That sound, it's not thunder, or a train. That's Steve rolling around in his grave. If he wanted the device to have a keyboard he would have included it at some point in the design. But he really wanted to eliminate all the other "accessory" pieces on computers. I highly doubt he would appreciate a former MS guy mucking with that. That being said, will I get one? Yes I probably would because I can appreciate a novel idea to a slightly bothersome issue. But the price point has to be pretty low. I wouldn't spend more than $10 on something like this. Then I can throw in in a bag and forget about it until I have a longer trip and I don't want to carry a full laptop due to size, stress, or fear of damage/theft. (Just to note it's much easier to conceal an ipad, but if someone is determined enough they could still take it.)

I think this ruling will be overturned as soon as its used against a celebrity or government agent to prove or disprove their whereabouts. People with money and power have influence and I see them being primary targets. I'm sure it's under their radar now but it only takes one high profile case to get things moving. Anyone else think this is kinda like a pre-Mcarthy wet dream?

In addition to all of the above the game could be used as cover to map out and plan tactical assaults on the prison personnel. If you really think about it, it's really the perfect cover. You could have 3d maps, equipment lists, personnel strengths and weaknesses all out in the open. The game format helps people conceptualize all of those things without actually having to be in every part of the jail. Inmates or guards with access could provide intimate details in a game format which would be harder to detect. That being said I don't think there should be an outright ban. They could institute a rule saying only events approved or planned by someone vetted by the staff can DM a game. That would allow the inmates an opportunity to play without the fear of not know exactly what the possible outcomes will be for any game session(s).

I spent a few years working as a software engineer for two electronic medical records companies. The second company certified some of its software with CCHIT. From that experience I can tell you that the CCHIT requirements are idiotic, and don't lead to better patient care, or better software for that matter. They are a hoop businesses jump through (both software companies and clinics). There are states that offer tax incentives for physicians that use CCHIT certified software. I know we spent a lot of time and effort implementing stupid features that were supposed to enhance security around patient data, help the physician provide better patient care, etc. In many cases these "CCHIT features" did just the opposite.

Its really disheartening when you write software all year to provide useful tools for doctors that improve the standard of care, and then have a bunch of useless and counterproductive features slapped on because of an upcoming CCHIT certification.

If you have the spare hardware, racks to mount it in, and the juice to run it, why not build a test environment? Just replicate work and scale it out. Do the things you wish you could do at work. Then when the time comes you already have the future expansion plan ready to go. It may suck to even think about "work" after you get home from your day job. But if you like taking on big projects, why not?

One app using 171 threads out of 256? What about the other programs? I have 62 processes running on my quad core right now. That is 62 processes all wanting to run threads. Most of those are background, but I count 10 foreground apps. If each one of those was to use 171 threads, my system would probably get hosed fast. Hell, if each one used just half that my desktop would be screwed. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, but if one of my junior programmers had said what you just said I would probably come down hard on them. I don't take Richter's opinion blindly, even though he has threading patents and I don't. It has been my experience that he is correct. Limiting the number of threads is good programming. I don't mean, "don't use threads." I mean, "don't use a lot of threads." It makes your program less complex, easier to debug, and usually speeds up the application. Throwing more threads at a problem without careful consideration of the consequences to the system at large can cause diminishing returns.

Without proper thread management by programmers, even machines with many pipelines will flounder. For an analogy, there used to be a local two-lane road that took me from my neighborhood out to the local highway. The road had a few cars on it so traffic was easy. Once I got to the 4-lane highway (4 north, 4 south) there was more traffic but I could drive to work fairly easy because of the extra lanes. Why? Because every other program errr neighborhood had a *little* road leading to the main highway, so there was never too much traffic dumped onto the road. Then the state decided to widen the highway to eight lanes each way to handle more traffic. When this happened a couple of local software errr real estate developers got greedy and expanded their real-estate and widened the local roads - more people in more cars driving in more lanes. So even though we have a new, wider highway it is now packed, and it now takes for ever for me to thrash errr drive my way to work.

This issue seems split between two camps, the "I can wonder around and film/take pictures of anything as long as you dont suffer any undue harm", and the absolute "get off my lawn!" folks. I think there's validity to both, but I'm siding with the home owners.
1. The property is marked private.
2. Street view drivers may not have seen anything posted, but being reasonably smart individuals (to operate the equipment and drive at the same time), they should have known not to enter an unmarked driveway because usually those lead to private residences.
3. Yes satellite imagery does take away a level of privacy, but those were and mostly still are government run installations who sub license to private industry. There is still a zoom cap in place. Street view breeches that distance limitation.
And the twist, "who owns the images". If the drive is marked private and Google illegally entered, and the took the intellectual property of the home owners, they can and should pay damages. Think of paparazzi and famous people. If the papz get a zoom lens at take pictures of that actor/actress in their private homes, they get the bejesus sued out of them. They regularly lose. But the funding from the images negates the cost of litigation. So they keep doing it. Google may make the same strategic decision, but they still should pay.
And, why fight this? Are they trying to tarnish the Google do "no" evil/Don't be evil image. They should admit to this being a mistake, compensate the home owners in the same range as images of non-celeb/z-listers, and call it a day. The images were already removed so the home owners cant claim they are still being harmed.