Someone earlier said 10 meter tsunami Then someone said it was a 12 meter tsunami.
I suppose after you saying 15 the next person will peg it at 19m and the person after that will call it a 24 meter tsunami and so on. big bigger biggest hehehehehe.
"We (and I'm not an American) have only two choices: Nuclear, or live in huts."
Well we Americans have more choices than 2. There are a bunch of other energy sources we can use to keep us going in addition to nuclear. Remember, nuclear is based on finite resources as well. Can't have nuclear without the substrate necessary to run them so when that runs out the planet will still have to use other sources of energy.
Those you term "dimwit environmentalists" include a bulk of people are just reasonably worried about making giant swaths of land useless by having a nuclear meltdown. I don't think this is unreasonable especially given longer term thinking. We still haven't figured out what to do with all of the leftover material and we still don't know what to do with the old plants.
If nuclear were truly green then enviros would be having wet dreams about it, but they are not, because there are problems with it as there are with most forms of energy generation. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but it helps if we learn from it and develop better tech. We need wiser application of nuclear. Being a "Nuclear baby Nuclear!" cheerleader is just to simplified.
"So-called "renewables" are mostly a bad joke." You can tell that to my parents who heat their house all winter using their solar panel... hhahahahaha.... a passive solar collector running for 40 years with zero maintenance providing the heat for your house.... hahahaha.... makes no sense. Just because these things are not pervasive doesn't mean they are a joke.
You can tell that to the folks living in Brazil who mostly power their cars with alcohol grown from glorified grass.
You can tell that to my neighbors who heat their house and water with a geothermal system.
Each renewable that removes someone from the grid allows the power we do have to go farther.
Look. There are a lot of things which can help humanity out. Geothermal, heat exchangers, solar on every roof, windmills etc. Perhaps the most overlooked one is simply adding better insulation to ones house. We did an upgrade to our old house and cut our energy consumption in 1/2.
The quickest way to have more power is to be more efficient with the energy we do have. Calling people dimwits doesn't help get us where we need to go, nor is it very accurate.
You forgot to mention that coal also rains down heavy metals and radioactive isotopes all over the surrounding land. Coal isn't clean and I am dubious it will be. How long has it taken between the time they recognized these problems and having a solution? They still don't and aren't close as far as I know. But I haven't looked into it for a few years now.
Still if there was a meltdown near a major city in the US. It would render the entire city not useful for a long while. In places like New York or LA, there would be considerable economic upheaval and potentially substantial loss of life. Rendering large swaths of land not usable doesn't help us really so we need to be wise and prudent.
There are those who insist that radiation is no biggy, but I tend to believe that we need to be better equipped to play with it since it will be around with us for countless generations.
I think nuclear definitely plays a role now and in the future, we just need some better ways of dealing with problems and better ways of dealing with nuclear refuse.
Fossil fuels will take care of themselves since they will just run out after a bit. But nuclear material for reactors is limited as well and doesn't offer a long term solution either.
Where exactly did I say to use a system (non-nuclear) that is less safe? Where did I say we should not use nuclear? What doesn't make sense is the how you can extract what you assert I said from what I actually said. What I do think is that nuclear does play a role. We just need to be wise in it's deployment. But I don't want it near my beautiful part of the country.
Peak Oil is not a media coined term nor is it a ridiculous concept. From the Wiki: "M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,"
The term has been in existence since before I was born and has been picked up by the media who is suddenly interested in the fact that we reached overall peak oil in the world in 2005. Peak Oil is based on analysis of data relating to the ability of the industry to develop more pumping capacity against the decline in pumping capacity of current sources of oil. Since the Hubbert peak theory has been shown to be a reasonable approximation of what actually is happening in the field, it seems reasonable that the predictive value of this tool and its wide use in determining what actually happens flies in the face of you calling it a "ridiculous concept". How exactly would you define the fact that we will never be able to achieve the worlds maximum oil pumping capacity as it existed in 2005?
Back in 1982 I talked with an oil industry insider who stated that by their estimates there were only about 62-65 years of oil left to pump. I recently read something by a guy from Shell which confirms that this is still basically the case. And the estimate was that sometime between 2040-2050 the industry would run out of cheaply accessible oil.
