Saying that fork forces overcommit is strange. Fork is just one of the things that allocates memory. If you don't want overcommit fork should simply fail with ENOMEM if there isn't enough memory to back a copy of all the writable memory in the process.
I meant the practical considerations of fork means overcommitment is needed in many cases where it otherwise wouldn't be needed. If you fork a 2GB process but the child only uses 1MB, you don't want to commit another 2GB for no reason.
I've heard that you're supposed to put your feet against the ceiling of the car before unbuckling if you end up in a rolled over car. Has anyone tried that?
I also have a one-year-old Samsung and I managed to get it to not overscan for at least one input. Put your Mac Minis HDMI into the HDMI 1 / DVI input and then select the input in the Source menu on the TV, press Tools on the remote, and chose PC as the name of the input. This magically turns off overscan. Hope it works!
Did that already; no joy. It's not a problem because of the overscan slider in OSX, but it was a huge annoyance before I upgraded the mini (you need the built-in HDMI to get the overscan adjustment).
Unfortunately you're most likely losing resolution in this case. If, for example, your TV is cutting off 3% of the image, then the video card is scaling your whole desktop down from 1920x1080 to ~1862x1048, which will result in more than 3% apparent resolution lost due to less-than-optimal interpolation.
It is quite obvious that the article compares Chrome against Safari. This makes you objection to point 5 invalid, since Safari uses a search bar, not a search dialog and the thing you think is missing in the list of good points is something Safari has had forever.
The fact that a tree builds itself out of thin air is one of my favorite tidbits of knowledge. However, this kind of metabolism is only used by plants. Humans, as all animals, gets their building blocks from what they eat and drink. All the oxygen we use from the air we breathe is exhaled as carbon dioxide.
This is actually pretty interesting point of view. In essence, you should try to breath out all the carbon you ingest. Measuring the carbon dioxide output would be a pretty accurate measure of the actual energy consumption in the body.
I wonder if you could proxy your carbon dioxide output off of your breathing, with some calibration? When I run, I breathe harder; am I expelling more or less carbon dioxide per breath than when I am sitting in a chair? Counting breaths seems pretty technically feasible.
Maybe your heartbeat could also work; that's also pretty easy to collect.
It'd be awesome to have a running total of how many calories I'm burning at all time.
Polar heart rate monitors give you an estimate of the burned calories based on your pulse. That can't be too accurate though, because some people have bigger hearts which pump more blood per beat.
Sometimes I wish Mark hadn't published those articles. They have taken on a kind of cult status, like the interview with 37 Signals about their A/B testing and the words "See plans and pricing". Now lots of people seem to be taking these specific practices as gospel, but they've missed the point: it's not that what works for someone else will necessarily work for you, but that some things can be changed that might not have occurred to you, perhaps yielding much better results. <obligatory> Also, just because 37 Signals and Mark Boulton have popular blogs, that doesn't actually prove them right. </obligatory>
Mark's web site doesn't seem to have comments there any more, but I'm pretty sure I left one at the time pointing out that you want a typeset list to have a clear break between items (otherwise why are you typesetting it as a list?) and therefore hanging list markers the way you might hang punctuation seems exactly the opposite to what you are trying to achieve.
I would argue that the same series of articles makes the same mistake with hanging quotation marks, for the same reason. If you read some of the early thinking about hanging punctuation, the goal of this kind of microtypography was to give visually clean lines to the edges of where text is justified. If you position glyphs mechanically, as computer typesetting inevitably does by default, you actually get a visually uneven margin where you have glyphs that "stick out", such as quotation marks, dashes, and the crossbar on a captial T: the whitespace above and/or below the "sticking out" part breaks the straightness of the margin to a human eye. Instead, you can hang the glyph slightly (not necessarily entirely) in the margin, to give a line that is mathematically irregular but visually straight to the human eye.
Somehow this idea has transformed into hanging glyphs, usually punctuation marks, being some sort of trendy typographical effect, which might still make sense if you're talking about setting displayed type such as pull quotes. Unfortunately, it has then crossed a bridge too far, becoming "this is the Right Way To Do It(TM)" for even regular text, which is just dogma without any sort of aesthetic and/or usability justification.
You can always combine a fluid layout with a max-width for your text. Besides its not the width of the monitor that matters, its the width of the windows and I like my windows narrow, thank you very much. I used to be able to do this, but then they went and broke Readability :-(.
Interestingly, in the actual example he uses that isn't a fixed with element. Look at the Heroku.com site, its the div with id "accordion". That space to the left of it is created because of the padding of the surrounding div (which is fluid width), and the margin of the accordion div.
Its sister element with id "rightelement" is actually fixed width, but I don't see the issue there since the majority of its contents are image elements and not text.
---
That said, I agree with you set a max-width for text only enclosures, and a min-width for enclosures that have image elements.
