But a malicious web designer can put a master frame with his code, and just put something inside like paypal?
Since he created the master frame, his URL, not Paypal will appear in the address bar.
The problem with this is that you go to, say, Paypal (assuming they use frames), and the malicious code can change what Paypal displays without changing the Paypal URL.
The problem is not that different frames can come from different sites. The problem is that one site can change the existing content of a frame that is already being displayed.
So, if you do banking in one window and you then open up a malicious site in another, the malicious site can change the content of a frame in your banking window. That's not "faking", it's something worse.
I can't think of a legitimate use for that "feature" in a real application, and the fact that it didn't use to work suggests that sites aren't relying on it.
The applications don't check whether the frames displayed in a single window all originate from the same Web site.
And they shouldn't check that because often frames do not originate on the same web site (e.g., Google, Hotmail). The problem is if you try to frame something low security inside something high security; the other direction is OK.
What they should check (according to Secunia) is something different: when code attempts to put content into a target, the browser should check whether that code actually created that frame and otherwise refuse.
A simple way of fixing this problem might be to prefix the name of any frame with the host that created it, so that "target=foobar" actually means "target=www.host-of-this-page.com::foobar"; that also helps avoid confusing name conflicts between web sites. But that suffers from the same problem as anything else that relies on host names: you can't tell which ones are supposed to "belong together".
Alternatively, you might require that if any frame in a window uses https, then all of them must, and they all must use the same certificate.
The best solution is probably just to abolish frames altogether; they cause many other problems as well.
A slightly less drastic solution would be to prohibit the display of any https content in a frame.
We were fast approaching that about 30 years ago. Then the personal computer "revolution" happened, and companies like Microsoft and Apple started from square one, making all the mistakes that their predecessors had been making, and then some: programming in low-level languages, extensive use of assembly, lack of hardware abstraction, etc.
Unfortunately, the so-called PC-pioneers like Gates, the Apple developers, and others, didn't have a clue what they were doing technically and were learning on the job; we all are still paying the price for it.
When people paid even a little bit of attention to prior work in operating systems (Amiga microkernel, Linux), the results were technically far superior.
Whoah, you just don't get it that calling people "communists" is offensive. And you just don't get how f*cked up and anti-free-market current US energy policy actually is. And you still don't get how serious this problem actually is.
So apparently it's OK to "vigorously defend their IP", while blatantly violating everybody else's.
Whose IP is Sony "violating"? FAT is not patented or protected in any other way.
I don't like Sony, but please don't try to create non-existent intellectual property out of thin air. The more people like you pay lip service to that nonsense, the more people will believe that it actually exists.
But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.
Uh, huh. Those "industry peers" are likely still companies wedded to proprietary software. Microsoft loves to put out licenses that permit commercial implementations (even royalty-free) but are incompatible with open source. "Industry peers" are not the right group to ask--legislators need to think for themselves.
Well, for Mac users, this probably means more choice, higher performance, and lower prices. It will make porting software to Macintosh easier. It may mean that there will be some third party manufacturers. It will probably mean additional hardware for running Linux (Linux/PPC was always a bit of a hassle compared to Linux/x86). Maybe Apple hardware will even run Windows.
It does mean one thing for certain: the end of vague claims about megahertz myths and Altivec performance, and that can't be bad:-)
I don't care about a "start". Either you have a plan or you don't.
Of course, we have a plan: steady, gradual reductions of per-capita carbon emissions in Western nations, and caps for developing nations. The primary obstacle is the US.
It is a pretty fundamental task you are advocating: taking fire away from man. But I'm not sure that you appreciate that.
That's total bullshit, and it's the kind of extremism that keeps us from implementing reasonable solutions.
Nobody is advocating "taking fire away". We simply don't have to burn half a dozen tons of carbon per capita per year in order to maintain and improve our standard of living.
Besides, it's not a choice anyway: within about a century, we have no choice but to move to energy sources other than fossil fuels. The only question is how much we wreck our planet in the meantime.
I think you mean 'better central planning.' And we see where you are leading.
No, it means going away from the corrupt central planning we currently have. Right now, the US government takes a large chunk of our taxes and uses it to subsidize inefficient transportation and energy technologies that happen to be favored by political donors. If people had to pay the actual costs of driving, flying, and heating, they'd make more prudent choices.
