Slashdot Mirror

The JOVIAL J4 compiler was itself written in JOVIAL J4.

Want something really mind-blowing? PyPy is a Python interpreter written in Python. It includes a tracing JIT compiler to optimize hotspots as it runs to get about 5 times faster than the native C Python. I've used it and I still can't quite believe it.

To elaborate, just see these images from google

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TXAliqLA3jY/Sv1XHwjdQlI/AAAAAAAAJ-A/GMZgMmrEWcs/s400/1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QqrrwHaKw_s/Sv6vy9SeDsI/AAAAAAAAAQA/jj4Hq8_nXOs/s320/amelia+andersdotter.bmp

To elaborate, just see these images from google

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TXAliqLA3jY/Sv1XHwjdQlI/AAAAAAAAJ-A/GMZgMmrEWcs/s400/1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QqrrwHaKw_s/Sv6vy9SeDsI/AAAAAAAAAQA/jj4Hq8_nXOs/s320/amelia+andersdotter.bmp

Here you go.

Women want college administrators instead of the police involved because the former have a ridiculously low level of proof as their standard. The one in four statistic is a lie.

Exactly. Much of Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, is devoted to explaining this principle. I put an article about it on my blog a while ago, but far more importantly, it's been on Cracked.com.

...be the guy invited to the boldly-claimed energy revolution
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/28/030244/1-mw-cold-fusion-plant-supposedly-to-come-online ...actually attend
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/thumbs/R_319825_1.jpg ...then don't report on it
http://twitter.com/#!/petersvensson/status/131019897244368896 ...tell people to 'stay tuned'
http://twitter.com/#!/petersvensson/status/131754686226247681 ...all while the conspiracy blogs suggest that you're probably being pressured from up on high to remain quiet
http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/10/ecat-censorship-ap-news-report-killed.htmlz
( Not that I'm suggesting anybody pay particular attention to conspiracy blogs, just setting up the pieces... ) ...even though reality is that you probably signed an NDA and were never allowed to report a damn thing anyway (positive or negative), thus making you a pawn in the "look at how legitimate we are - we even have an official from the press, the AP no less, present" game in the days leading up to the much-hyped test.

Best practice is to just go on vacation :)
http://twitter.com/#!/petersvensson/status/137641776751185920

This one?

What the Anonymous Coward described sounds like Kickstarter's business model to me, which appears to be working reasonably well for a lot of rather unknown artists (but NB, how you present your work can make or break your call for funding!).

To answer your question, you'll probably want to give your potential readers a glimpse of what you are trying to sell them before they buy, for instance by releasing the first few chapters of your book so they can evaluate your writing ability and get a taste of the storyline/characters (which is more than they'd normally get, as in the traditional model they'd pay up front only to find out later if what they bought was just abysmal, over-marketed drivel). Of course, if it doesn't work out at first, you'll just need to persist! Don't lose heart and throw your book out; if your book is good, you'll get there eventually.

Also, I highly recommend Joe Konrath's blog, who is a very intelligent and successful self-published writer using such business models.

... or the frozen banana that won't make you sick and kill you!

Pfft, gravity is for losers.

The universe needs more space bats. Space Bat was the ultimate pioneer in the animal kingdom. He had the will to do anything he wanted to.
He went all the way.
I salute him.

I hope him and the moon are having an awesome time.

I have submitted this as a question to "ask Slashdot" but my question is the following: Is the superluminal neutrino considered to be compatible with information theory? And if it is, why exactly would it be incompatible with Einstein? I have uploaded the draft of my analysis on the topic to http://relevancetheory.blogspot.com/2011/11/general-theory-of-relevance.html and http://www.scribd.com/doc/73219743/The-General-Theory-of-Relevance-and-Reliability and would love all help verifying the argument. In essence, it seems that if we create an information theoretically consistent model where we assign a minimal rest mass of 1 to the photon and to empty space and (in consequence) the maximum speed two solid objects could move towards each other were 2 * c then superluminal neutrinos would become compatible with Einstein (although his formula would have to be extended into E = mcc * 2 ). My analysis includes an experiment that could (if my model is right) demonstrate the accelerating redshift effects currently associated with Dark Energy in earthly laboratories, so if nothing else that experiment (described in the section about Dark Energy towards the end) is perhaps the fastest way for you to see if there is a mistake in my argument?

