Slashdot Mirror

Apparently leaving comments open on this bug has given some of you the misimpression that adding comments is going to influence us to add the feature to Chrome. (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=150#c195)

Yup, that is the result of Google *using* their users for its own profit. Because chrome users, google docs users, and all other google's product's users are not the clients, Google can screw them without second thought. As long as Google's clients (the advertisers) are happy, everything is fine.

Another example (and the reason I use Office Live instead of Google Spreadsheet) of Google's arrogance is the lack of "text cell span" which has been asked by several people.

Just recently I came across yet another issue with one of Google services, which had the same response (users can ask all they want but Google does not care). Ultimately, Google is nowadays being more blunt in following their focus of "advertisement company" by removing several projects (labs, code search, etc).

They don't even need to look in the referer, the search terms are encoded in the outgoing URL from google.

Look here, I did a search for slashdot anonymous coward on google.

The outgoing URL of the first result looks like this (notice the 'q=slashdot+anonymous+coward'):

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=slashdot+anonymous+coward&pbx=1&oq=slashdot+ano&aq=1&aqi=g3g-v1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l2l80l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=83772172fe6f82d1&biw=1840&bih=990

So technically I don't see how this would be affected by changing to https.

*cough*

Adblock Plus and NotScripts for Chrome. Both work great over here.

*cough*

Adblock Plus and NotScripts for Chrome. Both work great over here.

note however that https://google.com/ will redirect you to http://www.google.com

You do of course also have to replace a PC every few years if that's your development platform.

Then perhaps I should charge the difference between the cheapest PC and the cheapest Mac. For example, compare a $1000 MacBook to an (admittedly heavier) $400 laptop running Windows. That's still $600 for a Mac.

For Android it's $25 per year to get on the Google Android Market.

Since when? I was told $0 to unlock adb install, $25 for the first year on Android Market, and $0 for each additional year.

It's not a bug. Why was it posted to the bug tracker? They could have just Googled a little bit and found the suggestions page.

To the Americas?

Several hundred years ago, people tried for the Arctic, and Antarctic. Death was/is a statistical likelihood.

Even today, people regularly travel to places where death is common, if not expected. The stories of the people who have died on the way up/down on Everest are haunting.

The real issue with settling space is Earth's gravity well. This is an easy thing to solve, if we take advantage of atomic power. My biggest beef with the space program is the abandoning of Project Orion

I'll leave this here:

Comment 188 by pkasting@chromium.org, Today (99 minutes ago)
One more note here for the benefit of Slashdot (hi!) and anyone else who's not clear on this issue or how our bug tracker works.

We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time.

This does not mean either that we will never listen to user feedback, or that we used to be listening on this bug but decided to stop. The issue is that our bug tracker is specifically about tracking what we consider to be bugs, not a general forum for feedback and debate on our design decisions. That means that in general (this bug included), we can and will decide not to address particular requests, and when we do, commenting on the closed bug is not going to make us change our minds. On the contrary, we will not hesitate to lock things down in the bug tracker precisely to prevent things from spiraling out of control or misleading people into sharing their feedback here instead of where it's helpful

We have other venues such as the chromium-discuss mailing list and our feedback forums where it is appropriate to share your opinions. The forums are a place where we are set up to track user feedback and surface the most critical issues to the team without impacting the productivity of us developers who are busy trying to make Chrome work better.

We don't promise we'll change our minds, but we're not hostile to you expressing your point of view. This is just not the correct forum to do so.

* when I close the only tab, the browser shouldn't crash. I did not ask for the window to close, nor did I select "Quit" from the menu, I merely closed a tab. No other MDI program works that way.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fjccknnhdnkbanjilpjddjhmkghmachn

Unfortunately, it's a bit of a tradeoff. Instead of third party sites getting more details on how you arrived there, Google gets to build a more detailed profile on you via your user name now instead of simply your IP address.

That would be a "tradeoff", if non-logged-in users couldn't also use encrypted Google search with the same features: https://encrypted.google.com/

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=99332

In a similar vein, look at the reaction to google hiding the link to cached search results in that stupid preview popup.

Not only does it add an extra click and load time to every view of a cached page, it also breaks when scripting isn't given free reign.

Such a shame you don't actually have to log in, isn't it?

I think it's more good for everyone. it's not like you couldn't search via SSL before.

Or go to https://www.google.com/ without being logged in. It isn't that hard to add an s in there, is it?