But, like generations of right wingers before you, you hide your fascist and corrupt views by accusing everybody you don't like of communism. People like you are the enemies of the free market and a free society, not environmentalists.
How do you know that mitigation of the effects would not be better than attempting something like Kyoto ? It seems noone has looked at the possibility...
How do you "mitigate" the flooding of Bangladesh, the Netherlands, or New York and New Jersey? How do you "mitigate" Alaskan winters in Britain or France?
And there is no way to reverse the emission: once the CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere, it's going to stay there for a couple of centuries.
C02 isnt just about SUVs, its about expansion and growth. [...] Progress needs excess resources. You dont see people barely surviving people doing research.
The US clearly requires far more CO2 per "unit of research" produced than other nations, so that's an obvious first thing to address. That's not the overall answer, but it's a good start. Politically, that would give us the moral position from which we can begin to argue that China and India should adopt a different path.
Take a gamble so people can expand and grow, definitely.
There is no gamble, only certainty: continued CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global climate change; there is no uncertainty or question about that. It's elementary thermodynamics.
The only question is when we will reach that point at current emissions, and the time frames are anywhere from "it's already too late" to "maybe in a century".
So your solution is to get rid of SUVs? Fine. I'm all for it. I hate the damn things. But if you think any resulting decline in CO2 would be measurable by anyone you are extremely deluded.
Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Obviously, there are lots of things we would need to do in order to reduce CO2 emissions appreciably. However, as far as the US is concerned, they all amount to doing things that do not need to affect one's standard of living.
Let me give you a hint. Think nuclear and/or horses. You are pro-nuclear right? And don't mind having a nuclear power plant down the street from you right? And lots of horse manure in the streets.
A good start, as far as the US is concerned, would be to reduce per-capita energy usage to levels found in other Western nations. That does not mean either going all nuclear or relying horses, it just means simple energy conservation measures, public transportation, better city planning, etc.
Beyond that, I'm keeping an open mind. Nuclear is an option, although it would need to be managed differently from the current nuclear industry.
The machines in LV are well defined, designed to be so.
Yes, and in the long term, the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is also predictable--hence my analogy.
It is unknown how much the temperature will increase. The models (are they even good ?) all disagree. [...] Then you expect everyone to go all out to prevent something that may or may not have good or bad effects ?
Rapid global climate change away from our current state is always disastrous; it doesn't matter which direction it goes. And all the models agree that rapid climate change will be the consequence of continued CO2 emissions.
Even if there is just the possibility of rapid global climate change, yes, that is sufficient reason to expect everybody to "go all out". Because what you are proposing is to gamble with the lives of several billion people just so that people can drive around in SUVs for another few decades.
Someone care to explain what OpenSSH means by that? The only mention of it seems to be with OpenSSH, and I'm pretty sure I have never needed "auto-reexecution" in order to make anything secure so far...
Before you assert categorically that global warming is anthropogenic,
He did not assert that "categorically". Neither do the scientists who study these things.
What they are saying is that the most reasonable explanation of what we are observing is that the warming is anthropogenic and that other attempts at explaining the current patterns are less plausible.
You might counter "isn't it better to act than to wait until we're sure?" The answer is "it depends on the cost of acting and being right vs. the cost of acting and being wrong."
Quite right. And the conclusion is that we need to act.
Lorenz showed that with a set of simple differential equations seemingly very complex turbulent behaviour could be created that would previously have been considered as random. He further showed that accurate longer range forecasts in any chaotic system were impossible, thereby overturning the previous orthodoxy. It had been believed that the more equations you add to describe a system, the more accurate will be the eventual forecast.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand what that means. What that means is that you can't predict whether it's going to rain on a specific day, say, 11291 days from now. It does not mean that you can't predict any kind of long term quantities.
By analogy, when commit to playing slots daily in Las Vegas, nobody can predict whether you are going to be winning or losing money on a day 17 weeks from now. But we can predict with near certainty that you will have overall lost money by that time.
In fact, it is simple physics to predict what the long-term consequences of current emission trends are going to be; there is no uncertainty about that at all. The only question is whether we are going to stop in time and whether short-term feedback mechanisms will make the problem worse or give us a few more decades to act.
