG figures.

You get more MPG if the odometer is tied to a speedometer that is calibrated to show a higher speed, and thus greater distance traveled.

^THIS^ There is a reason file:/// urls always have 3 slashes and other protocols use 2. Additionally, http:///file.html should be more or less an alias for http://localhost/file.html in theory. It is also very similar to the \\computer\fileshare syntax Windows uses. Just think of Explorer as assuming the default protocol is smb: instead of how your web browser will assume http: If Explorer used regular slashes, would it too much to type smb://server/share/path/file.doc ?

I've never figured out what is really supposed to happen when you shut off a worm-hole in mid-transit. In one episode of SG-1, some heavy material re-materializes inside of the nearby planet's sun (causing/solving the red sky and eminent doom). In another episode, Teal'c is trapped inside of the buffer, and his atoms are not just randomly lost at some point in space between the two gates. Also, there is at least one episode I can recall where a Jaffa retreating through a gate has his staff weapon cut in half when the gate shuts off. Also in the 2nd episode of the entire series of SG-1, Kawalsky had his head cut in half by them shutting down the gate while his head was partially in the wormhole. So the whole thing about transporting entire objects as one packet seems to be not true all of the time.

Instead of spinning the "wrong" way, couldn't the planet just have a 180 degree axial tilt, sort of like Uranus has a pretty steep 97 degree tilt. At 180 degrees, it would be right sight up by a different perspective, but spinning the opposite direction as the star.

Looking at my most recent bill, I think I pay $10.68 even if I use 0 KWH, so I already pay such a "connection fee" with Consumers Energy in Michigan.
System Access Charge - 6.00
Delivery Surcharges - 4.68