Never mind, I should RTFA. For the rest of us who didn't: encrypted.google.com.

You also have no idea if your ISP is collecting information on the sites you visit, either through DNS queries

That's why I'm using Google's DNS at 8.8.8.8 IP. That way my ISP doesn't know about where I go unless they do packet sniffing. And I changed my default search engine in Chrome to https://encrypted.google.com/

See this ticket - there are many user reports on which phones have it working and which don't in the comments:

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1273

Samsung Galaxy S2 in particular supports it with updates (2.3.4+), and is otherwise the single most awesome Android phone on the market today (at least until Nexus Prime is officially announced tomorrow).

You can identify a Coke bottle just by the silhouette - you don't need a logo. Same thing with a Jeep, or a Wii console, or a Microsoft StarTac, etc. NBC has a valid trade mark on a 1-6-4 note protection, and Intel has one on a 1-4-1-5. No logos are even involved. Other than the Galaxy, you can identify an iPad as being an Apple iPad at a glance, without needing a logo.

All of those things (though I'm not familliar with the StarTac) have distinguishing features unrelated to function. I didn't claim that distinctive design isn't possible, merely that the iPad doesn't have distinctive features. Much like flat panel televisions have largely converged on a pretty similar and minimal look based on function I think the iPad design is merely an example of this.

But the distinction is between "pretty similar" and "exactly similar". Consider the HTC Droid - flat, rectangular touch screen smartphone... quite different from an iPhone, though. Profile's very distinct.
Similarly, a quick GIS for "flat panel television" turns up hundreds of similar, but not identical flat panel TVs.

The question here is whether the Samsung Galaxy is "similar" and okay, or "identical" and not okay.

Open letter to Europe vs. Facebook...

---
I admire the effort you're taking for privacy which is slowly degrading everywhere.

What I'm surprised by though is that you're taking so much time (and money?) to run this campaign against Facebook, but you're perhaps forgetting anyone can easily get away from Facebook, i.e. not use their products. And with enough knowledge, block Facebook completely from your connection, as I have done.
And on top of this, even it they get our data from other users on Facebook, the thing is, Facebook is 1 simple company with 1 simple product (or so it appears), and even if they sell some details, it's nothing compared to Google.

Compared to Facebook, there's no getting away from Google.

Even if you use Bing rather than Google search, and use other maps rather than Google maps, they can still get you through Doubleclick or GoogleAdServices.com or GoogleSyndication.com or Captcha or (and now even) Google+ and Google Analytics.
And even if you block all of these (some how), there is still the problem now of Google Ajax and Google CDN and sites using the Google CDN (such as the jQuery library), or even products like Chrome and Android.

So my question is, why take so much effort to go after Facebook (again, someone we can get away from / not use their service), and not Google (who no one can get away from)?

On top of this, it surprises me still as it appears that at least Facebook still have some goodness, in that their privacy policy is some-what accurate and they detail their data collection.

But Google is not obliged to stick to anything they say in their fictitious privacy policy, and on top of this, it's too vague to know exactly what data they collect through Google docs, Mail, DNS, Chrome, Android, Doubleclick, Captcha, etc, etc, etc and what they do with this data.
i.e. it's already clear they sell our information to governments around the world, but it's not clear exactly what details: -
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/

Again, I admire your enthusiasm for privacy and thanks again for your reply, much appreciated.

Kind Regards.
---

Actually, HP just released a big update today. 3.0.4 77. In my early testing, it is nearly as fast as the device was when I had it overclocked to 1.7GHz and a bunch of performance patches installed. A very pleasant surprise.

Random link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Precentralnet/~3/UVQV0BP2eHI/hands-on-webos-3-0-4-video

Can be found here: http://code.google.com/p/cmtouchpad/issues/detail?id=65#c14

Trouble is, even looking at that list, when you see; https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ on shows aired in 2003, that were rectangular glass fronted, rounded edges portable machines,

Sorry, I don't see a fully glass fronted flat surface portable machine there. Nor do I just pick the cherries out of Apple's claims just so I can just match any shit that comes along to it. My fault entirely.

"Obviously, in China, young people carry their old people like burdens while they're trying to manage their own families. That's not so great, either."

When people have six kids or so, it is not as much of a burden when the kids carry the elderly. Part of the problem is we are experiencing a "Peak Population" crisis.
http://p2pfoundation.net/backups/p2p_research-archives/2009-August/004174.html

But Japan aims to solve that with robotics...