When people - few of whom seem to be "experts" at all but rather people with a political agenda and little knowledge of science or history - claim that we are absolutely and definitely sleepwalking into global disaster the likes of which the world has never sen before and omg it is all the fault of Mankind, it is time to get sceptical and call bullshit.
We fully agree on that point: nobody knows "absolutely and definitely" whether there is global warming or, if it exists, whether it is due to human activity. That is just the most plausible explanation of what we are observing right now, and given the scope and magnitude of the consequence, that is enough to act decisively.
The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting. You prefer sticking your head in the sand until it's too late. Because, by the time we have "absolute and definite" proof, it will be too late.
such as total distruption of the Gulf stream causing ice caps to form across most of Europe.
Well, for US global warming deniers, that solves two big problems: sea levels won't rise because the ice sheets will just move from the antarctic to Europe, and "old Europe" will be too busy shoveling snow to still interfere in US world domination.:-(
Maybe that's Bush's secret master plan after all...
The short-term concerns about global warming aren't about huge absolute increases in temperature, they are about changing weather patterns. Global warming may well mean a new ice age for Europe.
As for the rise in sea levels, so far, the main consequence of global warming seems to have been increased thawing of ice around the north pole, which will not raise sea levels. A second consequence has been thawing of glaciers, with already serious consequences.
Sea levels will rise significantly when the antarctic ice sheets thaw. We have been lucky so far that increased thawing around the edges has been balanced by increased precipitation in the interior, but that won't last forever.
People like you are about as fringe and ill-informed as the people who deny that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in this case, you endanger not only your own miserable life with your hostility towards science and reason, you endanger everybody's.
The 16% is some figure that someone just uttered, without any evidence or methodology or even source behind it. Without that, it's impossible to determine even what it means, let alone whether it is valid.
Whatever it is, it can't refer to Apple's actual installed based.
Apple market share is about 3% and web statistics generally put Apple users at around 2%. Those figures are consistent, assuming that Macs and PCs are used for about the same amount of time on average and given that people tend to spend more on their Macs.
Even if you make other assumptions, having a market share of 3% and an installed based of 16% is only plausible if the company is in steep decline; Apple may have problems, but they are not in that much trouble yet.
That's what CPU power management is for: it allows you to select in software what tradeoff between performance and power you want. I believe most (all?) of my desktop machines have it built in.
128-bit SIMD instructions translated into regular x86 code? I think that will be slow enough as to be completely unusable... like multiple orders of magnitude slower in some cases.
"Multiple orders of magnitude"? That would mean 100x or 1000x or more. That's an absolutely ridiculous claim.
The absolute best case for Altivec is something like Photoshop or BLAS, hand-optimized highly tuned routines. Even there, Altivec fails to be consistently better than a P4; when it does do better, it's by at most a factor of 2.
Translating Altivec into P4 instructions (using SSE where possible) and executing it on a current P4 would likely result only in a modest slowdown relative to the top-of-the-line G5, and beat most other PPC chips.
Apple has significant resources devoted to Altivec just about everywhere in the OS, functions that are not available in any currently shipping Intel chip. But imagine this: What if rather than OS X being run on x86, Intel were to produce a PPC chip with Altivec?
You can translate Altivec into regular x86 instruction sequences. It won't be as fast relative to the base processor performance, but it will be fast enough in absolute terms. In fact, since Apple would be using the latest x86 chips, it would probably still be faster than most of their installed based.
For example, the arm must be fairly strong for digging. You could put passive wheels on the thing and push/pull it with the arm. You could make the bottom a smooth bowl, which would mean it would slide down any incline, but could be moved fairly easily on flat terrain with the arm.
If it moves slowly, it needs almost no built-in intelligence for that, can get by with a single low gear, and has no extra power requirements--you just move it a few inches between commands.
If any of that doesn't work, you are no worse off than if you hadn't included it, except, of course, for the scientific equipment its weight displaced.
I'm just telling you, my gut feeling is that the tradeoff would be worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
But a malicious web designer can put a master frame with his code, and just put something inside like paypal?
Since he created the master frame, his URL, not Paypal will appear in the address bar.
