...I’m no engineer so I have no idea why that might be, but it’s definitely the way things are.

...That alone can’t account for the advances, though, as other notebook components that are heat generators are largely the same.

...So why is this? I’m interested to hear from those who know about these things

...Inquiring minds want to know.

No offense but i just read a page of your writing and learned nothing.

Why don't you pick up a phone and talk to an engineer at a computer manufacturing company and tell us what he said instead of spending six paragraphs wondering aloud about how things work.

It's called journalism.

So why are they so pissed? Because their guy didn't win?

Or because the guy that did win doesn't look like them?

I think they are pissed because they haven't destroyed their enemies.

When you define your party's identity and mission to be almost solely about crushing your enemies (liberals, democrats, terrorists, taliban, iraqis, etc.), which is ultimately an unachievable goal, then the only final result will be rage and frustration.

They're pissed because they didn't accomplish their mission, and then they were thrown out of office as well.

The civilized thing to do would have been to sum up her speech in a couple of sentences to spare your readers having to listen to it. There's no way I'm gonna click on a link to hear her rambling on about unseen and imagined enemies. Where's the value-add?

Sure, the assault weapons ban's expiration is an abomination.

I am not so sure that the assault weapon ban does anything constructive. To me it seems mostly a prohibition on cosmetic gun features, most of which have no bearing on the use of guns in crime. And I am speaking as a liberal here.

I very much want to live in a reality-based, rational world, but I haven't seen significant evidence that the previous assault weapon ban had any positive effect.

To summarize the assault weapon ban, rifles were banned if they possessed at least two of the following features, in addition to having a detachable magazine:

- Pistol grip. (I have no idea how a pistol grip makes a rifle bad. This is a case of looking at current assault rifles, and trying to ban specific features unrelated to a rifle's lethality. But it very easy for a gun manufacturer to create a grip that gets around the definition, such as thumbhole grips)

-Bayonet mount. (once again, this picks a random feature on current military weapon and attempts to prohibit it. Easy enough for a manufacturer to omit the mount. And how many people are bayonetted every year?)

- Grenade muzzle attachment (for launching rifle grenades). Easy for manufacturers to omit. No significant contribution to crime.

- Flash Suppressor - This keeps the flash from blinding the shooter. It does not hide the flash from view. Easy to omit.

- Folding or telescoping stock (another characteristic that has nothing to do with how lethal a rifle is.). Easy to omit.

- A limit of 10 round capacity magazine (does anybody actually think that a 10 round magazine makes a rifle less lethal, when magazines can be changed in a couple of seconds? Also, magazines are very easy to make and import, and are very inexpensive.

There are similar cosmetic prohibitions for shotguns and pistols.

To give an analogy, this is like wanting to outlaw garbage hauling, so you decide to ban pickup trucks, and then define a pickup truck as something having a bumper, two headlights, and roof.

There are lots of vehicles that won't meet that definition but are still, for all practical purpose, capable of hauling trash. The definition misses the point.

If you want to make laws restricting certain weapons, then you better understand what those weapons really are and what makes them lethal, and what you are trying to accomplish. The law reads like it was written by people who didn't know the first thing about weapons.

The AWB just misses the mark, and ultimately was an ineffective and bad law.