One has to remember that all potential pockets of oil have for the most part been identified and re-identified the world over. The industry has done all of the legwork and continues to go over the entire earth trying to hone in on the likeliest places for oil. But the rate at which new oil is accessible continues to be steady and consistent with the predictive models. Even the much ballyhooed ANWR region which the USGS says has about 8 billion barrels of oil potentially has been drilled like swiss cheese with something like 280 sites drilled with no oil..... seems to be a bust.
"The amount of oil that exists simply cannot be determined based on the amount that we pump."
The industry already has estimates on the amount of oil that exist. But there metrics indicate an ever dwindling amount which will mostly be finished off by 2050. This correlates with the Peak Oil theory and its predictive capacity.
If you have some other metrics which the oil industry doesn't I would be interested in hearing about them.
The Toshiba 4S is a small nuclear reactor in a box. Self contained. Perhaps the old models of big nuclear reactors took years to develop, but the new small ones roll off the factory assembly line and can be trucked into place. It seem that newer Nuclear reactors could be brought up to speed rather quickly. The main issues seem to be insurance related.
The big sticking point with nuclear is always safety. And every disaster reminds us of just how unsafe nuclear can be. A 40 mile diameter section where people can't live in Japan is a major chunk of real estate. If this happened near any of our major cities it would cause significant problems.
Renewables could be brought up to date in the matter of a decade with a concerted effort. The right tax incentives could retrofit most every building in America with solar.
As to the ignorance of the public including myself, I want NO reactor anywhere near where I live simply because I like to live here and want my kids and grandkids to be able to live here safely.
This fear of nuclear contamination is not because of TV and shit websites since my understanding of nuclear issues comes mostly from magazine pieces from the last several decades and predates the internet.
Nuclear power is not "safe".... the best that can be said is that it is only "safe for now" and even then "sometimes safe". There are plenty of instances of problems with reactors and nuclear contamination of soil and water around them. No reactor has proven totally "safe" since the entire cycle of the reactors and their byproducts is hundreds or thousands of years down the road. What will happen after the reactors are taken offline and have to sit for many hundreds of years with radioactive materials in holding tanks or whatever seems to me the jury is still out as to whether this will remain "safe". I don't think humans have a particularly great track record maintaining things for the longer term since we think in relatively short term ways.
So I don't think that concerns by people about nuclear are unwarranted nor ignorant. Ignorance is actually from those who ignore nuclear dangers and say we should be flinging up nuclear plants everywhere. There isn't even enough nuclear substrate to power our planet over the long term. It is still a finite resource, so at best it is only a band-aid solution so we can keep doing what we are doing now.
Just as the drill baby drill crowd thinks we can magically produce increasing amounts of oil by drilling more when we have already passed the peak oil on our planet. Drilling more and using more will just accelerate the decline in the amount of oil we have long term and not address our more fundamental energy requirements. Not to mention it just runs us out of our worlds precious readily available industrial hydrocarbon pool by lighting them up to make us move. Pretty lame use of this finite resource in my estimation.
Certainly, nuclear plays a role, but we must be wise in our application of its use and realize that reducing the power we need is a better solution for the long term viability of our civilization. Our long term energy needs will not be met by coal, oil, or nuclear power. So I think it is pretty silly and greedy to say that our generation is more meritorious of these resources in our planetary bank than humans several generations from now. It only show how short sighted and self absorbed we are with our own needs.
I am not opposed to nuclear per se, but I don't think being cavalier about it is what a smart race of entities would do. I guess we will see if we are smart entities or are the type of entities which crap in our own food dish.
She could have died of any old thing I suppose. Nobody is saying correlation =causation. I don't even know if she died of cancer since I didn't check, that just sticks in my mind for some reason.
But it is interesting if a person smokes that they tend to get emphysema and lung cancer. I suppose they could get emphysema from any old source or lung cancer from just about anywhere to.
Working with radioactive substances when nobody knew there such things might lead to radiation poisening might lead one to excess exposure. Just as working with asbestos back in the day was not considered hazardous. And people just breathed the dust in without much thought.
It is a good thing we learn things ain't it? That way we can keep from being retarded.
2/3 of the machines? Really? Sounds like the plant should have been shut down and the manager fired if that was the case. How many millions would have been thrown away if 2/3 of the machines coming off the line were non-functional? Are you certain of your numbers?