The problem with this is that you go to, say, Paypal (assuming they use frames), and the malicious code can change what Paypal displays without changing the Paypal URL.
The problem is not that different frames can come from different sites. The problem is that one site can change the existing content of a frame that is already being displayed.
So, if you do banking in one window and you then open up a malicious site in another, the malicious site can change the content of a frame in your banking window. That's not "faking", it's something worse.
I can't think of a legitimate use for that "feature" in a real application, and the fact that it didn't use to work suggests that sites aren't relying on it.
The applications don't check whether the frames displayed in a single window all originate from the same Web site.
And they shouldn't check that because often frames do not originate on the same web site (e.g., Google, Hotmail). The problem is if you try to frame something low security inside something high security; the other direction is OK.
What they should check (according to Secunia) is something different: when code attempts to put content into a target, the browser should check whether that code actually created that frame and otherwise refuse.
A simple way of fixing this problem might be to prefix the name of any frame with the host that created it, so that "target=foobar" actually means "target=www.host-of-this-page.com::foobar"; that also helps avoid confusing name conflicts between web sites. But that suffers from the same problem as anything else that relies on host names: you can't tell which ones are supposed to "belong together".
Alternatively, you might require that if any frame in a window uses https, then all of them must, and they all must use the same certificate.
The best solution is probably just to abolish frames altogether; they cause many other problems as well.
A slightly less drastic solution would be to prohibit the display of any https content in a frame.
We were fast approaching that about 30 years ago. Then the personal computer "revolution" happened, and companies like Microsoft and Apple started from square one, making all the mistakes that their predecessors had been making, and then some: programming in low-level languages, extensive use of assembly, lack of hardware abstraction, etc.
Unfortunately, the so-called PC-pioneers like Gates, the Apple developers, and others, didn't have a clue what they were doing technically and were learning on the job; we all are still paying the price for it.
When people paid even a little bit of attention to prior work in operating systems (Amiga microkernel, Linux), the results were technically far superior.
Whoah, you just don't get it that calling people "communists" is offensive. And you just don't get how f*cked up and anti-free-market current US energy policy actually is. And you still don't get how serious this problem actually is.
So apparently it's OK to "vigorously defend their IP", while blatantly violating everybody else's.
Whose IP is Sony "violating"? FAT is not patented or protected in any other way.
I don't like Sony, but please don't try to create non-existent intellectual property out of thin air. The more people like you pay lip service to that nonsense, the more people will believe that it actually exists.
Uh, huh. Those "industry peers" are likely still companies wedded to proprietary software. Microsoft loves to put out licenses that permit commercial implementations (even royalty-free) but are incompatible with open source. "Industry peers" are not the right group to ask--legislators need to think for themselves.
Well, for Mac users, this probably means more choice, higher performance, and lower prices. It will make porting software to Macintosh easier. It may mean that there will be some third party manufacturers. It will probably mean additional hardware for running Linux (Linux/PPC was always a bit of a hassle compared to Linux/x86). Maybe Apple hardware will even run Windows.
:-)
It does mean one thing for certain: the end of vague claims about megahertz myths and Altivec performance, and that can't be bad
I don't care about a "start". Either you have a plan or you don't.
Of course, we have a plan: steady, gradual reductions of per-capita carbon emissions in Western nations, and caps for developing nations. The primary obstacle is the US.
It is a pretty fundamental task you are advocating: taking fire away from man. But I'm not sure that you appreciate that.
That's total bullshit, and it's the kind of extremism that keeps us from implementing reasonable solutions.
Nobody is advocating "taking fire away". We simply don't have to burn half a dozen tons of carbon per capita per year in order to maintain and improve our standard of living.
Besides, it's not a choice anyway: within about a century, we have no choice but to move to energy sources other than fossil fuels. The only question is how much we wreck our planet in the meantime.
I think you mean 'better central planning.' And we see where you are leading.
No, it means going away from the corrupt central planning we currently have. Right now, the US government takes a large chunk of our taxes and uses it to subsidize inefficient transportation and energy technologies that happen to be favored by political donors. If people had to pay the actual costs of driving, flying, and heating, they'd make more prudent choices.
