Why don't you go ahead and link your published papers? Or we could, you know, all just pay attention to the ones that are already out there? Alternatively we could do as you seem to be doing and believing that since we made a science mistake in the past, that future theories must also be incorrect.

Lordy they ain't that diff-er-ent.

You know VonFeldt7 has used Vista, that isn't a real question. Rather than pretend like it is, how about we just acknowledge that not everyone has the same opinion.

This.

Yeah. That really killed it for me too. It's playing games with words to say it wasn't about slavery. What right were they fighting for? Slavery. You can tell me all day long that it could have been a different right, but no one went to war for any others.

Before anyone else offers/ask for an invite, keep in mind that Google has closed the rolls for + even if you get an invite.

I'm still not seeing them as all that far apart. The 320M is faster on most counts, sometimes by a lot, and sometimes by very little or none. Keeping in mind that intel has historically shipped drivers of questionable quality for it's GPU's at least initially, I think these generally close benchmarks are further apart…

Notebookcheck has it within either 1% or 5% of the 320M, depending on which of their comparison charts you look at (and lists it ahead in a few places as well). Macworld uses some harsh language, but again the benchmarks look very close, with just a few of what appear to be driver-related issues...which sounds just…

From what I've read it looks like the integrated GPU on the 2nd gen cores is just around as fast as the 320M.

Personally I doubt they'll go with the low-voltage chips. It seems like it's been a bit of a trend lately to put normal voltage core series chips in ultra mobile laptops (Thinkpad X220, Vaio Z), and I can't see Apple wanting to undershoot that on a professional line of laptops like the Air.

CDMA and GSM are different tech, does that mean we can't compare them? Besides, they did almost exactly what you suggested - AT&T markets its 3G as 4G on devices with 7.2mbps radios and up, and T-Mobile does so for 14.4mbps and up. But even that is besides the point that if we don't compare networks based on what they…

That doesn't really solve a problem. Look at how fast the tablet market is changing, from capability to form factor - how do you build a dash around that? Also...are you seriously buying a new car to get a new radio and GPS?

If there's one thing that the Internet is good at besides stealing all of my time, it is reminding me that I'm a talentless and incapable piece of human meat.

Everyone, go to your dormitories!

I don't know, it sounds fairly clear that this game objectively sucks (graphics, AI, humor, level design, really anything about this game). Does it really matter what the expectations were? This isn't a situation where "oh it didn't live up to the hype but it's still a fun romp" for the majority out there. I'm glad it…

I really need to stop commenting on this article...but one more go...

Pssst. T-Mobile's towers aren't LTE, so AT&T has to replace them anyway.

That's not really how it works. AT&T and T-Mobile as you appear to know are on different frequencies, so T-Mobile having a tower near an AT&T tower is largely fine. What AT&T is arguing is that they don't have enough spectrum to deploy a 4G network in some areas, so they need more spectrum...which T-Mobile has. So in…

AT&T is sitting on more unused spectrum than any of the other US carriers. Sprint is essentially saying they could, you know, use that, while repurposing some currently used spectrum for LTE. Which seems reasonable considering that there isn't really a point to having a shit load of EDGE coverage when you already have…

Nonsense? AT&T isn't arguing it can't afford to boost its network, it's saying it just plain can't. Networks don't magically improve themselves, so AT&T will have to spend money no matter what.