Any help I can get with understanding if the analysis in my draft is faulty or correct would be greatly appreciated!

I cannot add anything more insightful than what Matti P. has written at http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/11/are-quantum-states-only-figments-of.html er, maybe I could add to it, but I'm working on other theories... reality or non-reality does not matter...

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/320/3/0/if_you_like_zelda_2_by_dungeonboss-d4gdo3k.png

Operation Rainfall

Well all I am trying to point out is that "Technically free" is a pointless argument, not supported by any rational business case.

Nothing that uses your infrastructure is technically free.

It has been stated that the reason many people experience calls going direct to voice mail is because of signaling channel congestion.
Some links to this phenomena appear here, and here.

(Signaling channel (probably not the right term, but someone is sure to jump in with the correct one) is the common channel signaling system that the towers talk to the handsets with. This channel is also used by the tower indicate it has a call for that handset.).

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/nature-hypes-anti-qm-crackpot-paper-by.html

"Whatever way you choose to read the text [of the paper by Pusey et al], it makes no sense whatsoever. How they suddenly jump to the conclusion that there is a problem with the probabilistic meaning of the wave function remains completely mysterious."

I had the same initial reaction (see my blog post of 23rd September, but as I later noted, and as stated above, I think the SN1987A result kills this idea.

I had the same initial explanation (see my blog post of Sept 23rd, but as I subsequently noted, and stated above, I think the SN1987A result kills this idea.

The mass of neutrinos is very very low, for any energy much bigger than this mass, the
neutrino will travel at a speed very very close to the relavistic invariant speed, (which is
normally the speed of light). Interestingly for tachyons, they move nearer the speed of
light for high energy, and are infinitely fast for zero energy (which doesn't matter because
you can't detect a zero energy particle).

---

Axial force for Neutrino Speed

Uhmmm. how the fuck am I talking about philosophy? I am saying that this is an experiment that is much harder to refute and that it trumps OPERA.

(Near re-post of http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2507746&cid=37936976)

OPERA shows light travels little bit slower than the fastest objects we've measured. A little while ago we heard that in galaxies far, far away, either the electric charge is larger, Plank's constant is smaller or the speed of light is smaller (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2507746). If it's the speed of light that's smaller, the required slow-down is of the same order of magnitude as the factor by which photons are slower than neutrinos as observed by OPERA.

Here's my take. There's a field of undetected particles (dark matter?) that refract light a tiny bit, and this field was denser in the early universe. This field would not affect the apparent speed of light as an observer moves through it, just as (ignoring dispersion) light traveling through moving glass doesn't pick up the glass' motion vector (i.e. this wouldn't manifest itself as the Luminiferous aether, which is experimentally disproved). Light from the 1987A supernova would not be delayed too much relative to the neutrinos because most of the journey was through regions of space with low dark matter density.

There: three mysteries (dark matter, OPERA neutrinos and the fine structure "constant") all tied together with a bow on top. If you know more physics than I (honours undergrad) and you think I've missed something, please tear into this hypothesis, either here or on my blog: http://many-ideas.blogspot.com/2011/11/ftl-neutrinos-and-fine-structure.html. I look forward to hearing from you!

Best,

LeDopore

Delusional: The 53% figures are BS.

Especially reading this part:

The company said it will use a mix of industrial astronauts and advanced robotic systems to provide a strategically-assured, continuous supply of propellants for spacecraft."

Uh huh...does that look anything like this?

The US is not encumbered by the the need to observe international treaties.

1) Yes, they most certainly are, in every practical sense.

From the first page of a Google search. You can educate yourself by reading further, or not, I don't care, but you are incorrect.
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0926-IranPlant.html
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html
http://www.unitedstatesgovernment.net/violatinginternationaltreaties.htm
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty.html
http://rwor.org/a/110/greatest-proliferator-en.html

2) Judging from this and other posts, you're just short of being a moron.

