If that level of acceleration is still not enough to merge safely, then that section of the highway is badly (and unsafely) designed. I do not see it as a problem with the car.
If you do not design highways and stuff for "slower" drivers, then the next step may be more stringent certification and requirements. That's not going to go well with the voters when most find out that they and/or their cars are just not good enough.
My car is definitely unable to accelerate faster than a Prius. I'm not the safest or best of drivers but I've driven for about a decade (maybe more) without crashing into a car or another car crashing into me. Have not hit any people (no dogs or cats either). And on my first time on a go-kart race track I was just a bit above average pace in the group of 30 drivers. So if me and my car don't make the grade, I bet a lot of others wouldn't either.
I've had better luck getting Outlook for web to work in some scenarios. The sysadmin or someone at work wanted Outlook to use NTLM auth. That doesn't seem to interact well with Microsoft Communicator on my Win 7 64 bit machine.
So people might stick to XP + Web Apps. FWIW, I've tried Kingsoft Office before and if they come out with an Outlook replacement, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft sues them just to slow them down;).
That's not necessarily a big problem if you're not exposing it to the big bad internet... And if you've been exposing a Win2K server directly to the big bad internet you may have been pwned already;).
Why'd they freak out? If it doesn't keep falling over (and it shouldn't), it's not as if it'll suddenly fall over tomorrow just because Microsoft stops supporting it.
Conflating or not, I prefer a more role/task based concept.
That way I can use one browser for lower security level stuff (whether visiting sites, or having more fancy plugins), and not have it affect my other browser which I use for higher security level stuff.
And I can do this without having to buy multiple computers.
If the browsers support sandboxing that's great. But whether they do or not does not affect my approach. I'd still be using multiple browsers, because it is just better "hygiene", and a more secure way of doing things. If say your banking site has weaknesses, it's harder for others to exploit that+you if you only use one browser for banking and only banking and it's not your default browser.
In contrast if you use the same browser for everything, your risk goes up - you might type in the wrong password to the wrong site; there might be a flaw in your banking site, and some ad banner could cause you to load the "wrong link".
If it is possible to run multiple distinct and separate instances of Chrome and keep sandboxing enabled AND the sandboxing applies to all externally exposed stuff (plugins etc), then I'd be happy to use it. Otherwise it would not be as secure.
> Applying demographic data like this is a non-sequitur.
What would be useful is if I could choose to search from a different persons/demographic's point of view. Whether for ebay, amazon, google.
For example say I am looking for a gift for someone else. Or I am helping someone else search for stuff. Or I'm the sort of person who has rather different interests but with search keywords that overlap.
Same goes for reviews of restaurants/movies/etc. What I like, someone else may detest.
Lastly, it could also be interesting (and even beneficial) to be able to more easily see things from other people's point of view.
You did mention "introduction of a security model with trust levels".
And I don't think it's going to be easy to do right while allowing many types of extensions - after all if there can be extensions that help manage passwords, it'll be possible to have extensions that can abuse them.
So IMO it is better to just run different browser instances as different user accounts as I suggested.
Running browser instances as the same user but different data directories does not protect you as much. Because if the browser is taken over, anything the user account can do, the "pwned" browser can do.
If you're paranoid, run multiple browsers using different accounts (under a main user).
For example, you login as mainuser. Browser1 runs as wwwbrowser1, browser2 runs as wwwbrowser2.
You do your banking stuff with browser1 which has zero or only extensions you are sure you can trust. You do your normal browsing with browser 2.
You configure browser 2 to have a different skin (browser 1 has default skin), so that you can more easily tell the difference.
This way if browser 2 is pwned. It is lesss likely to have access to browser 1's stuff, or mainuser's stuff.
If browser 1 is pwned, despite you only using it for bank stuff, it's probably your bank's fault.
Not sure you can do this easily with Google Chrome. I had difficulty running google chrome as a different user on Windows. I can do it with Firefox and IE. You can control which users show up on the login screen with TweakUI.
