I hope they update the Mac mini. I've been waiting for that so that I can replace an aging PC that is on the brink of death.

Or maybe, just maybe, they honestly prefer Windows to Linux. Not everyone is part of some Microsoft conspiracy to stomp the life out of all of us. Just like how some Linux users realize that peddling Linux as the all-around superior OS is complete and utter, mindless bias.

Linux is not a POS, but it's not vastly superior to Windows, let alone OS X for that matter.

With all of the flavors of Linux available, they chose the one from the Chinese?

Not exactly a beacon of trustworthy computing there. Color me unsold.

To add a little clarification to what I said. It's the shadows that change your face for any sort of visual identification system. If they are doing some sort of other detection along side it to get an idea of physical features (thinking localized sonar here), then the mannequin with a little clay added under the picture to full the sonar would be all you'd need.

Of course, who knows, maybe they have some sort of truly unique system here, but I really, really doubt their system could detect the difference between a modified mannequin with a picture on it, and the real deal.

So take the picture and put it on the face of a mannequin--it's the shadows that really mess with your face, not the shape it's on (so you could just stick it on a sphere, probably). It might be distorted a little bit, but I doubt it would be hard to beat doing something like this.

Certainly, a non-sensical password would be harder to beat and more unique than your face, which could be used to take a picture of in numerous ways without you ever knowing it.

The only purpose this might serve is not for creating a biometrically secured password, but rather a step forward towards creating an accurate, autonomous identification system.

I like Mac's, but this still does nothing to stop the Mac gaming is an oxymoron because it's still not gaming on a Mac.

It's still gaming on Windows, which happens to be virtualized on a Mac.

Also, as an earlier person pointed out--virtualization still has an overhead, and DirectX 9 is still not enough for certain games (Halo 2 on the PC and Crysis for instance will both require DirectX 10). Of course, since I gave up serious PC gaming in favor of consoles a year ago, this is all kind of a moot point for me anyway.

This is awful. This is why I am glad that my last PC would be my final gaming PC until graphic's card manufacturers realize what they are doing.

It's not worth buying a $500 card that can likely hardly push graphics similar to a Xbox 360 or PS3 (not because of its hardware, but because PC gaming has to develop for some lowest common denominator) and when it finally does for most games, then it will be time to upgrade again.

On top of that, it literally increases your power bill and generates lots of heat (aka, wasted power).

So it took him 8 years to realize that Bluetooth, a standard that has been in the works since at least 1998 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ), was somehow infringing on his patent?

Yeah, this doesn't scream, "I waited until you were so deep into the technology that you'll almost be forced to settle."

I wish people like this were thrown in prison--they're scum.

I must admit, when I first saw a commercial for the BlackJack, I caught myself wondering if it was a new BlackBerry phone or not. It's clearly designed and named to make people wonder that.

Of course, I only watch the cell phone market from afar and watch for neat things just to forget them later.

Just to clear one thing up that I think may be missing from my above post:

I do not want AMD to fail, nor do I want Intel to fail. This is one of the few industries where this kind of innovation really does help the consumer win, and we win big. Faster clocks speeds, more cores per chip, lower power consumption (usually...), and price wars (where the only winner is always the consumer).

As I said in my last post, I had been won over by AMD offering the better product and clearly this post is showing off a failure by AMD compared to Intel's option. Now, with that said, AMD was trying something here that does have some other perks mentioned by a few other savvy posters, plus the ability to go to eight cores (2 quad core chips) next year. Yeah, I think AMD failed pretty bad, but it's probable that they picked up something from this that will help them compete with Intel in the future, and that's what I am looking forward too.

One thing I am a bit shocked about is that this runs really hot according to Tom's Hardware, which sounds odd since I've never dealt with cooling problems with my AMD systems, and just adds to the feeling that this was rushed to compete with Intel's Quad core offering.

My biggest point of this rambling post is that it's a pretty foolish thing for a lot of people to be going on and on about how great AMD is and that most people don't understand the place of hte Quad FX compared to the Intel Quad core, because I don't think the point of the post was to slap AMD, but it was to slap the Quad FX platform.

People that know the nitty gritty about CPUs know where these chips go right and wrong, but to the vaguely computer literate among us, the review above is clearly spot on. The Quad FX falls short for what it meant to do: beat Intel's offering.