Thanks for being part of making the 1980s happen!

My wife and our little "labor of love" venture in the 1990s:
    http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/

Sorry about your loss.

Health tips by me, the most important of which for most technology people is curing vitamin D deficiency (and which I could only learn about by hypertext-supporting networks and Google):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2478380&cid=37734208

There are plenty of resources to go around though, especially when you consider we could support quadrillions of people in space habitats in the solar system. But some causes for optimism:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/dpg/slim.cfm

And maybe even:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

If we had any real resource problems, why are so many people out of work? :-)

Real solutions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery#

The human imagination is truly the "ultimate resource", so the more the merrier IMHO: :-)
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

You've of course read "True Names" no doubt about what an older woman is up to on the net: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Names

"Or Asimov predicting that robots/androids would be nearly human-like in their behavior and complexity at the same time that computers still filled whole buildings and would need specially trained people to translate instructions into code and readouts from ticker tape."

Good ironic catch.

I've been rereading some of "I, Robot" aloud to my kid, and what is interesting is that Isaac Asimov suggested robots would understand speech before they were able to talk, whereas things have gone the other way around, it's much easier to get a computer to say things than to get it to understand things. So, for example, Robby the robot is very human in its ability to understand whatever a kid says, and to mime gestures and such, but can't say anything, and the only robot that can talk is the size of a room and does not do it well.

Anyway, it's an example of how we can be right about some things and wrong about others. Ultimately, Isaac Asimov does start to explore deep issues of what it means to be "human" and further, what it means to take care of someone else without destroying their identity as self-actualizing (as his robots begin to fade away).

I do think Isaac Asimov foresaw the economic problems posed by robotics in a capitalist society, like Marshall Brain has:
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
http://marshallbrain.com/robots-in-2015.htm
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

I can wonder if he might have written different stuff (robots being banned on Earth to preserve jobs) if he had grown up in a more communist/socialist system?

But, there are solutions for capitalism besides banning robots, such as a "basic income", like I talk about at my site and elsewhere:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

There is a picture of me on my site with a robot that I presented at the Albert Einstein Science Centennial, where Isaac Asimov gave a talk and later called me a "rotten kid" after I told him about "The Golden Age of the 70s". :-)

The many buttons (or lack thereof) are an immediately-evident detail that shows we're not looking at a genuine iPad in 2001.

Really? Holy crap i actually thought that despite the aesthetic differences that was a real ipad in that movie and they just took decades to release it.

The bezel is the frame around the screen. On the 2001 device, there's a thin bezel going around three sides of the screen, and a large bezel at the bottom to hold the buttons. The iPad has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides. The Galaxy Tab has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides.

So we see a difference between the ipad and the 2001 device, which we accept differentiates them. We also have the beveled edge which differs significantly between the ipad and the galaxy, yet only you fail to accept that as a difference.

Yes, exactly. Apple's bezel is different, because it's not the same.

I see that was lost on you.

Not exactly identical, but that's not really an issue. The bevel (meaning the smoothing of the edge, which is unrelated to the bezel being the frame around the screen) is a subtle enough detail that even a major change (like having no bevel at all) wouldn't do much to distinguish a Galaxy Tab from an iPad.

Even a blind man would find that to be a significant difference, your metrics have no basis or validity.

That's not what profile means.

I know you're not getting this, but you could at least try, as you can see - or rather you can't - i wasn't saying profile is aspect ratio, i was saying there is a very obvious difference in profile between the 2001 device and the ipad just as there is a very obvious difference between the aspect ratio of the ipad and galaxy.

For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a house on it.

Oh! It all makes sense now, you clearly haven't even looked at an ipad, it's a square on the button, not a fucking house you blind idiot, this pretty much explains why your position is so moronic.


The point is there are a number of clear aesthetic differences and similarities between the ipad and the 2001 device (and many other pre-ipad devices like the archos) just as there are between the ipad and galaxy, but you seem to only be able to point out the similarities between the devices, not the differences. Which obviously just shows you as being blind - which is quite probable since you think the square on the ipad home button is a house - or biased. Why not try and view it objectively? I'm not saying who is right or wrong, im just pointing out both the differences and similarities, you don't seem capable of doing that and are only able to discern the similarities (though given your impression of the home button you're probably not even looking at the right device).