Bummer. Good to hear about zero issues afterword. Have you had to just return one outright, are the machines replacements, or just your original machines refurbished?
Yeah for rationality in the discussion. I wonder if the folks who write unkind things might take it back if the issue is really not apple specific. Seems like this has all happened before with a battery issue which turned out to be not apple specific either. People sure like to pile on.
It could be an apple problem or maybe not. I just think it is funny how the apple haters come out of the woodwork with bad tidings.
How many of those who despise apple have ever owned an apple machine?
I have owned many different systems since my first Atari 800 and most have been great (IBM, Amiga, many self built machines and a slew of mac products as well). There have been a few machines with some glitches (my shuttle box for example) like this and most of the time there is a work around to fix the problem once it is identified.
A friend was just telling me today about his 1999 ibook that is still working just fine. And I have several working machines from the 90's and beyond which have had zero problems. In fact, I have never had to send one in for repairs and neither have any of my friends or relatives. Apparently we are just the lucky few. I just retire them after they become too outdated. Still fun to play around with though.
We made nitrocellulose rockets, tie dye lab coats, ethanol, rootbeer, and Hydrogen we blew up. All pretty cool. O chem was rad. Experiments don't have to be useless. There just need to be better more interesting experiments and ones which are practical as well.
ok... you are right. Reading thru the Ars Technica article mentioned that the hack worked on the latest update. It is funny because the patch 5.0.4 fixed dozens of problems with WebKit. They must have missed the exploit which was being used.
It seems that Chrome has gone 2 years unscathed. There are exploits people could use, but with the sandboxing, apparently they have been unable to utilize the exploits which WebKit has in Chrome as well.
Anyhow. Hopefully, Apple will implement the sandboxing which google has done. I have read that they can, but I'm not certain why they haven't up until now. In another article, I read that they were going to implement sandboxing in OSX Lion, but that they could do it already with SnowLeopard.
Hmmmmm. Good job for chrome. I wonder if Iron Browser implementation of OpenSource Chromium has the same abilities. I like using that browser quite a bit.
Me too.... If you find something maybe you could post it here. I read somewhere that it would not have allowed the hack, but I don't know where I read it and can't find it again. I am curious.
From what I read, it does, but that is just heresay. I read about it somewhere, but can't recall where.
I assume that 5.0.4 arrived concurrently the day of the contest because Apple already knows how the hack works and has had time to fix it. Part of the contest is to figure these exploits out. The code for the hacks and what the vulnerabilities are remain locked away from the public until the browser developers can release their fixes.
Reread that again. It took less exploits to Pwn the Mac. --------------- Or looking at it another way... there were multiple exploits to attack with. With the mac they had to develop a new entirely new set of tools and write new attack code from scratch whereas perhaps the windows exploits just used already existing code?
I didn't see anything about this being a race either from the ArsTechnica article at least. It is not how the contest is organized as I understand it. Each platform is scheduled with its own prize money. They scheduled the attempts in order 1-4 with the Firefox Browser going tomorrow. Since the hacks take less than 5 seconds to run what is more important is that each was hacked on the first try.
The hacks aren't run concurrently. They are lined up one at a time. Firefox is tomorrow. Chrome was 3rd in the lineup but the people attempting the hack no showed as I understand it.
Chrome didn't fall cause it wasn't challenged. The developers trying the Chrome hack no showed. Also as someone above mentioned you cannot use the same hack.
Apple updated right before the contest to 5.0.4 which would have prevented the exploit, but the machine at the contest was 5.0.3 which was vulnerable as I understand it.
The devoloper who was going to attempt the hack on chrome no showed, so there was no attempt. Also, I think somewhere above someone was saying that people can't use the same exploits.
As I posted above: The one that fell was with Safari 5.0.3 I have heard. With Safari 5.0.4 the hack wouldn't have worked and 6 weeks of work would have gone down the drain. Good thing the machines weren't updated right before the contest.
Slashdot Mirror
But the 9.0 quake was 150 miles away wasn't it. I don't think it was 9.0 at the reactor was it?
Someone earlier said 10 meter tsunami
Then someone said it was a 12 meter tsunami.
I suppose after you saying 15 the next person will peg it at 19m and the person after that will call it a 24 meter tsunami and so on.
big bigger biggest hehehehehe.
