He is 265 times more valuable. When you find workers that can sell a million cars a year, then you go right ahead. Mulally can walk into a room and sell you a bunch of jumbo jets, as he did when he turned Boeing around. If the average guy could sell that well, they wouldn't be working on an assembly line, now would they.
Oh, and tell all the Red States getting subsidized by all the Blue States [taxfoundation.org] that the Blue States are somehow living off the gravy of paying the Red States to li
The blue states are basically handing out a few trinkets to the red states because they have hammered the red states over pricing of commodities. For decades the blue states have, in order to fuel the rise of industry, have been putting the screws to the red states on the prices of commodities from food, to fuel, to oil, and so forth. In essence, the industrial northeast looted the rest of the country in order to build it. The empire state building and all of those fancy skyscrapers were built on the backs of farmers living in shacks, and a few extra bucks kicked out from the feds does not come close to adequately replacing the lost right of farmers to collectively set production quotas and food prices, and likewise the same with other raw materials such as coal, iron, etc.
Tell Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns that the sky isn't falling.
Yeah, and guess what, they lent out billions of dollars to finance people getting houses, and now, there's a trillion dollars worth of essentially free housing on the market. Right now, there's an entire class of people that for the first time are able to get a good house because there's so much housing on the market. You complain about all of these banks going belly up, but you forget that banks are all just a bunch of rich democrats and always have been, and they just got fleeced by the poor, and big time. Frankly, I'm glad Lehman Brothers didn't get a bailout and you should be too. Lehman wouldn't have forgiven anyone for being late on their mortgages now, would they have?
Do you understand what that implies? It means that everything is more expensive so people can't afford the luxuries anymore and have to buy the necessities to keep living.
Yes, you are right. But, here's the deal... there's two billion more people, at least, sharing the world's commodities, essentially doubling demand over the last decade or so and into the next. Therefor, if commodity production does not increase, the prices surely must. As it turns out, we have peak oil, and, if you really looked at coal, you would see that the better grades of coal have in fact peaked, as has natural gas. There's only so much arable land and to a certain extent agriculture depends on the availability of energy, so yes, it has.
Of course the dollar is weaker, there are more people buying stuff and more powers with more money, so you go from being the only major international currency to one of several.
Neither currency competition or rising global demand are forces that Obama can control or even put back in the bag. What is he going to do, tell the Chinese to starve or the Europeans to bail on the Euro.... oh yeah, if you think Bush is unpopular abroad, either of those moves would make Obama genuinely hated.
The way out, of course, is to have more energy and more commodities production....the demand is there, for sure, to support it, but NIMBY in the west and the environmental movement essentially doom those efforts. Therefor, since we can't manufacture, can't drill, can't use newer industrial farming techniques, to satisfy environmental concerns, then yes, higher prices for commodities are the norms for now and in the future.
Does that mean Berners-Lee will suddenly sprout 1980's hair, a cool leather jacket, and then drive around in a talking, bullet proof car with lasers and stuff?
It's obvious that this was the flash of an extraterrestrial civilization that just destroyed itself when it realized that all of its savings were tied up in Lehman Brothers stock.
Being a Republican means never having to make any sense at all. Just stay scared and cowering at anything
Sense? You guys are the ones going around saying the sky is falling and we have to have all of this "change" when in fact all that is happening is that rising global prosperity has created an economic shift back towards basics like commodities and away from services. After decades of subsistence existence, farms are suddenly hot property and Dems are just bitter that people would prefer to spend money on food rather than crappy newspapers. The sky isn't falling at all. Rather, there's just a global economic correction towards the reality that food and oil are actually more valuable than a downloaded song collection, after all! "Change we can believe in" is more reactionary than even Republican politics of the 1950s... its "stop globalization, stop this, stop that...", there's no vision for the future other than to try and screw red states some more so that blue states can live more cheaply.
Saying the Democrats are not tied to the entertainment industry is about as ridiculous as saying that Republicans are not tied to the oil business. Let me break it down for you:
Just look at how the economy does when either party gets in. Clinton - farms, oil, commodities all crash, services takes off. Bush - services take a beating, but farms, oil, commodities in general take off, and manufacturing gets a boost.
Each party has its own commercial interests allied to it.
I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.
