Just install aftermarket start menu.

Not sure. I'm using handyCalc. It's not as advanced as SpeedCrunch, but it's good enough for a phone.

The dashes in yyyy-MM-dd make it a lot easier to read individual parts of the date in the middle of a big list. Makes it much easier to do a visual scan. I like dashes.

I see. I used to live about 6 miles from work, however that was if I were to take a car. If I were to take bike trails, my commute was 8.5-10 miles one way depending if I took shortcuts or not. I did that 8.5-10 mile biking commute for a while, however, truth to be told, it was exhausting, and I didn't do it too often. It usually took me 45-50 minutes to do 10 miles on crushed limestone, which isn't too bad, but the rest of the stuff that went along with biking killed it for me. I had to change clothes more often, I had to shower at work, waste time locking up my bike, etc, all in all if I woke up at 4:45am, I'd be at my desk by around 6:30. That's almost two hours in the morning gone for a 45 minute bike ride. Repeat this in the evening, and much of your day is pretty much gone. Six months ago I moved a little closer to work with 2.2 mile commute and I've been biking to work right until the last week of December. The actual biking part only took me 8-9 minutes, however, even then it still took me almost an hour from the moment my alarm went off in the morning until I actually got to my desk. The other 50 minutes were spent on brushing teeth, showering, changing, packing lunch, locking up my bike, walking to the building, etc, etc, etc... I'm not trying to dissuade you from biking to work, but you need to be aware that it probably takes more time and effort than you think. Especially with 23 miles one way. If you're in good shape you can probably do the biking part in 90 minutes. However, after you add in all the other stuff on top of it, I would guess it would take you 2 hours and 15 minutes before you wake up and actually get to your desk. And then you would also have to bike back, add two more hours for biking and showering for the second time in a single day. Since biking this much burns tons of calories, as you've noted, you will have to pack a really good lunch or two, otherwise you'll die on your way back. If I were you, I wouldn't do it any day except on Fridays when I'd know I wouldn't have to be at work next day. So I suggest starting there. If Fridays go well, then you can think of biking more than once a week.

Truth to be told there are far too many variables to give even a generalized answer. Even taking out human factor (overweight, out of shape, computer programmer version) out of the equation, the average speed will depend on the road surface you're biking on, the type of bike you're riding, the tires, and most importantly if you're riding with or against the wind. If you're biking on crushed limestone, that will slow you down, if you're biking on brick paved road, it will slow you down, heck, I can even tell the difference between old and newly resurfaced asphalt, the latter one is so nice to ride on... mmmm, really makes me wish we weren't in the middle of winter right now... Fat tires will slow you down, knobby tires will slow you down, the skinnier the tires the better, but skinny tires have less stopping power, and you typically feel every bump on the road. The type of bike will affect how fast you ride, the drop bar racing cycles are the fastest because they put you in the most aerodynamic position and because they allow you to leverage your upper body to pedal, hybrid bikes while technically a road bike will be slower, especially the ones with the front suspension because that suspension will absorb some of your pedaling energy instead of propelling you forward. Even the gearing on the bike will affect your average speed: if your bike doesn't have the optimal gear ratio, it will force you to use suboptimal gear thus reducing your speed. And for that matter optimal gear ratio will change with a person, a stronger person will need a different gear ratio than someone out of shape. Anyway... I feel I went way way off topic... Four years back when I was starting to get back in shape, I started cycling again. I used Trek 7000 hybrid bike on crushed limestone. I think it took me about 4 or so hours to do 30 miles with all the breaks which translates into average speed of 7.5 miles per hour. I'm in much better shape and on a much better bike now (still a hybrid though) I can do around 16-17 miles per hour on asphalt pavement, a little more if I push myself hard, a little less if I'm on crushed limestone. Point being, if you want to get back in shape, which I assume is why you're asking, don't fret about how fast you are. Just work on becoming better as you go along.

I'll second leppie suggestion. Regular Samsung 840 is using TLC nand which has significantly shorter life span than MLC. And while most likely TLC will outlive the rest of your PC, in my opinion the data and peace of mind is worth a little extra, so I would go with 840 Pro which still uses MLC. If you search slickdeals for the best deal 256GB 840Pro goes for as low as $210 on sale.

rofl, it took me a while, but now I see it. And now that I've seen it once I will always see it whenever I look at that picture. Thanks!

I think that book will go something like this: "You can't get fit sitting around, so get of your chair and go exercise".

Basically what she said. Fat is not harmful by itself, the body literally needs fat to survive. From what I read diet that's 1/3rd calories from fat, 1/3rd calories from carbs, and 1/3rd of calories from protein with plenty of fiber is about as good as one can get. Of course people who are really really serious about bodybuilding and are either bulking or cutting can play with percentages a little bit, but I personally I think that's going a little bit overboard and I question if that actually helps. Anyway, the point is that fat is good for you as long as you eat it in moderation and as long as you adhere to the diet above and do plenty of physical exercise you will be as healthy as you can be.

They should be separate. I'm basing it on the fact that W8 RT will run on ARM processors, but you won't get desktop on ARM. This would imply that RT is not an app built on top of desktop, but a separate path/presentation layer/environment with quick link to desktop (as long as you're running x86 cpu and not ARM). I've had W8 RC installed in virtual machine. I'm not as enthusiastic about it as you are, It's not as horrible as some people describe it, but I see a lot of the changes such as lack of start menu as huge productivity killers. It helps to accept W8 if you start thinking of RT/Metro as the new start menu, the kind that takes full screen, but it still doesn't change the fact that I can get to the most frequently used programs that I have not pinned down from start menu in W7 with a mouse only, in W8 I have to move my hand over to keyboard to do the same thing. And like you said, the way to shut down your PC is retarded. Luckily there are third party start menu replacements, but I still think it was dumb to remove start button.