"We (and I'm not an American) have only two choices: Nuclear, or live in huts."
Well we Americans have more choices than 2. There are a bunch of other energy sources we can use to keep us going in addition to nuclear. Remember, nuclear is based on finite resources as well. Can't have nuclear without the substrate necessary to run them so when that runs out the planet will still have to use other sources of energy.
Those you term "dimwit environmentalists" include a bulk of people are just reasonably worried about making giant swaths of land useless by having a nuclear meltdown. I don't think this is unreasonable especially given longer term thinking. We still haven't figured out what to do with all of the leftover material and we still don't know what to do with the old plants.
If nuclear were truly green then enviros would be having wet dreams about it, but they are not, because there are problems with it as there are with most forms of energy generation. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but it helps if we learn from it and develop better tech. We need wiser application of nuclear. Being a "Nuclear baby Nuclear!" cheerleader is just to simplified.
"So-called "renewables" are mostly a bad joke." .... a passive solar collector running for 40 years with zero maintenance providing the heat for your house.... hahahaha.... makes no sense. Just because these things are not pervasive doesn't mean they are a joke.
You can tell that to my parents who heat their house all winter using their solar panel... hhahahahaha
You can tell that to the folks living in Brazil who mostly power their cars with alcohol grown from glorified grass.
You can tell that to my neighbors who heat their house and water with a geothermal system.
Each renewable that removes someone from the grid allows the power we do have to go farther.
Look. There are a lot of things which can help humanity out. Geothermal, heat exchangers, solar on every roof, windmills etc. Perhaps the most overlooked one is simply adding better insulation to ones house. We did an upgrade to our old house and cut our energy consumption in 1/2.
The quickest way to have more power is to be more efficient with the energy we do have. Calling people dimwits doesn't help get us where we need to go, nor is it very accurate.
Interesting.
You forgot to mention that coal also rains down heavy metals and radioactive isotopes all over the surrounding land. Coal isn't clean and I am dubious it will be. How long has it taken between the time they recognized these problems and having a solution? They still don't and aren't close as far as I know. But I haven't looked into it for a few years now.
Still if there was a meltdown near a major city in the US. It would render the entire city not useful for a long while. In places like New York or LA, there would be considerable economic upheaval and potentially substantial loss of life. Rendering large swaths of land not usable doesn't help us really so we need to be wise and prudent.
There are those who insist that radiation is no biggy, but I tend to believe that we need to be better equipped to play with it since it will be around with us for countless generations.
I think nuclear definitely plays a role now and in the future, we just need some better ways of dealing with problems and better ways of dealing with nuclear refuse.
Fossil fuels will take care of themselves since they will just run out after a bit. But nuclear material for reactors is limited as well and doesn't offer a long term solution either.
Where exactly did I say to use a system (non-nuclear) that is less safe? Where did I say we should not use nuclear?
What doesn't make sense is the how you can extract what you assert I said from what I actually said.
What I do think is that nuclear does play a role. We just need to be wise in it's deployment. But I don't want it near my beautiful part of the country.
Peak Oil is not a media coined term nor is it a ridiculous concept.
From the Wiki:
"M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and countries,"
The term has been in existence since before I was born and has been picked up by the media who is suddenly interested in the fact that we reached overall peak oil in the world in 2005. Peak Oil is based on analysis of data relating to the ability of the industry to develop more pumping capacity against the decline in pumping capacity of current sources of oil. Since the Hubbert peak theory has been shown to be a reasonable approximation of what actually is happening in the field, it seems reasonable that the predictive value of this tool and its wide use in determining what actually happens flies in the face of you calling it a "ridiculous concept". How exactly would you define the fact that we will never be able to achieve the worlds maximum oil pumping capacity as it existed in 2005?
Back in 1982 I talked with an oil industry insider who stated that by their estimates there were only about 62-65 years of oil left to pump. I recently read something by a guy from Shell which confirms that this is still basically the case. And the estimate was that sometime between 2040-2050 the industry would run out of cheaply accessible oil.
One has to remember that all potential pockets of oil have for the most part been identified and re-identified the world over. The industry has done all of the legwork and continues to go over the entire earth trying to hone in on the likeliest places for oil. But the rate at which new oil is accessible continues to be steady and consistent with the predictive models. Even the much ballyhooed ANWR region which the USGS says has about 8 billion barrels of oil potentially has been drilled like swiss cheese with something like 280 sites drilled with no oil ..... seems to be a bust.