Um, yeah, but let's face it... Republicans aren't the type that exactly cares whether or not someone rips off a Madonna or a Kanye West song... if the whole media business went under because it was obsolete, don't you think Republicans would benefit more? Democrats -must- have a profitable media...but with Republicans well, its not like there's bootleg Rush Limbaugh shows out there.
A nice thing about Linux is that when something barfs, you can boot with your live CD, rescue your home directory, reinstall and update easily. (An external DVD drive allows booting from the main CD/DVD drive and burning to the external if you don't have another machine to copy to.)
Can I reinstall over myself? If I could just nuke and pave I would be immensely happier, for sure.
No matter what OS you use, it is time well spent learning to quick-turn a hosed system back to service.
I'm having a really bad Linux day, because I installed KDE 4.1 on my Hardy Heron Ubuntu box, and found that, after the dust settled, I was booting with an extra kernel, my graphics were destroyed and my networking was f--- up. About the only thing that works right, actually, is in fact Vista running in a VirtualBox OSE environment, and I'm so bitter about KDE trashing my machine that I'm about ready to say screw Linux and just format the whole dang thing to Vista, if only I can find the signed drivers..
The current administration is about as anti-Christian as anyone can get, but all Bush has to do is tell people what a great Christian he is, and they believe it
You really don't understand what Christianity means to Christians, do you? You see Christianity as the sort of a dogma that runs through your life in the same sort of a way that science and environmentalism runs through the life of a liberal or atheist but christianity hasn't been that aesthetic in 500 years.
Democrats are more the religious fruitcakes than Republicans will ever be. When Christianity held its sway over the Continent, when the Pope was it his height, virtually every aspect of medieval life was imprinted with the dogma of that religion, and, the reason wasn't just about power, it was that, there was a core belief in the leaders of the day that the whole of humanity needed to be organized in some fashion.
I used to think that Democrats were just about power, and maybe they are, but the thought has occurred to me that they are just hopeless neurotic and upon examining all the drunkent craziness caused by Republican free trade, that they just call it a mess and want to slot people and organize society as much as the middle ages were organized. You have the university, the company, the government, and people get slotted into positions in each and no one gets too powerful and no one gets too successful to really tip the cart or change the balance. It all should just fit together, and Republicans look at that whole vision, and just think it is generally a terrible way to live..
Seriously, look at how Democrats openly mock the "invisible hand". They argue against all the dynamism made possible by capitalism and all of the social upheaval that it causes. Democrats are the ones arguing too much, too fast, when it comes to technology. When the internet first came out, you could see a lot of Democrats wondering about the effects of technology and society and how it all needed to be understood, but Republicans via their corporate proxies just saw it as an enabler of trade and commerce and just pushed it out everywhere regardless of the consequences. Were Democrats in complete control of government, I doubt that the internet or the PC would have spread nearly as fast as it did. It would have been much more incremental and designed to be much more egalitarian as they would try to fit it in as part of the social engineering that they seek to do... the cries about a rising income gap, the need to manage the poor, all are really about a kind of people that aspire to place order on the whole of society.
Even "Change We Can Believe In" is essentially a statement that they cannot even believe that a society can exist without humanity, being, well organized. It's not even ultimately about the disparity of wealth, its that, ultimately, free enterprise is just too messy and too organized for them.
On the other hand, if anyone is a secular humanist today, it is in fact the Conservative Republican. Republicans see the chaos of humanity and then, after mumbling about traditions law and order, proceed to create even more chaos and more change than ever before.
The Republican goes for more consumption and more free trade, and in doing so having genuinely made billions of people richer and have completely turned the planet upside down... They generally want to have more goods and investment flowing freely and eschews the welfare state in favor of his or her own initiative. Some people get hurt, some people get rich, but all in all everyone gets to live a life by his or her own wits, with no promises and no guarantees (at least until they sell out to buy votes with).
Absolutely I did. You are just too close minded to dismiss it. What does Obama need on his ticket? He wants a VP that help him win states he can't win by himself, insulate himself from experience attacks from the right, raise money for his party so he doesn't have to do it, and then has some experience as a leader to help run the country. Question is, is Biden the best the Dems have to offer? Let's see, there's over 30 Democratic governors in states like Texas, Virginia, PA, and Ohio, any one of which puts Obama over the top, and any of them can raise more money than Biden can, and have more executive experience than Palin does (because Alaska has such a small population). If Obama picked Rendell, or Kain, or almost any Democratic governor, this election is over three weeks ago. But he didn't. Therefor, Biden is a mistake, and a big one, because McCain made the perfect counter-move.