I would sincerely hope it goes the way you say, but I doubt it will. There are a few successful regional municipal and private ISPs (utopia, Lafayette IN, Sonic.net) however they're not expanding beyond their original footprint despite being profitable. Verizon was deploying FIOS for a couple of years as fast as they could, it's profitable now, very profitable, but they had to stop deployment due to investor pressure. Instead, they're raising FIOS prices significantly, it no longer is a bargain compared to cable. Google is a public company, and deploying fiber, or any kind of last mile solution will require major capital, and the stockholders will scream because they demand short term results only. If we're lucky, and I mean really really lucky, telcos will have to start upgrading phone lines to fiber in order to stay competitive with cable, which will force cable to upgrade last mile to fiber as well. However, that's a very long shot, especially since telcos seem to be betting on LTE and future over the air internet technologies that are ripe for overage abuse. To be short, good that google is doing this, bit I don't think it's going to help us at all.

It doesn't work like you think it does. Except for a few small markets there is no overlap in coverage meaning there is no competition. Where I live right now I have a choice between 768Kbps (yes, 768 kilobits per second) AT&T and Comcast, which is not much of a choice really. At my last place I had a choice of two cable providers, marginally better, but still a duopoly. Major ISPs are not motivated by high speed internet vision, they're motivated by money, they know already that data caps are BS, do not be fooled into thinking they truly believe what they spout about data caps. They see caps as added revenue in the future, which is why they're implementing them now. They couldn't give a damn about google because it's only one market out of the whole country, it is not a threat to them, and no, they're not going to lower prices and up the speed just because google "shows them the way". Sad, but true. Google fiber has no value to the rest of us not in Kansas.

AFAIK google has repeatedly said they do not want to be a nationwide ISP. When they said a test bed for future projects, they meant projects other than delivering fiber to the home, such as google voice, google TV, google cloud services, and whatnot. Google simply wants to test their services over faster network, but they do not want to build it.

Good for Kansas City people, irrelevant for everybody else since google has no plans to expand its service.

A tech guy who doesn't trust technology. What are the odds...? :^)

Working extra 5 or 10 hours a week doesn't sound too bad until you realize that 45 hours a week is 1 extra hour a day or 12.5% extra time. 50 hours a week is 2 extra hours a day or working full day on Saturday and is 25% extra time. It's one thing if you get paid overtime, it's completely different if you do not. What's wrong with working just extra hour a day? 12.5% difference in salary that you don't get!

"The main finding was that the lower the handlebars, the more physical effects the women experienced, likely because low handlebars required the women to lean forward, which in turn put more pressure on the perineum, which is made of soft tissue. The problem was most likely to occur when the rider assumed an aerodynamic racing position in which she leaned far forward with her back flat." They make bike seats with cut outs for the pelvic area. Just buy one of those. To be honest, when I'm riding, the biggest problem is not pressure from the seat, but pressure from the pants/shorts that tighten up while I'm riding... Hmmmm... maybe I should invest in spandex? Any personal experience?

ChrisElston wrote:

As I said x-rays are clear, lot of heat coming off it now, as you'd expect from a bang.

I wouldn't be so sure. I had hairline fracture in my wrist that didn't show up on the xray until 2 weeks after. The doc explained because it was a hairline fracture it wouldn't be noticeable on xray until the bone starts to heal itself by forming new bone. Sure enough in two weeks when I went back for checkup we clearly saw the white hairline where I had the fracture. So definitely take it easy if it still hurts, and go back to the doc if it still hurts couple of days later. Good luck.

Hm... It is a difficult question about lenses. I'm not so sure that interhangeable lenses are going to go away, even if lytro technology succeeds. Why do people need interchangeable lenses? 1. Different focal ranges - ultra wide, zoom, and specialty like macro 2. Better glass quality, better quality photos 3. Fast lens is better in low light 4. Fast lenses (f2.8 or faster) lets you have a nice bokeh Now, I can see lytro technology eliminating the need for bullet point 4, i.e. you won't need a fast lens to have a nice bokeh, since it can be manipulated in software and in theory it will be identical to what you'd get with hardware. However, I do not see lytro technology making the rest of the benefits obsolete, you would still need a specialty lens to take macro photos, you would still need a fast lens to take low light photos, and you'd still get benefit of having better glass on your body. So I don't think it's as clear and cut as saying they are going to go away. Lenses will still exist, at least for the foreseeable future, but what exactly happens is still a mystery. Are we going to see less lens offerings? Less new models? Would this technology require completely new lenses? Would we even need a focus ring on new lenses? Would we need an aperture setting on our cameras? Are lenses going to be come a niche product used by professionals only? Those are all questions that I don't think anybody can answer yet.

Exactly, the premise is good, the camera can detect not only the color and the amount of light hitting the sensor, but also the direction it's coming from (the differentiating feature that makes it all possible). However, it is only 1 megapixel which is less than 1280x1024 actual resolution, it has awkward styling, and it is still P&S camera with slow shutter speeds, no real viewfinder, etc... The good news however is that if the technology matures all of these features (that probably amount to a special sensor) can be migrated to regular cameras or even DSLR's. Although it does make me wonder if having an array of different interchangeable lenses is going to be as important in the future as it is right now... If you can change aperture after the picture is taken, and you're not shooting in low light, would you really need that ultra fast 1.4f lens to get that nice brokeh?