Uh there are so many reasons Vista sucked. I work for a company that's a Microsoft partner and even the "koolaid" drinkers there won't deny that Vista sucked. Windows 7 less so (some things are better, but others aren't really an improvement from Windows 2000).
1) It took years for the hardware companies to stop making so many drivers that bluescreen XP or cause other problems (heck some still do), so it's no surprise if Vista gets crappy drivers. If Microsoft or anybody was expecting otherwise, they're stupid.
2) While Windows NT/2K/XP allowed users to not be administrator (and I've set up many machines that way, for myself and others), Windows XP in the installation process tended to make the first user an admin and not make it easy for "newbies" to set up something like the OSX/Ubuntu/Win7 model.
Lastly, there has really been very little UI improvement from the OSS world (wobbly windows don't make you more productive) or Microsoft.
I do like the application grouping thing in Windows 7 (but I'd prefer if you could adjust the task button positions within an app group).
Other than that, Windows 7 sucks. Using the start menu (or the start menu search) is slower than my current XP config at home (classic mode with custom menus so I can use winkey, <number>, <number> to launch my commonly used stuff very quickly).
The search sucks. The network configuration screen is overly complex and cluttered.
FWIW, I'm the sort who likes stuff like Tree Style Tabs for Mozilla, the type of person who has lots of tabs and windows open, and has written a program to allow a user to quickly set up hotkeys to switch amongst tasks/windows. I don't care about those stupid animations. If I want a window, I want it NOW, not after some fancy song and dance.
Don't get me wrong, I can see why others like those animations (they're like fancy cutscenes in games), but the UI designers should also cater for those who want to use their precious UI to actually get work done faster (so that we can waste more time on other stuff e.g Slashdot;) ).
Maybe Google or someone should make a site that makes it easier to tip artists, programmers, whoever directly (of course the problem is money laundering etc, but I'm sure someone can figure it out).
After all since Hollywood's distribution (and other) costs are so high, perhaps we could help save them money by downloading the movies and then paying directly to who we think should be paid;).
So many movies supposedly lose money - Return of the Jedi, Harry Potter and so on. I suppose Avatar and the Titanic lost money too?
If Hollywood can't even make money from such movies perhaps we should speed their demise and let others who are more efficient take over...:).
1) At least with the videos out there you have a better idea of what the lectures are going to be like for a particular course and university (assuming the lecturer doesn't change), before you start giving them money.
2) In my experience the university cert is only useful for the first job, after that first job, the other companies were more interested about other stuff- e.g. What you actually did in your job, and can do.
Some certifications like CCIE might be useful in certain fields - and if you have a CCIE, people in those fields don't really care whether you have a degree or not. You wouldn't want to work for a company that's somehow bothered about your high school and kindergarten grades when you've already got a decent university degree.
If you're staying in roughly the same field, it's sometimes a "small world", your future jobs can come from people who know you or have heard of you. So if you haven't been too much of an asshole and can actually do stuff, they wouldn't really care about the certificate stuff.
So you can get decent jobs without a degree, it's not that important in the business world where I am, maybe it is where you are.
That said, the degree/certificate can still be important when it comes to stuff like dealing with certain Immigration Departments and Rules/Laws...;).
> Plus, you can expect the one-child policy to have a massive impact as their workforce ages
Not if lots of them die before they are very old. From stuff like smoking, toxins in the environment or food... Hmmm, so maybe they have thought of that:).
If you just want the learn, don't pay. Just watch the lectures on Youtube:). MIT, Stanford, etc... Even lectures from the Indian Institute of Technology are there (if you want to compare approaches:) ).
> The only ones at fault are those that don't realise if they are stationary they need to be on the right.
If they are obese, even if they stand to one side, you're not going to pass them assuming the usual guard rails on both sides...;)
Anyway the GP seems to have difficulty accepting a world of diverse people with different priorities and needs.