Such as 'Pax Americana' is dead because its in a huge debt.
Pax Americana is the US Air Force and US Navy establishing lawful open trade in the skies and high seas. USA has fiscal problems, but none that really alter that equation at the moment. If the USA had to immediately balance the budget, it ends the war and lets the Bush tax cuts lapse and that pretty much balances the budget immediately.
Also, what is this 'left' and 'right' people are talking about? Utter nonsense, perhaps? The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.
Utter nonsense? No? Left wing and right wing have been political debates since the beginning of civilization and will be until civilization ends. The impulse for more order through government, versus the impulse for freedom and openness, are human impulses and have gone on for some time.
Signed: not a left or right person, but one with both legs on the ground. And, a European.
Well, you can call yourself a centrist but that you identify with Obama suggests and are a European suggests that you are a tad more left wing. You have to remember that free enterprise in the USA and Europe have entirely different historical results. In the USA, free enterprise and open capitalism made this country enormously rich, with some social costs. In Europe, free enterprise, in its transition from the monarchy, came to represent a dangerous turn from an established social order, and -then- lead to the bitter experiences of empire and the enormously destructive depressions wars that followed. Germans, for example, would never really grasp the American idea of completely free speech and open gun laws, when, free speech and open gun laws lead to a bunch of liars with guns taking over and starting a world war that killed 10% of her own population, and of course the French have the same memory from the last 18th century. That just hasn't happened in America and hopefully never will.
I think we should accelerate two SUVs...
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
to near light speed in an SUV supercollider. The physics would be awesome and it would make a great commercial.
Ah, but read the fine print. The Orion currently developed is for LEO only in the first cut, which is "block 1". Block 2 is a next release, for lunar use, and therefor a second design phase. Dragon could do the same thing.
It's gonna be awful tough for NASA to ask Congress to fund the development of a government space capsule for billions of dollars when SpaceX has one for sale a lot cheaper.
Let's see, a securities case or class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs claim that the defendant deliberately did something evil.
Ho hum?
This is news?
9 out of 10 of these cases just quietly die after an initial round of discovery proves that the plaintiffs, indeed, have no case.
I have a black hole in my pants.
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I have a black hole in my pants, Mrs. Vice President... do you want to see my collider?
Re:Ignorance vs. the Unknown
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
I can create a fission reaction by picking up two pieces of uranium and putting them together. The act of doing so might take at most 1 or 2 kilocalories. The result, would well, be priceless. I couldn't do it fast enough to get a boom, but I could sure make one heck of a mess. In fact, an early researcher in nuclear physics was killed because he accidentally did just that.
Well, they haven't collided yet..
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
This was only a test to see if the beam could be generated in one way. Then they have to generate the beam in an another. Then they will do the collisions. Then we can relax and hope the world doesn't end.
I mean seriously, if a bunch of SUVs can threaten the delicate nature of life on earth, then is it so unreasonable to think that playing with the very fundamental forces that bind the universe together might not have some risk? Sure, there may be a 99.999% chance that nothing will go wrong. But, if it does, then aren't we all screwed?
But, what a thread doesn't have to deal with is the interaction with the OS - security permissions, allocating the heap, shared dll loading etc. Multiple threads in a process get to reuse these resources that the process had to create or deal with.
Under Windows though, a thread can have its own security context. Impersonation is per thread, not process.
Given that, it's wiser to design your browser to use processes, so if you or somebody else screws up
Well, I -would- use processes in the case of the browser. The other reason to is that a process enforces a security context much more rigidly than a thread. So I can have tabs running as different roles.
Slashdot Mirror
CEO's make 262 times what a worker makes, up from 24 times in 1966. Where's the money going? Not into plant and equipment. Check this guy out:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/companies/ford_execpay/ [cnn.com]
He is 265 times more valuable. When you find workers that can sell a million cars a year, then you go right ahead. Mulally can walk into a room and sell you a bunch of jumbo jets, as he did when he turned Boeing around. If the average guy could sell that well, they wouldn't be working on an assembly line, now would they.