Oh dear! You think so? I'll consider where that is coming from, sort of a catch-22.
If a moron calls you a moron, does a tree fall in the forest?

And almost true and becoming more true by the minute. The financial system has been totally decoupled from the real economy, with hundreds to one leverage in many areas. This is not going to end well, everybody knows it and is clinging to the status quo as long as possible to put some cash aside.
Check out http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/.

I hope Bill Gates continues his growth with Microsoft. I think Linux has far more capabilities than Windows, however ease of use and popularity come to play with Microsoft. Windows is also a power house, Linux is used mainly for hackers with backtrack to crack WEP's with GrimWEPA. Yes i had fun with backtrack but other than cracking WEP's and seeing all your HTTPS passes and bank account and shit i will stick with Windows. http://www.theftauto4.blogspot.com/ PS- THE US GOVERNMENT USES BACKTRACK SO DONT BE MAD AT ME FOR USING IT!

>why doesn't Microsoft try making products that aren't, like, total shit?

Your question presumes a capability that they don't have anymore, if they ever did. MS's management is absurdly dysfunctional, as this well-known essay illustrates.

Maybe we need something like this:

http://thedigitalfirehose.blogspot.com/2011/11/patent-transparency.html

Here you go: http://not-that-sane.blogspot.com/2011/11/patent-madness_15.html

Craig Ferguson as the doctor!

It needs quite a radical regeneration

There, is that better?

On a related note, end-user software license agreements are also far too long and winded. This blog entry here shows a surprising and refreshing approach to how things should be done:

http://lawactually.blogspot.com/2011/10/thats-interesting-approach.html

That seems to cover most bases, and I would hope the legal system would cover that software's creator.

On the one hand, the tech industry is awash in patent trolls, companies that own generally spurious patents for technologies they didn't really invent, which exist solely to sue other companies into licensing said technologies. On the other, we have tech companies that have patents for technologies that they did, in fact, invent (or at least purchase legitimately) and, as important, use in actual products. These companies, too, must sue others to protect their patents, but for far more legitimate reasons.

Google is upset about the latter kind of company, and it's citing two heavy-hitters, Apple and Microsoft, as example of companies that own patents and are using the legal system to prevent other companies from infringing on their protected technologies. More specifically, these companies are using their patents in a war against Google's Android OS, which is of course the dominant market leader. In poor Google's world, these companies are out for no good.

But what's the argument here, exactly?

According to a blog post that voices this complaint, and I'm using its exact wording here, "Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers."

Oh. Great. So there's no cause for alarm, right? I mean, Android is already running roughshod over the rest of the mobile world, including industry darling Apple's iPhone. Right?

Wrong.

"Android's success has yielded ... a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents," Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes in the post.

Ah, bogus patents. I'm curious how that was determined. Let's read on. Surely, this will be explained. After all, it's an incredible charge to make publicly. There must be proof and some public explanation of why that word was used.

"They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell's old patents and Nortel's old patents (the 'Rockstar' group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn't get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."

Actually, using patents in this way is a legitimate business endeavor with no proof of "bogusness." But I am curious, if Google had in fact won these patents for itself, would that have made them "non-bogus"?

I'm sure he'll explain the bogus comment. Let's keep reading.

"A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth."

Again, no explanation of the bogus claim is made, though he does repeat the charge ("largely questionable patent claims"), place the word tax in quotes, suggesting that these companies use this term themselves, and then add a more general "anti-competitive" charge. The thing is, this activity is the very notion of competitiveness. Patents are designed to protect intellectual property, which are a competitive advantage. In many ways, Apple, Microsoft, and whoever else owns these patents actually protecting them is what makes this activity competitive. Google can't just use protected technologies owned by other companies without paying for them. That is competition.

But wait, I'm sure he'll expla

What *did* surprise me was closing the airspace to news helicopters and shutting down all but 1 subway line as well as a major bridge. *That* honestly frightens me very much. The amazing thing - and one of the reasons I'm so very appreciative to be in my mid-20s during the digital age - is that despite all traditional news media being cut out there's citizen journalists on the ground now recording video and streaming it live to the Internet.