Yes, exactly, we all know it's ok for Apple because they had 9 less buttons on the bottom whereas Samsung does not so, by the law of button count infringement, that means Apple doesn't infringe on the 2001 device but Samsung infringes on Apple's device.

The many buttons (or lack thereof) are an immediately-evident detail that shows we're not looking at a genuine iPad in 2001. When I searched on Google (for "2001 ipad" I think) to eventually find that page, I noticed small dots at the bottom of the 2001 tablet. That difference was evident in a thumbnail of a scene shot from a perspective of being 3 meters high overhead. That's a very obvious detail, and it contributes greatly to having an overall different appearance.

Apple has a symmetric bezel as opposed to an asymmetric bezel and because of the well-known bezel symmetry vs beveled edge inequality

The bezel is the frame around the screen. On the 2001 device, there's a thin bezel going around three sides of the screen, and a large bezel at the bottom to hold the buttons. The iPad has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides. The Galaxy Tab has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides.

it means that technically Apple's bezel is different to that of the device show[n] in 2001

Yes, exactly. Apple's bezel is different, because it's not the same.

but the beveled edges (show[n] here) are exactly identical.

Not exactly identical, but that's not really an issue. The bevel (meaning the smoothing of the edge, which is unrelated to the bezel being the frame around the screen) is a subtle enough detail that even a major change (like having no bevel at all) wouldn't do much to distinguish a Galaxy Tab from an iPad. At a glance, they look the same. Also note that the bevel can only really be seen in profile...

And lastly with the profile, we come to another law of inequality regarding profile and aspect ratio, profiles differ but 4:3 is exactly equal to 16:9 and thus the latter does not constitute a difference.

That's not what profile means. It means "outline as seen from the side", and again the 2001 design is significantly different from the iPad. Not only do the buttons appear to be raised from the surface, but the bezel with the buttons looks slanted upwards at the bottom. When viewed from the side, the 2001 tablet would have a distinctly different appearance from the iPad. The Galaxy Tab appears to be the same thickness as the iPad, with the same perfectly-flat design.

Also sorry Samsung but the fact that your corner radius is different won't save you either, we can come up with a way to oppose that one if you choose to use it as a defense so don't bother.

That's another ridiculously subtle difference that would only be apparent in a side-by-side comparison.

All together, there are enough similarities in the design and few enough differences that from a distance, it's unreasonable to expect people to see the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab. Conversely, there are enough differences that an iPad is clearly not copying any design from 2001. No, this is not an absolute definition, and there are no fixed rules on what makes something different enough to not infringe on a trademark.

For a simple test of whether something is likely to infringe on another product's design, try this test: Write down a verbose description of the design, using as few actual measurements as possible. For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a ho

You have a Wii, XBox 360, and a PS3...Could you, at a glance, mistake one for another?

Of course the answer to this question is no, but unfortunately that's the wrong question, because the range of designs that can effectively serve as an appliance that sits near the tv and plays video games is much broader than the range of designs that fits in your hand and plays games or surfs the web.

Now the real question: You have an XBox 360 controller, a PS3 controller and a Logitech F310 controller. Could you, at a glance, mistake one for another?

The human hand, unlike a common tv stand, can accommodate and effectively interact with only so much variation in a functional product. In a world without iDevices would Samsung have designed a device with square corners, despite the fact that these are obviously less comfortable to hold and more likely to scratch a person or be damaged during normal use? Would they have opted for a thicker bezel and smaller screen?

I have no idea to what extent one design team may have copied another, and thank heaven I'm not an IP lawyer or judge, but to say flat out that B must have copied A simply because B has features in common with A is a bit of a leap when not supported by facts, and a kind-of-related-but-not-really comparison of some other tech is not a substitute in the absence thereof.

Trouble is, even looking at that list, when you see;
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ
on shows aired in 2003, that were rectangular glass fronted, rounded edges portable machines, it all appears obvious that Apple haven't really invented much, just taken what's out there and put polish on it. The move to better screens, everyone was leaving resistive behind.
Why do people link to just some of Samsung's designs with dates and skips things like;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo
that was released March 2010 and shown before the iPad was even publically admitted to exist.

You can look at Apple's kit and say 'yeah, they look great, but truly innovative? or just another design style that the industry was moving to anyway, for some things, Apple got there first, for some things, they got there late, but still claimed they invented it.