Oh, and tell all the Red States getting subsidized by all the Blue States [taxfoundation.org] that the Blue States are somehow living off the gravy of paying the Red States to li
The blue states are basically handing out a few trinkets to the red states because they have hammered the red states over pricing of commodities. For decades the blue states have, in order to fuel the rise of industry, have been putting the screws to the red states on the prices of commodities from food, to fuel, to oil, and so forth. In essence, the industrial northeast looted the rest of the country in order to build it. The empire state building and all of those fancy skyscrapers were built on the backs of farmers living in shacks, and a few extra bucks kicked out from the feds does not come close to adequately replacing the lost right of farmers to collectively set production quotas and food prices, and likewise the same with other raw materials such as coal, iron, etc.
Tell Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns that the sky isn't falling.
Yeah, and guess what, they lent out billions of dollars to finance people getting houses, and now, there's a trillion dollars worth of essentially free housing on the market. Right now, there's an entire class of people that for the first time are able to get a good house because there's so much housing on the market. You complain about all of these banks going belly up, but you forget that banks are all just a bunch of rich democrats and always have been, and they just got fleeced by the poor, and big time. Frankly, I'm glad Lehman Brothers didn't get a bailout and you should be too. Lehman wouldn't have forgiven anyone for being late on their mortgages now, would they have?
Do you understand what that implies? It means that everything is more expensive so people can't afford the luxuries anymore and have to buy the necessities to keep living.
Yes, you are right. But, here's the deal... there's two billion more people, at least, sharing the world's commodities, essentially doubling demand over the last decade or so and into the next. Therefor, if commodity production does not increase, the prices surely must. As it turns out, we have peak oil, and, if you really looked at coal, you would see that the better grades of coal have in fact peaked, as has natural gas. There's only so much arable land and to a certain extent agriculture depends on the availability of energy, so yes, it has.
Of course the dollar is weaker, there are more people buying stuff and more powers with more money, so you go from being the only major international currency to one of several.
Neither currency competition or rising global demand are forces that Obama can control or even put back in the bag. What is he going to do, tell the Chinese to starve or the Europeans to bail on the Euro.... oh yeah, if you think Bush is unpopular abroad, either of those moves would make Obama genuinely hated.
The way out, of course, is to have more energy and more commodities production....the demand is there, for sure, to support it, but NIMBY in the west and the environmental movement essentially doom those efforts. Therefor, since we can't manufacture, can't drill, can't use newer industrial farming techniques, to satisfy environmental concerns, then yes, higher prices for commodities are the norms for now and in the future.
Knight Foundation?
Does that mean Berners-Lee will suddenly sprout 1980's hair, a cool leather jacket, and then drive around in a talking, bullet proof car with lasers and stuff?
It's obvious that this was the flash of an extraterrestrial civilization that just destroyed itself when it realized that all of its savings were tied up in Lehman Brothers stock.
Being a Republican means never having to make any sense at all. Just stay scared and cowering at anything
Sense? You guys are the ones going around saying the sky is falling and we have to have all of this "change" when in fact all that is happening is that rising global prosperity has created an economic shift back towards basics like commodities and away from services. After decades of subsistence existence, farms are suddenly hot property and Dems are just bitter that people would prefer to spend money on food rather than crappy newspapers. The sky isn't falling at all. Rather, there's just a global economic correction towards the reality that food and oil are actually more valuable than a downloaded song collection, after all! "Change we can believe in" is more reactionary than even Republican politics of the 1950s... its "stop globalization, stop this, stop that...", there's no vision for the future other than to try and screw red states some more so that blue states can live more cheaply.
Saying the Democrats are not tied to the entertainment industry is about as ridiculous as saying that Republicans are not tied to the oil business. Let me break it down for you:
Democrats : Entertainment, Legal Services, Accounting, Education, Financial - Investment Banking, Software
Republicans : Manufacturing, Farming, Mining, Drilling, Financial - old Banking, Hardware
Just look at how the economy does when either party gets in. Clinton - farms, oil, commodities all crash, services takes off. Bush - services take a beating, but farms, oil, commodities in general take off, and manufacturing gets a boost.
Each party has its own commercial interests allied to it.
I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.