What good would live streaming media have done? Didn't we all watch the Olympics on NBC a few years ago?

obviously Duqu was written by ultraterrestrials.

1) Aquafresh has done this for decades on some toothpastes, mostly kids ones.

2) I don't know about you, but toothpaste is one of the things I am least wasteful of. For the amount of tube squishing I do to get the last bit out, you'd think it cost $100/tube, not the $2 it actually does.

http://humorfeast.blogspot.com/2011/11/man-arrested-for-calling-cops-police.html

I was just trying to make the point that we are being force-fed GM foods

Who, exactly, is forcing you to eat genetically engineered food? Because there's a huge difference between you being too lazy to learn what is GE and what isn't, and someone forcing you to eat it. You're free not to eat it. You're free to buy organic food, or foods containing only crops that aren't genetically engineered. That's like a Muslim saying he's being force fed non-Halal beef. Saying you're being 'force-fed' GE crops is just being dramatic and deceitful.

And before you give me the ever popular 'oh but its not labeled so how do I know?' schtick, then listen up: corn, soy, canola, cotton, papaya (from Hawaii), summer squash, and soon, suger beet and alfalfa. If it has those in it, assume its GE. No other crop currently on the market is GE (well, there were potatoes and tomatoes but they were discontinued, and in Iran they've got GE rice). 15 seconds on Google, now you don't have to play the lazy victim anymore. You're welcome. And for reference, guess what else isn't labeled: fruit from grafted trees or vegetables/grains from hybrid seed. Not the same thing? Funny because throughout history people have made the same accusations at them that people make at GE crops today. I get that agricultural history is pretty boring but it sure is insightful. In fact, no plant improvement method is labeled. If you didn't want food produced with mutagens, induced polyploidy, tissue culture/somaclonal variation, marker assisted breeding, sport selection, your argument holds the same weight. What if I don't want wheat bred from strains altered with mutagenic radiation, or apples selected from sports, or bananas produced from tissue cultured clones plants, or citrus with extra chromosomes? Because guess what, they're all there, on the market, right now, no labeling, no safety testing. The only difference is that no one's ever made stink about them. You're irrationally singling out one thing while irrationally ignoring all the other genetic changes that are made to crops, which are almost always much larger and much more random and less understood than inserting a gene or two with GE

there have been no long term studies as to safety.

So, these studies, this study, this one, this one, this one, didn't happen, and neither did any of these. You might want to do a bit more research before making statements like that. You know, they don't need to do safety testing for any other type of plant improvement, which is genetic modification (although not genetic engineering). I'm not saying they shouldn't be tested, but these things are plants, not drugs. If there isn't anything new in the that is biologically active, there is no reason to think that they're suddenly going to be dangerous (at least, no more than there is for any other type of genetic alteration). The cry proteins & EPSPS proteins (the two main ones inserted in GE crops right now) are NOT dangerous. That's not my opinion, that is the conclusion of pretty much all the literature on the subject, and just you haven't read it doesn't make it any less true.

Call me crazy, but I still want to make my own life choices, and not have the government and corporations make them for me.

Crazy, maybe not, but uninformed, absolutely. And government and corporations are not making the decision for you, they're making it for everyone else. If farmers want to g

I was just making the point that lobbying interests and governments are ramming GM foods onto the market with the safety of the public being secondary

That's happening in the same sense that they're ramming vaccines into hospitals without checking their safety. Sure, Monsanto and the others are pushing their products, just like Apple pushes iPads and Toyota pushes the Prius (of course, when any other company does it, its business, but when Monsanto does it, its a conspiracy), but that doesn't mean the science isn't there. It is. We can sit here and talk about Monsanto and agribusiness all day long. That doesn't change the science.

If these foods are safe and wholesome, what is the problem with labelling them?