I think that's what winds most people up about this, we've got devices on our desks that are claimed to be infringing that are obviously not, or other devices that came out before the ipad/phone but did all the same stuff.

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

Yeah, and it was right up there on my screen too, dammit.

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

Yeah, and it was right up there on my screen too, dammit.

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

Yeah, and it was right up there on my screen too, dammit.

last i knew greasemonkey scripts could be loaded like addons on chrome[1], there is adblock[2] for chrome as well. I'll give you stumbleupon, I can't seem to find an addon for it, not that I'm really sure what is up with stumbleupon, but there you go.

[1] http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/24790/beginner-guide-for-greasemonkey-scripts-in-google-chrome/
[2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb

A pro football player's team will usually pay for the repair. Amateur - yeah, it's a dumb idea to play football if you can't pay for the expected repairs. I haven't been skiing for a few years for this very reason. I can't think of anybody who's played football more than very occasionally and not been hurt.

But people still do it. My point is that when you do something dangerous, the consequence is that you might need help after the fact. That's no reason not to supply the help.

Take the Gloucestershire Cheese Rolling event. People get hurt. Everyone knows they might get hurt. Ambulances are there for that reason. The consequence is that you might break something and need a trip to the hospital. You *might* get hurt bad enough that they can't help you. These people know that and they have no right to complain if it happens. They do have a right to complain if they're not helped once they get hurt. There's no reason to say, "you know what, these are all stupid fucks, we're not going to send the ambulances there."

Basically, there are three separate and distinct events happening. The first is that somebody gets hurt. That's the fault of the idiot taking place in the event. Nothing bad has happened yet, and they can walk away and keep everything good. The second is that there's a situation in which people are likely to get hurt. You can either take precautions to make a potentially bad situation better, or let all hell break loose. The third is that there's somebody already hurt. If you can help somebody who is hurt, you help them, it doesn't matter HOW they got hurt. Something bad already happened, you can either make it better or worse. Nothing is gained by doing otherwise.

260 horsepower...can someone give that to me in jiggawatts?

Anyway, here is, from google.

They're also short-lived, 5 years or so, but serve to protect the unique looks of devices. At least with design patents, the claims are important - if a design feature is shown but not claimed, it's a free for all.

This is a design patent. It says right on it: "Term: 14 years." And I don't see any claims.

... envisioned the internet and SmartPhones and more in 1952: http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51

I asked Ted Nelson once about that story when he visited at IBM Research when I was there around 2001 and he said yes, that story is where he had gotten the name "Xanadu" for his hypertext work, but he had forgotten the full name of the story until I reminded him of it.

Please read it to see what has been shaping our present and probably hopefully our future.

And with OWS, the rest of Sturgeon's predictions may be beginning to come true (about people teaching each other how to get better and better at freedom).

Personally, I found ScriptNo to be a better option. If nothing else, unlike NoScript, you don't have to manually input a password into a textfile to get it to work.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf

Once again, Samsung need to watch TV to show this amazing rectangle with rounded edges;

https://plus.google.com/u/0/100241261662852079434/posts/En6cqNeQqDJ

air date of that show, april 2003.

Well, if not Samsung, at least their lawyers arguing all this, as the amount of prior art for that shape is just crazy. Not that 'tablets before ipad/tablets after' pic, but there's a huge amount of prior art that the iPad closely copies.

the fact that they aren't real peppers is what gives.
"There is an episode of the Simpsons where Homer eats chilli with
"insanity peppers" and starts hallucinating. Is it actually possible
to eat something so spicy it causes temporarty insanity and
hallucinations? Does such a pepper exist?

"Endorphins, those natural drugs that are 100 to 1,000 times more
powerful than morphine, are released into our brain when we eat hot
chile peppers, according to Dr. Frank Etscorn of New Mexico University
(who also holds the first patent on the nicotene patch). Like other
psychotropics, including peyote, coca and tabacco, chile peppers alter
our state of consciousness. In the case of chile peppers the high is
non-hallucinogenic, but it is addictive. Chili addicts are hooked on
endorphins. "We get slightly strung out, but it's no big deal," he
says." - Quote from The Veiled Chameleon
http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/archives/000042.html