Um, yeah, but let's face it... Republicans aren't the type that exactly cares whether or not someone rips off a Madonna or a Kanye West song... if the whole media business went under because it was obsolete, don't you think Republicans would benefit more? Democrats -must- have a profitable media...but with Republicans well, its not like there's bootleg Rush Limbaugh shows out there.
Outstanding. Thank you! Vista x64 won't EVER support my Si3512 SATA controller... how much for suckage is -that-!
A nice thing about Linux is that when something barfs, you can boot with your live CD, rescue your home directory, reinstall and update easily. (An external DVD drive allows booting from the main CD/DVD drive and burning to the external if you don't have another machine to copy to.)
Can I reinstall over myself? If I could just nuke and pave I would be immensely happier, for sure.
No matter what OS you use, it is time well spent learning to quick-turn a hosed system back to service.
That's definitely fair enough. I just haven't.
I'm having a really bad Linux day, because I installed KDE 4.1 on my Hardy Heron Ubuntu box, and found that, after the dust settled, I was booting with an extra kernel, my graphics were destroyed and my networking was f--- up. About the only thing that works right, actually, is in fact Vista running in a VirtualBox OSE environment, and I'm so bitter about KDE trashing my machine that I'm about ready to say screw Linux and just format the whole dang thing to Vista, if only I can find the signed drivers..
The current administration is about as anti-Christian as anyone can get, but all Bush has to do is tell people what a great Christian he is, and they believe it
You really don't understand what Christianity means to Christians, do you? You see Christianity as the sort of a dogma that runs through your life in the same sort of a way that science and environmentalism runs through the life of a liberal or atheist but christianity hasn't been that aesthetic in 500 years.
Democrats are more the religious fruitcakes than Republicans will ever be. When Christianity held its sway over the Continent, when the Pope was it his height, virtually every aspect of medieval life was imprinted with the dogma of that religion, and, the reason wasn't just about power, it was that, there was a core belief in the leaders of the day that the whole of humanity needed to be organized in some fashion.
I used to think that Democrats were just about power, and maybe they are, but the thought has occurred to me that they are just hopeless neurotic and upon examining all the drunkent craziness caused by Republican free trade, that they just call it a mess and want to slot people and organize society as much as the middle ages were organized. You have the university, the company, the government, and people get slotted into positions in each and no one gets too powerful and no one gets too successful to really tip the cart or change the balance. It all should just fit together, and Republicans look at that whole vision, and just think it is generally a terrible way to live..
Seriously, look at how Democrats openly mock the "invisible hand". They argue against all the dynamism made possible by capitalism and all of the social upheaval that it causes. Democrats are the ones arguing too much, too fast, when it comes to technology. When the internet first came out, you could see a lot of Democrats wondering about the effects of technology and society and how it all needed to be understood, but Republicans via their corporate proxies just saw it as an enabler of trade and commerce and just pushed it out everywhere regardless of the consequences. Were Democrats in complete control of government, I doubt that the internet or the PC would have spread nearly as fast as it did. It would have been much more incremental and designed to be much more egalitarian as they would try to fit it in as part of the social engineering that they seek to do... the cries about a rising income gap, the need to manage the poor, all are really about a kind of people that aspire to place order on the whole of society.
Even "Change We Can Believe In" is essentially a statement that they cannot even believe that a society can exist without humanity, being, well organized. It's not even ultimately about the disparity of wealth, its that, ultimately, free enterprise is just too messy and too organized for them.
On the other hand, if anyone is a secular humanist today, it is in fact the Conservative Republican. Republicans see the chaos of humanity and then, after mumbling about traditions law and order, proceed to create even more chaos and more change than ever before.
The Republican goes for more consumption and more free trade, and in doing so having genuinely made billions of people richer and have completely turned the planet upside down... They generally want to have more goods and investment flowing freely and eschews the welfare state in favor of his or her own initiative. Some people get hurt, some people get rich, but all in all everyone gets to live a life by his or her own wits, with no promises and no guarantees (at least until they sell out to buy votes with).
Nothing you said supports this argument.
Absolutely I did. You are just too close minded to dismiss it. What does Obama need on his ticket? He wants a VP that help him win states he can't win by himself, insulate himself from experience attacks from the right, raise money for his party so he doesn't have to do it, and then has some experience as a leader to help run the country. Question is, is Biden the best the Dems have to offer? Let's see, there's over 30 Democratic governors in states like Texas, Virginia, PA, and Ohio, any one of which puts Obama over the top, and any of them can raise more money than Biden can, and have more executive experience than Palin does (because Alaska has such a small population). If Obama picked Rendell, or Kain, or almost any Democratic governor, this election is over three weeks ago. But he didn't. Therefor, Biden is a mistake, and a big one, because McCain made the perfect counter-move.
Such as 'Pax Americana' is dead because its in a huge debt.
Pax Americana is the US Air Force and US Navy establishing lawful open trade in the skies and high seas. USA has fiscal problems, but none that really alter that equation at the moment. If the USA had to immediately balance the budget, it ends the war and lets the Bush tax cuts lapse and that pretty much balances the budget immediately.
Also, what is this 'left' and 'right' people are talking about? Utter nonsense, perhaps? The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.
Utter nonsense? No? Left wing and right wing have been political debates since the beginning of civilization and will be until civilization ends. The impulse for more order through government, versus the impulse for freedom and openness, are human impulses and have gone on for some time.
Signed: not a left or right person, but one with both legs on the ground. And, a European.
Well, you can call yourself a centrist but that you identify with Obama suggests and are a European suggests that you are a tad more left wing. You have to remember that free enterprise in the USA and Europe have entirely different historical results. In the USA, free enterprise and open capitalism made this country enormously rich, with some social costs. In Europe, free enterprise, in its transition from the monarchy, came to represent a dangerous turn from an established social order, and -then- lead to the bitter experiences of empire and the enormously destructive depressions wars that followed. Germans, for example, would never really grasp the American idea of completely free speech and open gun laws, when, free speech and open gun laws lead to a bunch of liars with guns taking over and starting a world war that killed 10% of her own population, and of course the French have the same memory from the last 18th century. That just hasn't happened in America and hopefully never will.
to near light speed in an SUV supercollider. The physics would be awesome and it would make a great commercial.
Or, more importantly, if an individual fails, its just that individual. IF the government fails, its everyone.
Ah, but read the fine print. The Orion currently developed is for LEO only in the first cut, which is "block 1". Block 2 is a next release, for lunar use, and therefor a second design phase. Dragon could do the same thing.
Boy that Dragon capsule sure is interesting.
It's gonna be awful tough for NASA to ask Congress to fund the development of a government space capsule for billions of dollars when SpaceX has one for sale a lot cheaper.
good point.
but, you said "significant loss of life", not "destruction of earth"
True, but the guys at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were enemies of the USA at the time the bomb was tested, so, it wasn't like it was a loss of -any- life.
LogonUser a challenge then? :-)
Let's see, a securities case or class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs claim that the defendant deliberately did something evil.
Ho hum?
This is news?
9 out of 10 of these cases just quietly die after an initial round of discovery proves that the plaintiffs, indeed, have no case.
I have a black hole in my pants, Mrs. Vice President... do you want to see my collider?
I can create a fission reaction by picking up two pieces of uranium and putting them together. The act of doing so might take at most 1 or 2 kilocalories. The result, would well, be priceless. I couldn't do it fast enough to get a boom, but I could sure make one heck of a mess. In fact, an early researcher in nuclear physics was killed because he accidentally did just that.
This was only a test to see if the beam could be generated in one way. Then they have to generate the beam in an another. Then they will do the collisions. Then we can relax and hope the world doesn't end.
I mean seriously, if a bunch of SUVs can threaten the delicate nature of life on earth, then is it so unreasonable to think that playing with the very fundamental forces that bind the universe together might not have some risk? Sure, there may be a 99.999% chance that nothing will go wrong. But, if it does, then aren't we all screwed?
But, what a thread doesn't have to deal with is the interaction with the OS - security permissions, allocating the heap, shared dll loading etc. Multiple threads in a process get to reuse these resources that the process had to create or deal with.
Under Windows though, a thread can have its own security context. Impersonation is per thread, not process.
Given that, it's wiser to design your browser to use processes, so if you or somebody else screws up
Well, I -would- use processes in the case of the browser. The other reason to is that a process enforces a security context much more rigidly than a thread. So I can have tabs running as different roles.