Nothing. It would be nice if there was a 'Biotech by choice' label. Anyone is free to label any food as containing GE ingredients, not containing them, or not labeling anything at all. They same way they're free to label or not label their produce as being produced with grafting, hybridization, somaclonal variation, sport selection, embryo rescue, chemical/radiation mutagenesis, induced polyploidy, wide crosses, marker assisted selection, ect. You might as well say if those things are so great (and they are), why aren't they labeled?

If you're talking mandatory labeling, then all of the above aren't labeled for the same reasons. It's still the same plant. For the three types of GE crop currently on the market (insect resistant, herbicide tolerant, and virus resistant), the GE plant is substantially equivalent to its non-GE isogenic counterpart. Sure, you can say that GE is different, and you'd be right, that's why we have a different word of it. But is isn't different enough, it is still just another method of changing the genes. You could say that genes don't go from species to species in nature, but then you'd both be wrong and making an irrelevant point. If anything, that would be reasoning to not label GE crops, since now you know exactly what genetic changes you make. I grew purple broccoli this year and ate a bunch of pink fleshed apples, and I don't have a damned clue what protein it had that produced those pigments, and those are just the visible phenotypes which doesn't even get into all the things you can't easily see. But if I had a GE corn that had the gene for Cry1Ab in it, I'd know exactly what produced its trait. Or compare the case of the Lenape potato with the University of Ghent's GE potatoes. Both were designed to be resistant to pests. The Lenape was produced with a wide cross to get resistance genes from wild potatoes, the GE ones had the genes directly moved. The Lenape brought the genes for producing a dangerous amount of glycoalkaloids and made people sick. The GE ones were destroyed by ecoterrorists. Yet if we mandated labeling, only the safe one would need to have to be labeled as being somehow different. That is simply idiotic. The process is not nearly as relevant as the product.

And furthermore, what purpose would such a label serve? Would you still buy it? You and I both know damn well that the only reason anti-GMO groups push for those labels is to scare people and undermine the credibility of genetic engineering. It's like the labels creationists were trying to push on science books stating 'Evolution is only a theory.' Sure, it was true enough, but all it did was undermine the credibility of evolution, which was exactly what it was supposed to do. Why did a fact undermine science? It was deceptive due to public ignorance. Same thing here. Maybe had anti-science groups like Greenpeace and vested interest groups like the Organic Consumers Association not spend the last two decades misinforming the public things might be a little dif

Possibly The Food of the Gods , by Arthur C. Clarke?

Don't know where my link went... Here it is

I was about to go on a sailing trip when I saw the photos and although there was no chance of seeing something similar in the Mediterranean it did get me excited about the amazing things you can see on our planet.

So why is the economy of the People's Republic of China booming?

- because economically they are the freest market in the world today.

That's true by de-facto, as all the productive capacity shifted there for a reason. You can also ask these people.

I would like to use Ubuntu 11.10 for the native Cobbler support, but Unity is a real gripe.

It was pretty rough, but I managed to search far and wide on the internets for "removing unity from ubuntu 11.10."

This seemed to do the trick:
http://linux-software-news-tutorials.blogspot.com/2011/10/ubuntu-1110-oneiric-remove-unity-and.html

Or, if you prefer screenshots: http://askubuntu.com/questions/58172/how-to-revert-to-gnome-classic

Canonical would be wise to make the process of removing the default Unity window manager even easier with the next LTS release (Ubuntu 12.04 "Precise Pangolin").

An interesting chart for you ... US Imports from China 1985 to 2011

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/TD5aK4Qha0I/AAAAAAAADXg/5Qe5ty42gBk/s1600/US-Imports-From-China-Doubling-Rate-Chart-Jan-1985-May-2010.PNG

Note how the exponential growth in imports from China correspond nicely will your chart that shows the average domestic wage remains flat. This would suggest the OWS protesters should be occupying China and and that our collective desire for cheap imported goods from China is to blame for the lack of growth in domestic wages. Is wall street to blame for imports from China ? Is the government to blame for allowing people to buy such vast quantities of goods from China ? If we tax businesses and wall street more, will they import more goods from China, and produce less product domestically, in order to remain profitable ? If we tax Chinese imports more, will job and wage growth return domestically ?