But, like generations of right wingers before you, you hide your fascist and corrupt views by accusing everybody you don't like of communism. People like you are the enemies of the free market and a free society, not environmentalists.
Thanks for the response.
I was afraid it was something like this: OpenBSD is clearly completely on the wrong path when it comes to security.
How do you know that mitigation of the effects would not be better than attempting something like Kyoto ? It seems noone has looked at the possibility ...
How do you "mitigate" the flooding of Bangladesh, the Netherlands, or New York and New Jersey? How do you "mitigate" Alaskan winters in Britain or France?
And there is no way to reverse the emission: once the CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere, it's going to stay there for a couple of centuries.
C02 isnt just about SUVs, its about expansion and growth. [...] Progress needs excess resources. You dont see people barely surviving people doing research.
The US clearly requires far more CO2 per "unit of research" produced than other nations, so that's an obvious first thing to address. That's not the overall answer, but it's a good start. Politically, that would give us the moral position from which we can begin to argue that China and India should adopt a different path.
Take a gamble so people can expand and grow, definitely.
There is no gamble, only certainty: continued CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global climate change; there is no uncertainty or question about that. It's elementary thermodynamics.
The only question is when we will reach that point at current emissions, and the time frames are anywhere from "it's already too late" to "maybe in a century".
So your solution is to get rid of SUVs? Fine. I'm all for it. I hate the damn things. But if you think any resulting decline in CO2 would be measurable by anyone you are extremely deluded.
Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary. Obviously, there are lots of things we would need to do in order to reduce CO2 emissions appreciably. However, as far as the US is concerned, they all amount to doing things that do not need to affect one's standard of living.
Let me give you a hint. Think nuclear and/or horses. You are pro-nuclear right? And don't mind having a nuclear power plant down the street from you right? And lots of horse manure in the streets.
A good start, as far as the US is concerned, would be to reduce per-capita energy usage to levels found in other Western nations. That does not mean either going all nuclear or relying horses, it just means simple energy conservation measures, public transportation, better city planning, etc.
Beyond that, I'm keeping an open mind. Nuclear is an option, although it would need to be managed differently from the current nuclear industry.
The machines in LV are well defined, designed to be so.
Yes, and in the long term, the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is also predictable--hence my analogy.
It is unknown how much the temperature will increase. The models (are they even good ?) all disagree. [...] Then you expect everyone to go all out to prevent something that may or may not have good or bad effects ?
Rapid global climate change away from our current state is always disastrous; it doesn't matter which direction it goes. And all the models agree that rapid climate change will be the consequence of continued CO2 emissions.
Even if there is just the possibility of rapid global climate change, yes, that is sufficient reason to expect everybody to "go all out". Because what you are proposing is to gamble with the lives of several billion people just so that people can drive around in SUVs for another few decades.
Someone care to explain what OpenSSH means by that? The only mention of it seems to be with OpenSSH, and I'm pretty sure I have never needed "auto-reexecution" in order to make anything secure so far...
Before you assert categorically that global warming is anthropogenic,
He did not assert that "categorically". Neither do the scientists who study these things.
What they are saying is that the most reasonable explanation of what we are observing is that the warming is anthropogenic and that other attempts at explaining the current patterns are less plausible.
You might counter "isn't it better to act than to wait until we're sure?" The answer is "it depends on the cost of acting and being right vs. the cost of acting and being wrong."
Quite right. And the conclusion is that we need to act.
Lorenz showed that with a set of simple differential equations seemingly very complex turbulent behaviour could be created that would previously have been considered as random. He further showed that accurate longer range forecasts in any chaotic system were impossible, thereby overturning the previous orthodoxy. It had been believed that the more equations you add to describe a system, the more accurate will be the eventual forecast.
I'm sorry, but you just don't understand what that means. What that means is that you can't predict whether it's going to rain on a specific day, say, 11291 days from now. It does not mean that you can't predict any kind of long term quantities.
By analogy, when commit to playing slots daily in Las Vegas, nobody can predict whether you are going to be winning or losing money on a day 17 weeks from now. But we can predict with near certainty that you will have overall lost money by that time.
In fact, it is simple physics to predict what the long-term consequences of current emission trends are going to be; there is no uncertainty about that at all. The only question is whether we are going to stop in time and whether short-term feedback mechanisms will make the problem worse or give us a few more decades to act.
