Nuclear power is a solved engineering problem. France has been doing it for years. Here in the US the problem is so called 'green' activists who don't (or won't) understand the basic laws of physics.

"the stupid URL bar that explodes into a list of sites whenever I type even a single letter there"

Um, that feature is brilliant, it's the only way I can still handle my bookmarks. Haven't tried Google Chrome, so I don't know if they have come up with a better solution. Have they?

Guy doesn't know what he is talking about. First, the French only recycle the waste once. After it goes through the second time, they don't recycle it again. They are building their own version of Yucca mountain to deal with it after that.

Second, in 2003 a very detailed analysis of nuclear power options by a group of MIT Scientists found that recycling is more expensive than the once-through process. See http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

I am not opposed to nuclear power, but as usual, we see crap on the WSJ editorial page.

From the article:

> Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust.

This is off by 4 orders of magnitude:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth'...

I suspect this is Apple's response to a phenomenon originating from China. I've been reading up about the Chinese knock-off cellphone, or "shanzhai phone", industry. It has become an incredibly lucrative business. Why? Because, it's now possible for a company, comprised of a small group of 3-5 people, to design, build (or rather contract to a factory), and market phones. The technology has gotten to the point where most of the difficult technical design hurdles have been removed by the presence of a cellphone-on-a-chip so-to-speak. Sound familiar to anyone around here? So you have these tiny, agile startups being able to compete with the big boys. A lot of the big boys are still in denial, and will probably try to respond to the shanzhai phone industry by attempting to get the Chinese government to crack down on it. Not Apple; their approach will be to out-innovate these players by playing off the one weakness that they have: that they cannot design their own cellphone-on-a-chip.

I won't make any predictions about whether Apple will still be a dominant player in the cellphone market 10 years from now. However, I will say that this move almost surely guarantees they will still be in the game by then. Other companies that rely on the same logistics and supply chain that the shanzhai guys do probably won't be as lucky unless they change their strategy as well.

UPDATE: The reading I've been doing was on my iPhone and I didn't bookmark everything. But one article was definitely this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/technology/28cell.html

This is a load of nonsense, of course. Wikipedia's guidelines for fair use within Wikipedia (which is what the above quotes, unattributed) are not based on any specific legal doctrine about what exactly is fair use.

Suggesting that Lessig violated copyright law because he didn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines is absurd. Here are the criteria that would be tested in court. They are not numeric, they are matters of judgment:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Gives you an opportunity to practice another buddhist/zen concept: letting go

"Advice ... [is] easy to find"

This is the mistake. Advice is easy to find, but it varies in value.

This guy can correctly value our money. It's worth the same as everyone else's. But he has no idea whether our advice is good or bad, and if good, how much better it is than "average" advice, whatever that is.

I like to run all apps maximized. That way, I can focus on the task at hand and not be distracted by stuff going on in other apps. Also, less clutter = more productivity.

The author seems to miss the point. This isn't like Apple emulating classic in OS X (or even PowerPC on Intel). This is Microsoft emulating one operating system from within another operating system where the compatibility between them is extremely high. You can take most well written XP applications and run them on Vista without a hitch and the situation will likely be better with Windows 7.

So, if the operating systems are so compatible what's the point of XP mode? There's a huge body of badly written software designed for and test only on XP that are necessary for businesses. These businesses haven't just been hesitant to upgrade to Vista, they aren't even considering it. If it doesn't run their app, there's no point. XP Mode is a way to coax them into upgrading by giving them an option to run their old crappy software on this new OS. That is all.

You're not supposed to be using XP mode to run games, so it's lack of GPU support doesn't matter. You're not supposed to be using it to interact with all sorts of devices. That's what the host operating system, Windows 7, is for. If you're going to virtualize everything in XP, you might as well just be running XP.