"We need a fix of red or green chile with a side order of endorphins,"
said Dr. Frank Etscorn, then an experimental psychologist at New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, and inventor of
the nicotine patch, in a 1990 article for the Albuquerque Journal. "We
get slightly strung out on endorphins, but it's no big deal. That year
he posed a theory that the warm afterglow and the constant craving for
chile are due to capsaicin triggering the release of the body's
natural painkillers called endorphins, which have been called "the
body's natural opiates," are the cause of the so-called runner's high,
and are capable of turning a painful experience into a pleasurable
one." - From the Chili Pepper Counterculture Robb Walsh, Austin
Chronicle, Friday, May 3, 1991

More on peppers and "runners high."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/3/prweb111083.htm - "Exercisers Get
Workout Boost From New Hot Pepper Nasal Spray"

"The chemical capsicin is fooling your nerves into believing that they
are burning in hell, when in fact nothing is wrong with them at all.
And your dumb body rushes all those painkillers to those special
receptors in the brain. That's a pretty good practical joke, huh? Pass
the hot sauce." - Quote from The Veiled chameleon - but I wish it were
mine.

So, overall, while the pepper is a vegetable which has consciousness
altering properties, it is not 'officially" considered to have an
hallucinogenic property. I emphasize the word "officially" as there
are those who consider any element of consciousness altering at all,
as a hallucination. That is why I said "yes and no" in my opening.
The definition of "hallucination" is somewhat subjective in popular
understanding."

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/332912.html

Actually Kevorkian built it, and it went up for auction recently: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jHMdC7FZppUvB8bNOrk9iShcQS-g?docId=f44540c68e6d4e0ea15bd979f28f3755

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

>> just type this into your Location bar: https://www.google.com/

Bad advice. This will just forward to http://www.google.com/

To get encrypted search using POST requests (where unencrypted URLs can't be tracked), use

https://encrypted.google.com/

A firewall won't prevent your ISP from telling advertisers that you like to google Nike shoes and them then targeting you with advertisements...

No, but https://encrypted.google.com/ will. Not the best solution but hey, you let Google make money off of you and not your ISP.

Sorry gd3shoe, but you are misinformed.

There are several databases that use the mac address and ssid of nearby wifi networks for geolocation. (android and iphone map applications both use these) How do you think that defices like the ipod touch (no gps) can give you approximate location data?

Basically, your phone scans for networks, correlates the names and mac addresses of the nearby routers, connects this to current gps data, and then uploads that information to a server.

Also, the mapping and camera cars google has driving around also scan for and log ssid/mac address data.

In other words, someones lojack software is using google's geolocation api to locate the laptop using the mac address and ssid of nearby wireless networks, and the parent poster is probably the only network in the area that is also in the database.


Google link
Additional reference with some technical data

NotScripts for Chrome.
You can also block third party cookies from this page.. => chrome://settings/content
And make sure "Block all third-party cookies" is set to enabled on this page .. => chrome://flags/
 

Another relative here, in the USA. :-) Send me an email if you want, my address is easy to find.

She was my father's aunt IIRC. I only met her once that I can recall, when my father and I visited her home around 1985. But she might have been at some get together or other other times we visited that does not stick out in my mind. I don't remember her speaking English and I do not know that much Dutch. They talked and I went for a walk around the area. I was overdressed in a overcoat and hat, and some neighborhood kids pointed at me and said "gangster" and chased me a bit, and I went into a store to avoid them. So, that's mostly what I remember of that visit. :-)

I feel diet and lifestyle (and the extent to which genes may interact with interests and habits) have a lot to do with this though. So does very early life experiences. Even being born premature might have had some value, in that the slower we grow perhaps the slower we age? Not having kids may have been a factor too? Also, there is a lot to be said for a positive outlook on life however you get that.

Related resources on healthy diet:
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1573244872
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-John-Robbins/dp/0915811812
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Fasting (like for lent) which often connects to religion (and eating less in the past from being less wealthy) can also help:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-dr-fuhrman-on-fasting.html

And on getting enough vitamin D (and she was out and about plus maybe got some from herring she liked):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-supplementation/
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/recommendation
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vitamin_D_recommendations.aspx

Understanding about good and bad fats:
http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2011/05/may-9-the-great-fat-debate-does-the-total-fat-in-your-diet-matter.html
http://nutsci.org/2011/05/04/the-great-fat-debate/
http://www.adajournal.org/article/S0002-8223(11)00291-4/fulltext

Mental health:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/7439/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene

Treadmill workstations for computer users (but be sure to get vitamin D being indoors so much):
http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/08/the-treadmill-workstation/
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking

Community level ideas for health: