If they miss something basic in their browser, or their OS, it will be patched and fixed and everyone will be able to see that (even actually do it if they feel inclined).
It is going to be impossible to launch an OS with no flaws - so there is no inherent "increased risk" in using Google's over anyone else just because they had a security flaw in their beta, early development cycle browser that was subsequently fixed.
So you'll just stick with Ubuntu and Firefox's security flaws then...
It's a silly argument to claim that all of their marketing as the most secure browser is totally void because a security flaw is found. *Of course* people are going to find them, and then they'll be patched up.
Linux markets itself as more secure than Windows. So does OS X. Is that somehow void because they, too, have security flaws just like Windows?
Then the beauty of the open source nature of Chrome will mean that security fixes will be available for everyone else who uses the same code, or just available to look at in the source code if you don't use it but are curious.
"Most secure" doesn't mean "immune" - it's a situation we've been dealing with as Mac users for some time now when MS shills like to point and laugh when security flaws are found in OS X. We're not silly enough to think we're immune (at least most of us aren't). (also, note that I'm not calling you a FF or Ubuntu shill, just making a point).
I use FF and Safari about equally, and have a hobby Ubuntu box. My primary machine runs OS X.
C&C was awesome, and one of the first RTS games I played, even before I got into Starcraft. It went enormously downhill when EA bought Westwood studios and "did their thing".
Shouldn't be at all surprising, since that's EA's general way of doing things.
Even if it's good you'll have to somehow convince the online authenticator that you had nothing to do with 9/11, have never hummed a tune out loud in earshot of another person or ever described in words any of EA's "intellectual property", up to and including walking into the store and asking for the game by name without first buying a licence to say the phrase "Command and Conquer 4" in a public place.
Even after that, you'll put the CD into the drive and it will boot the installer and say "you have a CD drive! CD drives are used to rip mp3s and steal music!" and then shut down, consuming one of your three install allowances.
It was - the original design never had the O-rings expanding quite so much to seal the gaps, but it worked well, so they kept the design as it was. theye did know well before the disaster that the colder the rings were, the longer it took them to seal and the more damage was done to the SRB joint and ring itself, so they put a lower limit on the safe launch temperature.
On the day of the Challenger launch, it was below freezing (or close to it), way below any previous launch of the Shuttle. When the SRBs were lit, the O ring disintegrated immediately, but rocket fuel slag plugged the gap in the SRB joint. This held in place until the wind shear at Max Q dislodged it, allowing the hot gases out, which destroyed the rear support, allowing the SRB to swing out, pivoting around the upper support, causing the nose to break the main fuel tank.
Ha, was that you that called me on that before? I replied that I did indeed mix up and added an extra power onto both figures all the way through my post without realising it. I blamed it on the TV as I remember, due to some story about a billion pound company bailout on the news so I had the B on the brain. I don't mind admitting to mistakes though.
That's the price you pay for not posting AC I guess.
Or is your post essentially saying that people who make mistakes have no credibility?
Or that a single post with erroneous figures is "a habit". I suppose it will be a habit if I make the same mistake when/, posts the dupe article next week sometime.
They didn't "have to pay", they just decided to licence Toyota's system because it was very similar and was much, much better than Ford's. So they decided to carry on in the same vein, but skip the R&D and buy a much better performance system "off the shelf" rather than continue to refine their own version, which is a good use of the patent system - Toyota developed it after all, and put in a lot of time and money, so for Ford to benefit from that, they can licence it and get a ready researched system right off the bat.
They could have kept on with their own R&D, but it had already been done and was cheaper to licence to get the added bonuses.
Is a 72 litre gas tank in an SUV not quite small? My 1996 Peugeot 306 XN has a 50-55 litre tank (although the meter suggests 60L, I have never filled it up that much - I am assuming that includes the reserve) and its a medium sized hatchback.
I would wager that the Tailblazer and the Landy have much more thirsty tanks than the hybrid machine.
Adult stem cells are useful, but ultimately nowhere near as effective as embryonic lines. The science of this is well understood. The site you linked to there is a shill site that isn't really science, and is just designed to muddy the waters and try to convince people without a science background that what they say is "fact" when really it's just cloaking the agenda it's trying to push (that killing embryos is wrong).
Bush *effectively* banned stem cell research by attaching some really petty, nasty limitations of federal money to *any* research (not just stem cells, not just biology even) in an institution that went ahead and found private funding for research on new cell lines. Even if they did this research with no federal money, all of the federal money for *all other programmes* would be removed because of it.
So, the choice was funding the research privately and doing without any federal money *for any scientific research whatsoever*, or not doing it. Or setting up an entirely new lab just for the stem cell work (very expensive and silly).
Yeah, so they find some private funding and start working on those stem cells... and then all of their buddies doing work on, say, wind turbines, or new battery technology, or any other scientific research of any discipline in any field would have their federal funding removed because there was private funding of stem cells going on in the same institution.
It was effectively a ban, since if you ran any privately funded stem cell research in the same labs as any work (even with nothing to do with stem cells), the federal funding would be withdrawn for that research.
That is exactly what I said, that at high voltages, small currents kill. I wrote it that way to compare it to a low voltage, high current source such as a lead acid battery, which can also clearly kill. The voltage doesn't matter, as long as the energy in the "jolt" you receive is high enough (so something on the order of 100 mA at 1 volt is unlikely to kill you since your body's internal resistance will protect you, unless you take extra measures to reduce resistance, like breaking the skin, or having contact points very close to the heart).
Go hold a 12 volt car battery under water with you. Nothing will happen, except maybe that battery will short itself and rapidly discharge. It won't electrocute you unless you physically connect it up to yourself.
How exactly do you think the current is going to get to you? Unless you're making a lower resistance circuit than the rest of the car's electrical systems (you won't be) or you're somehow part of the ground circuit for the HT side (which you won't be, since you're inside the car).
There will obviously be warnings about the HT parts of the system (just like there are in modern petrol cars that maintain a multi-thousand volt coil to fire the spark plugs, although at lower current than is used in the Tesla - not that it matters, since when you're talking about very high voltages, very small currents can kill you).
The battery pack will be designed for crash resistance, and will be impervious to water. The master terminals will be well insulated from water entry. I think you're expecting some sort of school project style job where exposed metal terminals are 2 inches apart, with about 3 inches of exposed flex leading off to the rest of the car. Even if you break it open and sink it, you could be in the water with it and not be electrocuted unless you go to great lengths to grab both terminals after exposing the contacts.
We already have many electric cars on the market, all featuring large DC battery packs with high current, and then either DC motors or a rectifier+AC motor combo for traction. The systems and ideas are well understood and have been proven to be safe. Again, as safe as driving a vehicle can sensibly be - ie, no better or worse than driving a petrol car.
D'oh, I did in fact mean 650,000 total. I totally got my scale out by an order of magnitude. I blame the news channel I was watching as I wrote the comment talking about a multi-billion company bail out story. I didn't even twig I'd written the figures like that. I even proofread it with the preview box.
So yes, mea culpa. Not half a billion, but half a million.
Ever heard of a breaker? In the event of an incident the batteries (which are low voltage DC, high current) will be isolated.
Also, the people inside the giant faraday cage on wheels are safe from electric shocks (ever seen a car hit by lightning?)
I'm also pretty certain the kinks of that particular scenario have been worked out and dismissed. The fundamentals of high current batteries and inverters with large step up voltages are well understood, as are the safety issues surrounding them.
No worse than the 60 odd litres of highly flammable liquid you carry around in your petrol powered car that can leak out and burn.
No one is going to die if you drive your electric car through 3 feet of water. It may even come out of the other side totally unaffected - with the right covering and protection for the motors (the car has to drive in the rain and in heavy spray after all) I'd wager it would survive better than the average petrol car in the same water. Water is not a particularly conductive liquid (gets better as you dissolve more crap in it, but in general). Drive your low-slung petrol car through there and get any water ingested into the air intake and it can be pretty terminal. Water into petrol engines is not a good combo.
I would almost count on a recycle programme for the batteries, where you trade your old and exhausted one for a fresh one. This won't be free by a long chalk, but I'd imagine it's going to be considerably cheaper than buying an entire new battery and dumping the old one in landfill. It will be well worth it to recover and recondition/recycle the batteries.
He mentions in the talk that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and that's what the science bit is all about, that you can make inferences, but need to do more science to establish links.
My god, you want the US healthcare system? I have lived in both counties, and let me tell you, you do not want to be poor (or at least, not mega wealthy) and sick in the United States.
The NHS has its major problems, and is still trying to recover from years of Tory neglect in the 80s, where they couldn't kill it (there would have been riots) so they did the next best thing and attempted to let it starve to death in a dark cupboard. It's by no means perfect, but it is infinitely preferable to the US healthcare system.
The problem with opposing the PATRIOT act (and I mean seriously, the name alone is cringe worthy - it;s like "The Democratic Free People's Republic of Totally Fair and Nice Government China/Congo/etc") is that it was rushed into law on the wake of 9/11 and opposing it was touted as "unamerican" and "you're either with us, or with the terr'ists". I mean, even the name of it draws on a strong word in the American psyche. It's called the PATRIOT act, therefore it must be patriotic to support it, and thus by extension, if you oppose it you are not a patriot.
None of the people who voted it in even read it, which speaks more to their innate fear of seeming unpatriotic than anything else, or just that they're like slashdotters - they read the summary and then felt they were adequately qualified to make informed decisions based on that alone.
Well, there's the government's point of view, and then there are "scientific" papers like this one that claim that since deaths from heat stroke have gone down and that crop yields have gone up, that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't really a problem.
He also claims in the report that quality of life of Americans has gone up, as have crop yields and that there are fewer annual deaths from heat stroke. While these all may be true, his attempt to connect them to global warming is nonsensical at best, and grossly stupid at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
If they miss something basic in their browser, or their OS, it will be patched and fixed and everyone will be able to see that (even actually do it if they feel inclined).
It is going to be impossible to launch an OS with no flaws - so there is no inherent "increased risk" in using Google's over anyone else just because they had a security flaw in their beta, early development cycle browser that was subsequently fixed.
I'm sure many flaws will be found and corrected.
So you'll just stick with Ubuntu and Firefox's security flaws then...
It's a silly argument to claim that all of their marketing as the most secure browser is totally void because a security flaw is found. *Of course* people are going to find them, and then they'll be patched up.
Linux markets itself as more secure than Windows. So does OS X. Is that somehow void because they, too, have security flaws just like Windows?
Then the beauty of the open source nature of Chrome will mean that security fixes will be available for everyone else who uses the same code, or just available to look at in the source code if you don't use it but are curious.
"Most secure" doesn't mean "immune" - it's a situation we've been dealing with as Mac users for some time now when MS shills like to point and laugh when security flaws are found in OS X. We're not silly enough to think we're immune (at least most of us aren't). (also, note that I'm not calling you a FF or Ubuntu shill, just making a point).
I use FF and Safari about equally, and have a hobby Ubuntu box. My primary machine runs OS X.
C&C was awesome, and one of the first RTS games I played, even before I got into Starcraft. It went enormously downhill when EA bought Westwood studios and "did their thing".
Shouldn't be at all surprising, since that's EA's general way of doing things.
Even if it's good you'll have to somehow convince the online authenticator that you had nothing to do with 9/11, have never hummed a tune out loud in earshot of another person or ever described in words any of EA's "intellectual property", up to and including walking into the store and asking for the game by name without first buying a licence to say the phrase "Command and Conquer 4" in a public place.
Even after that, you'll put the CD into the drive and it will boot the installer and say "you have a CD drive! CD drives are used to rip mp3s and steal music!" and then shut down, consuming one of your three install allowances.
I'll pass.
It was - the original design never had the O-rings expanding quite so much to seal the gaps, but it worked well, so they kept the design as it was. theye did know well before the disaster that the colder the rings were, the longer it took them to seal and the more damage was done to the SRB joint and ring itself, so they put a lower limit on the safe launch temperature.
On the day of the Challenger launch, it was below freezing (or close to it), way below any previous launch of the Shuttle. When the SRBs were lit, the O ring disintegrated immediately, but rocket fuel slag plugged the gap in the SRB joint. This held in place until the wind shear at Max Q dislodged it, allowing the hot gases out, which destroyed the rear support, allowing the SRB to swing out, pivoting around the upper support, causing the nose to break the main fuel tank.
Oh there we go, I said /, instead of /.
I guess that makes it a habit.
There goes my credibility.
Ha, was that you that called me on that before? I replied that I did indeed mix up and added an extra power onto both figures all the way through my post without realising it. I blamed it on the TV as I remember, due to some story about a billion pound company bailout on the news so I had the B on the brain. I don't mind admitting to mistakes though.
That's the price you pay for not posting AC I guess.
Or is your post essentially saying that people who make mistakes have no credibility?
Or that a single post with erroneous figures is "a habit". I suppose it will be a habit if I make the same mistake when /, posts the dupe article next week sometime.
They didn't "have to pay", they just decided to licence Toyota's system because it was very similar and was much, much better than Ford's. So they decided to carry on in the same vein, but skip the R&D and buy a much better performance system "off the shelf" rather than continue to refine their own version, which is a good use of the patent system - Toyota developed it after all, and put in a lot of time and money, so for Ford to benefit from that, they can licence it and get a ready researched system right off the bat.
They could have kept on with their own R&D, but it had already been done and was cheaper to licence to get the added bonuses.
Is a 72 litre gas tank in an SUV not quite small? My 1996 Peugeot 306 XN has a 50-55 litre tank (although the meter suggests 60L, I have never filled it up that much - I am assuming that includes the reserve) and its a medium sized hatchback.
I would wager that the Tailblazer and the Landy have much more thirsty tanks than the hybrid machine.
FALSE.
Adult stem cells are useful, but ultimately nowhere near as effective as embryonic lines. The science of this is well understood. The site you linked to there is a shill site that isn't really science, and is just designed to muddy the waters and try to convince people without a science background that what they say is "fact" when really it's just cloaking the agenda it's trying to push (that killing embryos is wrong).
Bush *effectively* banned stem cell research by attaching some really petty, nasty limitations of federal money to *any* research (not just stem cells, not just biology even) in an institution that went ahead and found private funding for research on new cell lines. Even if they did this research with no federal money, all of the federal money for *all other programmes* would be removed because of it.
So, the choice was funding the research privately and doing without any federal money *for any scientific research whatsoever*, or not doing it. Or setting up an entirely new lab just for the stem cell work (very expensive and silly).
Yeah, so they find some private funding and start working on those stem cells... and then all of their buddies doing work on, say, wind turbines, or new battery technology, or any other scientific research of any discipline in any field would have their federal funding removed because there was private funding of stem cells going on in the same institution.
I'm sure that wouldn't have upset anyone, eh?
It was effectively a ban, since if you ran any privately funded stem cell research in the same labs as any work (even with nothing to do with stem cells), the federal funding would be withdrawn for that research.
The site linked there is clearly an extremely biased site, masquerading as real science, designed to further the religious agenda.
Keep your sky fairy out of my science please.
That is exactly what I said, that at high voltages, small currents kill. I wrote it that way to compare it to a low voltage, high current source such as a lead acid battery, which can also clearly kill. The voltage doesn't matter, as long as the energy in the "jolt" you receive is high enough (so something on the order of 100 mA at 1 volt is unlikely to kill you since your body's internal resistance will protect you, unless you take extra measures to reduce resistance, like breaking the skin, or having contact points very close to the heart).
Go hold a 12 volt car battery under water with you. Nothing will happen, except maybe that battery will short itself and rapidly discharge. It won't electrocute you unless you physically connect it up to yourself.
How exactly do you think the current is going to get to you? Unless you're making a lower resistance circuit than the rest of the car's electrical systems (you won't be) or you're somehow part of the ground circuit for the HT side (which you won't be, since you're inside the car).
There will obviously be warnings about the HT parts of the system (just like there are in modern petrol cars that maintain a multi-thousand volt coil to fire the spark plugs, although at lower current than is used in the Tesla - not that it matters, since when you're talking about very high voltages, very small currents can kill you).
The battery pack will be designed for crash resistance, and will be impervious to water. The master terminals will be well insulated from water entry. I think you're expecting some sort of school project style job where exposed metal terminals are 2 inches apart, with about 3 inches of exposed flex leading off to the rest of the car. Even if you break it open and sink it, you could be in the water with it and not be electrocuted unless you go to great lengths to grab both terminals after exposing the contacts.
We already have many electric cars on the market, all featuring large DC battery packs with high current, and then either DC motors or a rectifier+AC motor combo for traction. The systems and ideas are well understood and have been proven to be safe. Again, as safe as driving a vehicle can sensibly be - ie, no better or worse than driving a petrol car.
Your sex organ sinking like your house? Cheap pill make your gondola floaty! Buy now!
D'oh, I did in fact mean 650,000 total. I totally got my scale out by an order of magnitude. I blame the news channel I was watching as I wrote the comment talking about a multi-billion company bail out story. I didn't even twig I'd written the figures like that. I even proofread it with the preview box.
So yes, mea culpa. Not half a billion, but half a million.
Ever heard of a breaker? In the event of an incident the batteries (which are low voltage DC, high current) will be isolated.
Also, the people inside the giant faraday cage on wheels are safe from electric shocks (ever seen a car hit by lightning?)
I'm also pretty certain the kinks of that particular scenario have been worked out and dismissed. The fundamentals of high current batteries and inverters with large step up voltages are well understood, as are the safety issues surrounding them.
No worse than the 60 odd litres of highly flammable liquid you carry around in your petrol powered car that can leak out and burn.
No one is going to die if you drive your electric car through 3 feet of water. It may even come out of the other side totally unaffected - with the right covering and protection for the motors (the car has to drive in the rain and in heavy spray after all) I'd wager it would survive better than the average petrol car in the same water. Water is not a particularly conductive liquid (gets better as you dissolve more crap in it, but in general). Drive your low-slung petrol car through there and get any water ingested into the air intake and it can be pretty terminal. Water into petrol engines is not a good combo.
I would almost count on a recycle programme for the batteries, where you trade your old and exhausted one for a fresh one. This won't be free by a long chalk, but I'd imagine it's going to be considerably cheaper than buying an entire new battery and dumping the old one in landfill. It will be well worth it to recover and recondition/recycle the batteries.
I would also argue that a list of accidents involving a wood plane should be avoided. Avoiding them might be a very close shave though.
He mentions in the talk that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and that's what the science bit is all about, that you can make inferences, but need to do more science to establish links.
You can't just look at the pictures.
My god, you want the US healthcare system? I have lived in both counties, and let me tell you, you do not want to be poor (or at least, not mega wealthy) and sick in the United States.
The NHS has its major problems, and is still trying to recover from years of Tory neglect in the 80s, where they couldn't kill it (there would have been riots) so they did the next best thing and attempted to let it starve to death in a dark cupboard. It's by no means perfect, but it is infinitely preferable to the US healthcare system.
The problem with opposing the PATRIOT act (and I mean seriously, the name alone is cringe worthy - it;s like "The Democratic Free People's Republic of Totally Fair and Nice Government China/Congo/etc") is that it was rushed into law on the wake of 9/11 and opposing it was touted as "unamerican" and "you're either with us, or with the terr'ists". I mean, even the name of it draws on a strong word in the American psyche. It's called the PATRIOT act, therefore it must be patriotic to support it, and thus by extension, if you oppose it you are not a patriot.
None of the people who voted it in even read it, which speaks more to their innate fear of seeming unpatriotic than anything else, or just that they're like slashdotters - they read the summary and then felt they were adequately qualified to make informed decisions based on that alone.
Well, there's the government's point of view, and then there are "scientific" papers like this one that claim that since deaths from heat stroke have gone down and that crop yields have gone up, that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't really a problem.
He also claims in the report that quality of life of Americans has gone up, as have crop yields and that there are fewer annual deaths from heat stroke. While these all may be true, his attempt to connect them to global warming is nonsensical at best, and grossly stupid at worst.
He made a typo with "arts". I think it's well understood what Al Gore did at university.
Is that the best you can do for trolling?