Wonder if this study would still be the same if they were actually writing, but using a ipad or something. Digital notes. Or if the results would still be similar because the kicker is the fact that these people tend to wander off on to the interwebs

Jobs also fought against apps on the iPhone, initially recruited John Sculley, and pushed the Lisa. He's not perfect.

Another thing is that Apple historically has used a lot of plastic (ex. those jolly rancher iMacs, iPods, basically everything before the iPhone).

iOS7 looks fine to me although I would agree that some of the icons look silly.

Totally agree, PENCIL + PAPER is the answer.

Do you want to spend your time swapping between apps, waiting for apps to load, trying to draw with your laptop's touchpad, and otherwise concentrating on the technology rather than concentrating on the discussion?

If you want to review your paper notes and make them digital at some point after class, that is up to you. But for simple flexibility and reliability, paper is the answer.

Write on it. Draw on it. Re-use it in another class. Archive it. Paper does all the things asked for in the article.

Suppose the $60T estimate is right. Isn't that good? In a closed economy, income equals expenditure. Earth, for now, is a closed economy. Therefore, if we spend $60T on goods and services to deal with methane, then we will have $60T in income.

Have the results been independently replicated? Were details of the benchmarking methodology published anywhere?

Yeah, but typical office PCs are already plenty fast for the things they typically do, so they aren't in need of a big boost. That's why PC manufacturers have been concentrating on making them smaller and cheaper rather than more powerful. It's those data sensitive applications that are atypical of office PCs that are the market for high performance drives.

Besides, if you only need 9.5 GB of unique data per day, you're probably better off upgrading your RAM rather than your hard drive. The stuff you access most will get cached, and you'll have plenty of memory on the odd chance you ever do need to do something that requires a lot.

Nobody ever said Bill Gates ever said that.

Passwords have to be stored in a decryptable form, because the browser needs them decrypted to fill in the password fields or to respond to HTTP authentication responses. That means that any malware with access to the browser can get those passwords in decrypted form too. A master password doesn't help, the malware can just get the passwords after I've entered the master password to decrypt them for use (assuming it can't just get the master password when I enter it). The only thing encrypted password storage really protects against is someone with access to the physical storage media but not the running system, or essentially stolen mobile devices (phones or laptops). On those you probably shouldn't be storing passwords at all, because any reversible encryption is too easy to crack using off-line attacks with modern hardware.

It's similar to my objection to the old "don't write down your passwords" thing: the risk of a remote attack against easy-to-remember passwords is much higher than the risk of an attacker physically getting into the locked drawer of my desk in the locked area of the secured and patrolled building my office is in, and if the attacker has gotten into the locked drawer in my desk I've got much bigger security worries and the attacker has much juicier targets he can go after.

Firefox menu -> Preferences -> Security -> Saved Passwords -> Show Passwords

I know it has been discussed many times to password lock access to stored passwords, though because browsers are not user-specific, this has not been done.

I'm sorry, but there is a dedicated area for my stuff -- on Windows it's Documents and Settings, and on UNIX it's the home directory. The actual program may not be user specific, but all operating systems have a "home" area specific to users. There are no valid technical reasons why this can't be made secure, other than either having no interest in doing it, or pandering to users who just want convenience.

This is just a piss-poor implementation of security, and it's why I don't trust a browser to retain passwords for me, and never have. I rank it right up there with giving Facebook my password so they can log into my email and find friends -- not happening, because I don't trust them with my password.

If this guy is the head of 'security' for Chrome, he's either incompetent at that, or Google as a general rule have a shitty idea about what security should be and he's of the opinion this is "good enough".

But since Google mostly just wants to collect all of your data, it may not be of value to them to lock it down in any meaningful way.

Which might be good, if it wasn't a tablet that tries to be a crappy laptop.

Why would you prefer the Surface Pro over an ultraportable though? It sounds like you don't use it much as a tablet. I have a monster Dell that I hate and wish I had something like a Zenbook or Air.

Shows how far behind Samsung is in terms of hardware engineering. They stack the deck and still can't touch a 9 month old phone. Both browser performance and gaming performance, the 2 most stressful use cases on a smartphone, are way behind Apple.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6914/54305.png