To me while you can indeed travel faster on a moving walkway by running, the problem is 1) You have to slow down at the end, or you will fall down because you exceed your personal top speed. And since most aren't that long or fast you're not going to be travelling that much faster compared to running at your max "cruising" speed for the entire distance. 2) if "stuff happens" at one end, you could get a massive pile up....
What's needed: 1) Cheap enough source of energy (maybe newer nuclear or wind or thermal solar). 2) Cheap source of CO2 (CO2 tends to occur in higher concentrations in water). 3) Efficient way to get H2 4) Cost effective hydrocarbon fuel cells that work efficiently, reliably, and can last a long enough time in the harsh environment of a car. 5) Cost effective filters that can tolerate and filter out common undesirable impurities in the fuel, in order to protect the fuel cells.
Is that harder than making a good enough battery (capacity + lifespan + cost)? Maybe. Maybe not.
Lastly, jet planes aren't going to be running on batteries, and the world is not as nice without air travel, so it's probably a good idea to look for a good way of creating hydrocarbons anyway.
Pure hydrogen jet planes might work, but retooling is going to be such a big pain, and storage space is a big problem on planes.
So in a possible future the airplanes may burn "renewable" hydrocarbons, the long distance road vehicles may use fuel cells, or burn hydrocarbons, and short distance/commuter vehicles might use batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the Prius can accelerate fast enough, but the Prius driver is too occupied with playing the "how efficiently can I drive" game.
The Prius isn't a fast car but doesn't seem terribly slow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh_lKNAh4Sk&feature=related
If that level of acceleration is still not enough to merge safely, then that section of the highway is badly (and unsafely) designed. I do not see it as a problem with the car.
If you do not design highways and stuff for "slower" drivers, then the next step may be more stringent certification and requirements. That's not going to go well with the voters when most find out that they and/or their cars are just not good enough.
My car is definitely unable to accelerate faster than a Prius. I'm not the safest or best of drivers but I've driven for about a decade (maybe more) without crashing into a car or another car crashing into me. Have not hit any people (no dogs or cats either). And on my first time on a go-kart race track I was just a bit above average pace in the group of 30 drivers. So if me and my car don't make the grade, I bet a lot of others wouldn't either.
They could always tell students that school is like prison, only you're less likely to be let out earlier for good behaviour.
Too bad food prices don't go down like that ;).
I've had better luck getting Outlook for web to work in some scenarios. The sysadmin or someone at work wanted Outlook to use NTLM auth. That doesn't seem to interact well with Microsoft Communicator on my Win 7 64 bit machine.
;).
So people might stick to XP + Web Apps. FWIW, I've tried Kingsoft Office before and if they come out with an Outlook replacement, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft sues them just to slow them down
That's not necessarily a big problem if you're not exposing it to the big bad internet... And if you've been exposing a Win2K server directly to the big bad internet you may have been pwned already ;).
Strange. I would have bought a new hard drive. Cheaper than a new machine.
"no other nation on earth will be able to replace the US as the worlds bread basket in a sustainable way."
That's OK I don't eat that much bread ;).
Why'd they freak out? If it doesn't keep falling over (and it shouldn't), it's not as if it'll suddenly fall over tomorrow just because Microsoft stops supporting it.
Wow some people just have no concept of "demographic"...
Conflating or not, I prefer a more role/task based concept.
That way I can use one browser for lower security level stuff (whether visiting sites, or having more fancy plugins), and not have it affect my other browser which I use for higher security level stuff.
And I can do this without having to buy multiple computers.
If the browsers support sandboxing that's great. But whether they do or not does not affect my approach. I'd still be using multiple browsers, because it is just better "hygiene", and a more secure way of doing things. If say your banking site has weaknesses, it's harder for others to exploit that+you if you only use one browser for banking and only banking and it's not your default browser.
In contrast if you use the same browser for everything, your risk goes up - you might type in the wrong password to the wrong site; there might be a flaw in your banking site, and some ad banner could cause you to load the "wrong link".