"The amount of oil that exists simply cannot be determined based on the amount that we pump."
The industry already has estimates on the amount of oil that exist. But there metrics indicate an ever dwindling amount which will mostly be finished off by 2050. This correlates with the Peak Oil theory and its predictive capacity.
If you have some other metrics which the oil industry doesn't I would be interested in hearing about them.
Actually, a truck could roll up and drop a nuclear power station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
The Toshiba 4S is a small nuclear reactor in a box. Self contained.
Perhaps the old models of big nuclear reactors took years to develop, but the new small ones roll off the factory assembly line and can be trucked into place.
It seem that newer Nuclear reactors could be brought up to speed rather quickly. The main issues seem to be insurance related.
Cringely had an excellent blurb about them.
http://www.cringely.com/2011/03/is-anything-nuclear-ever-really-super-safe-small-and-simple/
The big sticking point with nuclear is always safety. And every disaster reminds us of just how unsafe nuclear can be. A 40 mile diameter section where people can't live in Japan is a major chunk of real estate. If this happened near any of our major cities it would cause significant problems.
Renewables could be brought up to date in the matter of a decade with a concerted effort. The right tax incentives could retrofit most every building in America with solar.
As to the ignorance of the public including myself, I want NO reactor anywhere near where I live simply because I like to live here and want my kids and grandkids to be able to live here safely.
This fear of nuclear contamination is not because of TV and shit websites since my understanding of nuclear issues comes mostly from magazine pieces from the last several decades and predates the internet.
Nuclear power is not "safe".... the best that can be said is that it is only "safe for now" and even then "sometimes safe". There are plenty of instances of problems with reactors and nuclear contamination of soil and water around them. No reactor has proven totally "safe" since the entire cycle of the reactors and their byproducts is hundreds or thousands of years down the road. What will happen after the reactors are taken offline and have to sit for many hundreds of years with radioactive materials in holding tanks or whatever seems to me the jury is still out as to whether this will remain "safe". I don't think humans have a particularly great track record maintaining things for the longer term since we think in relatively short term ways.
So I don't think that concerns by people about nuclear are unwarranted nor ignorant. Ignorance is actually from those who ignore nuclear dangers and say we should be flinging up nuclear plants everywhere. There isn't even enough nuclear substrate to power our planet over the long term. It is still a finite resource, so at best it is only a band-aid solution so we can keep doing what we are doing now.
Just as the drill baby drill crowd thinks we can magically produce increasing amounts of oil by drilling more when we have already passed the peak oil on our planet. Drilling more and using more will just accelerate the decline in the amount of oil we have long term and not address our more fundamental energy requirements. Not to mention it just runs us out of our worlds precious readily available industrial hydrocarbon pool by lighting them up to make us move. Pretty lame use of this finite resource in my estimation.
Certainly, nuclear plays a role, but we must be wise in our application of its use and realize that reducing the power we need is a better solution for the long term viability of our civilization. Our long term energy needs will not be met by coal, oil, or nuclear power. So I think it is pretty silly and greedy to say that our generation is more meritorious of these resources in our planetary bank than humans several generations from now. It only show how short sighted and self absorbed we are with our own needs.
I am not opposed to nuclear per se, but I don't think being cavalier about it is what a smart race of entities would do. I guess we will see if we are smart entities or are the type of entities which crap in our own food dish.
She could have died of any old thing I suppose. Nobody is saying correlation =causation. I don't even know if she died of cancer since I didn't check, that just sticks in my mind for some reason.
But it is interesting if a person smokes that they tend to get emphysema and lung cancer. I suppose they could get emphysema from any old source or lung cancer from just about anywhere to.
Working with radioactive substances when nobody knew there such things might lead to radiation poisening might lead one to excess exposure. Just as working with asbestos back in the day was not considered hazardous. And people just breathed the dust in without much thought.
It is a good thing we learn things ain't it? That way we can keep from being retarded.
Didn't she die of cancer? Didn't most of those working in her lab die of cancer? I'm not sure......
2/3 of the machines? Really?
Sounds like the plant should have been shut down and the manager fired if that was the case.
How many millions would have been thrown away if 2/3 of the machines coming off the line were non-functional?
