> You really need to get a hackintosh

No I don't. I either need Apple to get its head out of its ass, or to vote with my dollars and buy something I'd actually use. Going out of my way to support Apple's OS, which they barely support on their own hardware, and to circumvent their random SMC half-assed secure boot nonsense is doing extra work that I don't need to be doing.

But even still, Apple's never going to learn that lesson because Apple doesn't sell PCs anymore. They sell shitty appliances that break and go out of date every year, because they know you'll just keep coming back to them for more.

Because when you try to fix it, you get a slashdot article posted with a hundred people saying how "you should go die in a fire."

These days phone chips have TDPs running around 8-10W, like Exynos 5250's 8W max TDP. If you look at perf/watt at the top end, Intel's chips are still very securely in the lead.

Yeah, the ARM chips can still clock down way lower, but throwing around numbers like 0.2W max is just being disingenuous.

Or install Linux, since it's free and you can continue using your existing hardware. Then you can just virtualize and continue using your XP license in a nice, safe cocoon.

How is it that every time someone talks about electric cars cost, they always neglect the sales incentives - federal tax credits, state tax credits, etc. No, they just go by raw numbers, which are intentionally set where they are to maximize the company's profits in light of said credits existing. Remove those from the price, and the Fiat 500e is roughly $3k more expensive than the regular 500, which shouldn't surprise you since that's about the difference an electric power train costs. Rerun your math and you find it's far easier to break even.

That's unfortunate. They looked at AGG as literally the example of what *not* to standardize because of it's horrendous usage of templates.

> I have a mouse that's 22 years old

...and only requires a serial-to-PS/2 and a PS/2-to-USB adapter to actually work on a modern computer...

Which all but guarantees that this engine will never do anything more.

Itunes is possible the number one reason I switched back to a PC from my macbook. I simply can't stand it. It's bloated, laggy, and just a plain mess if you ever need to do anything complex to it's god-awful database. And if you wanted to offload your massive music collection to a netwroedk location....impossible. Back in the day I wanted to run itunes off a NAS drive - mother of god was that a mistake. I still am forced to use it to back up my iphone but that alone may be driving me to android - that my iphone freeking requires itunes is more aggravating than I can even explain.

The point was not that carbon capture was bad or ineffective. The point was that the efficiency was so low that they had to supplement with conventional CO2 supplies. The enthusiasm is good, but it should be tempered by the reality that the process of "air-to-petrol" is essentially academic at this point in time.

Buried at the bottom of the article is this tidbit:

"Although the prototype system is designed to extract carbon dioxide from the air, this part of the process is still too inefficient to allow a commercial-scale operation.

The company can and has used carbon dioxide extracted from air to make petrol, but it is also using industrial sources of carbon dioxide until it is able to improve the performance of "carbon capture"."

According to MIT's Press Release (and their published works): "Most of the tests reported in this study were done in human and animal cells cultured in the lab, but the researchers also tested DRACO in mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. When mice were treated with DRACO, they were completely cured of the infection. The tests also showed that DRACO itself is not toxic to mice."

This may not pan out to being the panacea promised, but it certainly does work inside of animals. There are tons of questions about how such a drug should be used if it were to become available and pass testing, whether it should be reserved for viruses that will kill you very quickly, or whether it should be prescribed to keep people missing work from a cold or flu, but the fact is, there's something worth researching here.

And it's not like MIT's not going to publish the biggest claim they possibly can to draw in as much research funding as possible for this, even if it does turn out to only be effective against a handful of virus types, or if it does just kill the host organism or a incredibly significant portion of their remaining cells, re-releasing viruses into their systems in the case of long-term virus infections such as Herpes or HIV.

Still, the researchers are right that there's not a lot of hope the viruses have resistance-wise, as there's nothing for them to actively select around. The viruses that could survive this kind of onslaught are ones that can deliver a payload while remaining an intact virus, which would require some kind of in-virus payload replication, which would make it... you know.. not a virus anymore, some kind of protobacteria. We just wonder if the host can also survive the damage wrought by this drug.

You have to admit though that allowing IT to decide 'the best time to upgrade' is what gave us IE6 "Forever Edition".

That said, I agree that FF is the suck when it comes to upgrade whining. For the love of god, implement some Active Directory / Group Policy support! It will increase FF adoption *IN THE HOME* as well. And will help kill off IE6 in the business world.

Actually, the grandma reference likely comes up from all of us skilled in the arts who provide computer and tech support to our grandmothers (and grandfathers, etc). The irony here is that I would absolutely LOVE to switch my grandparents to a command line interface by default.

Phone call:
"What do you see on the screen grandma? Oh, really? Well, open a command prompt. Type (XYZ) for me? Ok, what does it say? Ah! Type( ABC) for me please.... " etc

versus:
"What do you see on the screen grandma? Oh, really? Is there a little icon in the upper right corner that......." (20 minutes go by). "Ok, now open the start menu. No, that's the one on the bottom, towards the left. What? Jason moved your menus to the right side of the screen? Fuck. No, grandma, I don't mind trying to help you at all. Yes grandma, I'm sorry about the swearing....."

And all of these conversations are with grandma, because grandpa hates talking on the phone.

If you want to really feel the burn, compare:
- Current state of the project
- Total (expected) funding from now until (expected) commercial availability.
- Who is providing the funding.
- Expected transit times from, say, London to San Francisco
- Available transit corridors (hypersonic shock waves have somewhat more energy than supersonic versions. And flying a passenger liner into the ground at mach 5 could take out many, many city blocks.)
- Susceptibility to fatal mid-air collisions. The wing hitting anything more substantial than a butterfly at Mach 5+ isn't likely to be survivable. Not sure how fast the craft goes while below 18km (~60K feet), so maybe not an issue.
- System complexity.

Compare all of that to Virgin Galactic. http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Yea. Sure. Today the plan is to visit orbit. But once you can get a craft 60 miles up, going halfway around the planet just isn't that much more difficult.