If it is possible to run multiple distinct and separate instances of Chrome and keep sandboxing enabled AND the sandboxing applies to all externally exposed stuff (plugins etc), then I'd be happy to use it. Otherwise it would not be as secure.
Lastly from: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/sandbox
"Under Windows, there is no practical way to prevent code in the sandbox from calling a system service."
> Applying demographic data like this is a non-sequitur.
What would be useful is if I could choose to search from a different persons/demographic's point of view. Whether for ebay, amazon, google.
For example say I am looking for a gift for someone else. Or I am helping someone else search for stuff. Or I'm the sort of person who has rather different interests but with search keywords that overlap.
Same goes for reviews of restaurants/movies/etc. What I like, someone else may detest.
Lastly, it could also be interesting (and even beneficial) to be able to more easily see things from other people's point of view.
You did mention "introduction of a security model with trust levels".
And I don't think it's going to be easy to do right while allowing many types of extensions - after all if there can be extensions that help manage passwords, it'll be possible to have extensions that can abuse them.
So IMO it is better to just run different browser instances as different user accounts as I suggested.
Running browser instances as the same user but different data directories does not protect you as much. Because if the browser is taken over, anything the user account can do, the "pwned" browser can do.
Google Chrome and "run as" doesn't work so well: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=31387
If you're paranoid, run multiple browsers using different accounts (under a main user).
For example, you login as mainuser. Browser1 runs as wwwbrowser1, browser2 runs as wwwbrowser2.
You do your banking stuff with browser1 which has zero or only extensions you are sure you can trust. You do your normal browsing with browser 2.
You configure browser 2 to have a different skin (browser 1 has default skin), so that you can more easily tell the difference.
This way if browser 2 is pwned. It is lesss likely to have access to browser 1's stuff, or mainuser's stuff.
If browser 1 is pwned, despite you only using it for bank stuff, it's probably your bank's fault.
Not sure you can do this easily with Google Chrome. I had difficulty running google chrome as a different user on Windows. I can do it with Firefox and IE. You can control which users show up on the login screen with TweakUI.
Just wait for an random 3-5 seconds silence then give a "sorry?", "sounds interesting", *cough*, "oh wait, hang on...", "pardon", "I'm not sure", etc.
After all you don't really care about recognizing what's in the spiel right?
That's just the relaunch...
It didn't go so well the first time round: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Uh there are so many reasons Vista sucked. I work for a company that's a Microsoft partner and even the "koolaid" drinkers there won't deny that Vista sucked. Windows 7 less so (some things are better, but others aren't really an improvement from Windows 2000).
;) ).
1) It took years for the hardware companies to stop making so many drivers that bluescreen XP or cause other problems (heck some still do), so it's no surprise if Vista gets crappy drivers. If Microsoft or anybody was expecting otherwise, they're stupid.
2) While Windows NT/2K/XP allowed users to not be administrator (and I've set up many machines that way, for myself and others), Windows XP in the installation process tended to make the first user an admin and not make it easy for "newbies" to set up something like the OSX/Ubuntu/Win7 model.
Lastly, there has really been very little UI improvement from the OSS world (wobbly windows don't make you more productive) or Microsoft.
I do like the application grouping thing in Windows 7 (but I'd prefer if you could adjust the task button positions within an app group).
Other than that, Windows 7 sucks. Using the start menu (or the start menu search) is slower than my current XP config at home (classic mode with custom menus so I can use winkey, <number>, <number> to launch my commonly used stuff very quickly).
The search sucks. The network configuration screen is overly complex and cluttered.
FWIW, I'm the sort who likes stuff like Tree Style Tabs for Mozilla, the type of person who has lots of tabs and windows open, and has written a program to allow a user to quickly set up hotkeys to switch amongst tasks/windows. I don't care about those stupid animations. If I want a window, I want it NOW, not after some fancy song and dance.