When people - few of whom seem to be "experts" at all but rather people with a political agenda and little knowledge of science or history - claim that we are absolutely and definitely sleepwalking into global disaster the likes of which the world has never sen before and omg it is all the fault of Mankind, it is time to get sceptical and call bullshit.
We fully agree on that point: nobody knows "absolutely and definitely" whether there is global warming or, if it exists, whether it is due to human activity. That is just the most plausible explanation of what we are observing right now, and given the scope and magnitude of the consequence, that is enough to act decisively.
The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting. You prefer sticking your head in the sand until it's too late. Because, by the time we have "absolute and definite" proof, it will be too late.
such as total distruption of the Gulf stream causing ice caps to form across most of Europe.
:-(
Well, for US global warming deniers, that solves two big problems: sea levels won't rise because the ice sheets will just move from the antarctic to Europe, and "old Europe" will be too busy shoveling snow to still interfere in US world domination.
Maybe that's Bush's secret master plan after all...
The short-term concerns about global warming aren't about huge absolute increases in temperature, they are about changing weather patterns. Global warming may well mean a new ice age for Europe.
As for the rise in sea levels, so far, the main consequence of global warming seems to have been increased thawing of ice around the north pole, which will not raise sea levels. A second consequence has been thawing of glaciers, with already serious consequences.
Sea levels will rise significantly when the antarctic ice sheets thaw. We have been lucky so far that increased thawing around the edges has been balanced by increased precipitation in the interior, but that won't last forever.
People like you are about as fringe and ill-informed as the people who deny that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in this case, you endanger not only your own miserable life with your hostility towards science and reason, you endanger everybody's.
The 16% is some figure that someone just uttered, without any evidence or methodology or even source behind it. Without that, it's impossible to determine even what it means, let alone whether it is valid.
Whatever it is, it can't refer to Apple's actual installed based.
Apple market share is about 3% and web statistics generally put Apple users at around 2%. Those figures are consistent, assuming that Macs and PCs are used for about the same amount of time on average and given that people tend to spend more on their Macs.
Even if you make other assumptions, having a market share of 3% and an installed based of 16% is only plausible if the company is in steep decline; Apple may have problems, but they are not in that much trouble yet.
That's what CPU power management is for: it allows you to select in software what tradeoff between performance and power you want. I believe most (all?) of my desktop machines have it built in.
128-bit SIMD instructions translated into regular x86 code? I think that will be slow enough as to be completely unusable... like multiple orders of magnitude slower in some cases.
"Multiple orders of magnitude"? That would mean 100x or 1000x or more. That's an absolutely ridiculous claim.
The absolute best case for Altivec is something like Photoshop or BLAS, hand-optimized highly tuned routines. Even there, Altivec fails to be consistently better than a P4; when it does do better, it's by at most a factor of 2.
Translating Altivec into P4 instructions (using SSE where possible) and executing it on a current P4 would likely result only in a modest slowdown relative to the top-of-the-line G5, and beat most other PPC chips.
and only another 3953 miles to go to the center of the earth. It's progress, I suppose.
Apple has significant resources devoted to Altivec just about everywhere in the OS, functions that are not available in any currently shipping Intel chip. But imagine this: What if rather than OS X being run on x86, Intel were to produce a PPC chip with Altivec?
You can translate Altivec into regular x86 instruction sequences. It won't be as fast relative to the base processor performance, but it will be fast enough in absolute terms. In fact, since Apple would be using the latest x86 chips, it would probably still be faster than most of their installed based.
It's not an either/or decision.
For example, the arm must be fairly strong for digging. You could put passive wheels on the thing and push/pull it with the arm. You could make the bottom a smooth bowl, which would mean it would slide down any incline, but could be moved fairly easily on flat terrain with the arm.
If it moves slowly, it needs almost no built-in intelligence for that, can get by with a single low gear, and has no extra power requirements--you just move it a few inches between commands.
If any of that doesn't work, you are no worse off than if you hadn't included it, except, of course, for the scientific equipment its weight displaced.
I'm just telling you, my gut feeling is that the tradeoff would be worth it.