Is 0000 not a valid four digit number?

So now what are you doing about the advertising on the download page? I just checked and still had two fake download buttons, one of which was directly next to the real one.

He is suggesting a solution, use a plaintext file and restrict it to root only. You are just demanding a "better" solution which would require magic.

Actually there are no lockpicks in this case, we have unbreakable encryption. It is just that in order for a lock to be useful you can't leave your key in it. If you do there is, in fact, no reason to have a lock.

You proposal is still O(n) complexity overhead, you are looping over the array once to assign each item to a processor. It is better then the other proposal in the average case, but to claim it is no significant overhead is false. The entire point he was making is yes it can be done more quickly, but the total work is greater and this is bad if you are mainly concerned about battery life. Furthermore your proposal has very bad worst case performance, consider an array with all entries that start with 'a', you would basically be running the sort as single core and still have O(n) overhead. Multicore processing is hard, that is why it is still so little used.

You're right, they should just block 0.0.0.0/0 and block all spam 100%!

Does this title make anyone else think "ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" or is it just me...

No he did not, The summary is wrong. Wake forest actually clarified he had NOT produce a working kidney.

Actually I posted a clarification to my post noting the ambiguity there and going straight to the press release. The summary is wrong, he refuted the incorrect press releases which stated that he had created a functioning kidney. Is that unclear enough...

Actually that sentence is terrible.. from the wake forest site: "Reports in the media that Dr. Anthony Atala printed a real kidney at the TED conference in Long Beach, Calif., are completely inaccurate. At the conference, Dr. Atala used a new type of technology to print a kidney-shaped mold and explained how one day – many years from now – the technology might be used to print actual organs."

So no real kidney, just a mold.

TFS: "He refutes reported claims that it's just a kidney shaped mold, as reported by some"

TFA: "Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney."

TFA says "Gigabyte says owners of affected boards are entitled to a full refund or replacement—and it recommends that users seek refunds" but I cant find anything in the press release that even hints at that. I find it VERY unusual that a company would encourage returns, not replacements. The press release is exactly what I would expect, wait till the new stuff is ready and trade it in.

The Gigabye press release is here http://www.gigabyte.us/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=984 and it says nothing like what this article says, there is no mention at all of returns. Q: What action should I take if I have already purchased a GIGABYTE 6 series motherboard? A: Firstly, please determine your computer setup. No action will be needed if you only use the SATA 3 ports. If you are using the SATA2 ports, then there are possibilities that the device’s performance will decrease after a period of usage. To ensure the highest standard of customer support & services, GIGABYTE recommends that all customers who purchased GIGABYTE 6 series motherboards contact their local dealer (retail store where you purchased the motherboard) at the end of April for a motherboard exchange. GIGABYTE will provide an equivalent new motherboard replacement.

That lies, from the ripoff report page which I assume is what you are reading: Submitted: Friday, October 31, 2003 Last posting: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 ... Unwilling to accept the court’s decision, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 27, 2010, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling which affirmed the district court’s decision in all respects. So on the page claiming to have been edited in 2009 is a reference to an event in 2010.