As painful as it may be, perhaps we need to just stop buying Chinese manufactured products, as consumers, and demand domestically produced products. It's not likely to happen, as I don't think the vast majority of the public realizes the $12 chinese car part is actually more expensive, in the long term, than the $18 domestically produced part, quality aside, because the $6 saved at point of purchase, will come back in spades in the form of no jobs, no paycheck, and accounting gimmicks concerning the national debt.

This has been one of their major bullet points, the next round of processors will improve power consumption a lot. So if Intel's not on the right path, I don't know who is. AMD Bulldozer certainly is not. Of course sooner or later this is going to come to a halt, silicon atoms are roughly 0.235nm apart. So 22/0.235 = 93.6 atoms. The roadmap puts us at 8nm = 34 atoms in 6 years. Just extrapolating in 2023 that it'll be 12 atoms, 2029 4.5 atoms and 2035 1.6 atoms. That's not going to happen, at latest in the 2020s we will hit a brick wall and Moore's "law" will be dead. We'll hit some level of energy efficiency and most likely stay there.

Make the switch

IE 9 is a good browser actually if you are stuck on Windows. Chrome is decent too and very lightweight. Flash is updated automatically with it which is a plus too since it is the number one vector for malware attacks.

IE 10 which will come out in a few months is the most compliant browser to date and will have flash automatically update as well.

It is 2011 and not 2005 anymore. Infact, FF is the new IE 6 today and IE 10/Chrome are the new FF and Opera of old. A complete reversal. It seems every 6 years there is reversal with the browsers. First Netscape/Gecko was the best in 1993. 6 years later in 1999 IE is the king and Netscape 4.7/Gecko is bugy and slow. 6 years later in 2005 Firefox/gecko from the ashes of Netscape beat IE. Now in 2011 IE is returning with Chrome just behind.

It is not a big deal to switch as all you have to do is download and try one out. It is not like a Mac vs Pc decision with $$$$ involved. Change is hard but today there are alternatives that are very good. What would suck is if IE was still at IE6/7 and Chrome didn't exist. That would blow and piss people off. This is truly browser wars 2.0 and is exciting to watch. I am glad they returned as even IE users and corporations benefit from non-crappy browsers and innovation.

You want to see Javascript boasts? You might be surprised at this.

I was a FF user since it was called Phoenix, and then Firebird when it was a set of patches for Mozilla. I have been advocating its use since 2004 and switched many computers and friends over. It was a great browser at one time. Unfortunately, its time is coming to an end unless drastic things improve.

To me FF in the 2010s is more similiar to the IE 6 of the 2000s I ran away from. Its rapid release schedule increased the popularity of IEin the US from users and corporations not liking FF anymore. Chrome according to that site is about tied with FF worldwide and will soon overtake it for #2.

The saddest thing for me is not the current state of FF. It is the fact that I am using IE more and more and preferring IE 9 over FF. IE 10 will give FF a run for its money and even Chrome next March when it is released. It is complete opposite of 2005 now and it is amazing it happened in such a very short period of time.

Fix your bugs Mozilla and I may come back like I did with IE. Until then I recommend everyone use Chrome or IE. FF is just too unreliable.

You know there are alternatives to Chrome. You may hate IE 6 like 90% of us slashdotters, but newer versions are shockingly better. As in hell freezes over better from that link!

I quit FF last March shortly after 4.0 and never looked back. Seriously it is the bottom of all modern web browsers. It is great that FF 7 and 8 are much lighter and load as quick as Chrome, but they have over 6000 bugs! FF is the new IE 6 of the 2010s and it pains me to say this as I have been using it since it was called phoenix and then firebird back in 2004.

Usage according to statcounter shows in the US IE is gaining marketshare and Chrome is about tied to FF. It is dying. Just like I use IE and Chrome now I am open to FF in the future if they decide they are caught up and start doing things like improving Javascript conformance like in that test above and fixing all those bugs. IE and Chrome are just better and work.

After a week you wont miss FF that much and will start wondering why you haven't left earlier. Trust me