Don't get me wrong, I can see why others like those animations (they're like fancy cutscenes in games), but the UI designers should also cater for those who want to use their precious UI to actually get work done faster (so that we can waste more time on other stuff e.g Slashdot
That assumes the observer isn't part of reality.
Seems strange if they really had to wonder a long time.
Maybe Google or someone should make a site that makes it easier to tip artists, programmers, whoever directly (of course the problem is money laundering etc, but I'm sure someone can figure it out).
;).
:).
After all since Hollywood's distribution (and other) costs are so high, perhaps we could help save them money by downloading the movies and then paying directly to who we think should be paid
So many movies supposedly lose money - Return of the Jedi, Harry Potter and so on. I suppose Avatar and the Titanic lost money too?
If Hollywood can't even make money from such movies perhaps we should speed their demise and let others who are more efficient take over...
They'll just use someone else instead.
Plenty of people lining up to be used...
1) At least with the videos out there you have a better idea of what the lectures are going to be like for a particular course and university (assuming the lecturer doesn't change), before you start giving them money.
;).
2) In my experience the university cert is only useful for the first job, after that first job, the other companies were more interested about other stuff- e.g. What you actually did in your job, and can do.
Some certifications like CCIE might be useful in certain fields - and if you have a CCIE, people in those fields don't really care whether you have a degree or not. You wouldn't want to work for a company that's somehow bothered about your high school and kindergarten grades when you've already got a decent university degree.
If you're staying in roughly the same field, it's sometimes a "small world", your future jobs can come from people who know you or have heard of you. So if you haven't been too much of an asshole and can actually do stuff, they wouldn't really care about the certificate stuff.
So you can get decent jobs without a degree, it's not that important in the business world where I am, maybe it is where you are.
That said, the degree/certificate can still be important when it comes to stuff like dealing with certain Immigration Departments and Rules/Laws...
> Plus, you can expect the one-child policy to have a massive impact as their workforce ages
:).
Not if lots of them die before they are very old. From stuff like smoking, toxins in the environment or food... Hmmm, so maybe they have thought of that
If you just want the learn, don't pay. Just watch the lectures on Youtube :). MIT, Stanford, etc... Even lectures from the Indian Institute of Technology are there (if you want to compare approaches :) ).
If you want a certificate, then you have to pay.
> The only ones at fault are those that don't realise if they are stationary they need to be on the right.
;)
If they are obese, even if they stand to one side, you're not going to pass them assuming the usual guard rails on both sides...
Anyway the GP seems to have difficulty accepting a world of diverse people with different priorities and needs.
To me while you can indeed travel faster on a moving walkway by running, the problem is
1) You have to slow down at the end, or you will fall down because you exceed your personal top speed. And since most aren't that long or fast you're not going to be travelling that much faster compared to running at your max "cruising" speed for the entire distance.
2) if "stuff happens" at one end, you could get a massive pile up....
http://www.google.com/search?q=hydrocarbon+fuel+cell
What's needed:
1) Cheap enough source of energy (maybe newer nuclear or wind or thermal solar).
2) Cheap source of CO2 (CO2 tends to occur in higher concentrations in water).
3) Efficient way to get H2
4) Cost effective hydrocarbon fuel cells that work efficiently, reliably, and can last a long enough time in the harsh environment of a car.
5) Cost effective filters that can tolerate and filter out common undesirable impurities in the fuel, in order to protect the fuel cells.
Is that harder than making a good enough battery (capacity + lifespan + cost)? Maybe. Maybe not.
Lastly, jet planes aren't going to be running on batteries, and the world is not as nice without air travel, so it's probably a good idea to look for a good way of creating hydrocarbons anyway.
Pure hydrogen jet planes might work, but retooling is going to be such a big pain, and storage space is a big problem on planes.
So in a possible future the airplanes may burn "renewable" hydrocarbons, the long distance road vehicles may use fuel cells, or burn hydrocarbons, and short distance/commuter vehicles might use batteries.