Are you certain of your numbers?
Bummer. Good to hear about zero issues afterword. Have you had to just return one outright, are the machines replacements, or just your original machines refurbished?
Yeah, practical advice. I wish I could mod you up as helpful.
ah.... Alpha was a nice machine. I almost touched one once.
Yeah for rationality in the discussion. I wonder if the folks who write unkind things might take it back if the issue is really not apple specific. Seems like this has all happened before with a battery issue which turned out to be not apple specific either. People sure like to pile on.
It could be an apple problem or maybe not. I just think it is funny how the apple haters come out of the woodwork with bad tidings.
How many of those who despise apple have ever owned an apple machine?
I have owned many different systems since my first Atari 800 and most have been great (IBM, Amiga, many self built machines and a slew of mac products as well). There have been a few machines with some glitches (my shuttle box for example) like this and most of the time there is a work around to fix the problem once it is identified.
A friend was just telling me today about his 1999 ibook that is still working just fine. And I have several working machines from the 90's and beyond which have had zero problems. In fact, I have never had to send one in for repairs and neither have any of my friends or relatives. Apparently we are just the lucky few. I just retire them after they become too outdated. Still fun to play around with though.
AC jumps the gun again...hhahahahahahaha.
I wish I could mod you up more than 5.
We made nitrocellulose rockets, tie dye lab coats, ethanol, rootbeer, and Hydrogen we blew up. All pretty cool. O chem was rad.
Experiments don't have to be useless. There just need to be better more interesting experiments and ones which are practical as well.
ok... you are right. Reading thru the Ars Technica article mentioned that the hack worked on the latest update. It is funny because the patch 5.0.4 fixed dozens of problems with WebKit. They must have missed the exploit which was being used.
It seems that Chrome has gone 2 years unscathed. There are exploits people could use, but with the sandboxing, apparently they have been unable to utilize the exploits which WebKit has in Chrome as well.
Anyhow. Hopefully, Apple will implement the sandboxing which google has done. I have read that they can, but I'm not certain why they haven't up until now. In another article, I read that they were going to implement sandboxing in OSX Lion, but that they could do it already with SnowLeopard.
Hmmmmm. Good job for chrome. I wonder if Iron Browser implementation of OpenSource Chromium has the same abilities. I like using that browser quite a bit.
Me too....
If you find something maybe you could post it here.
I read somewhere that it would not have allowed the hack, but I don't know where I read it and can't find it again.
I am curious.
The exploit was in WebKit and is not unique to apple. Webkit is used by Chrome as well.
From what I read, it does, but that is just heresay. I read about it somewhere, but can't recall where.
I assume that 5.0.4 arrived concurrently the day of the contest because Apple already knows how the hack works and has had time to fix it. Part of the contest is to figure these exploits out. The code for the hacks and what the vulnerabilities are remain locked away from the public until the browser developers can release their fixes.
Reread that again. It took less exploits to Pwn the Mac.
---------------
Or looking at it another way... there were multiple exploits to attack with.
With the mac they had to develop a new entirely new set of tools and write new attack code from scratch whereas perhaps the windows exploits just used already existing code?
I didn't see anything about this being a race either from the ArsTechnica article at least. It is not how the contest is organized as I understand it. Each platform is scheduled with its own prize money. They scheduled the attempts in order 1-4 with the Firefox Browser going tomorrow. Since the hacks take less than 5 seconds to run what is more important is that each was hacked on the first try.
The hacks aren't run concurrently.
They are lined up one at a time.
Firefox is tomorrow.
Chrome was 3rd in the lineup but the people attempting the hack no showed as I understand it.
Chrome didn't fall cause it wasn't challenged. The developers trying the Chrome hack no showed. Also as someone above mentioned you cannot use the same hack.
Apple updated right before the contest to 5.0.4 which would have prevented the exploit, but the machine at the contest was 5.0.3 which was vulnerable as I understand it.
The devoloper who was going to attempt the hack on chrome no showed, so there was no attempt. Also, I think somewhere above someone was saying that people can't use the same exploits.
As I posted above:
The one that fell was with Safari 5.0.3 I have heard. With Safari 5.0.4 the hack wouldn't have worked and 6 weeks of work would have gone down the drain. Good thing the machines weren't updated right before the contest.