I get seasick reading in a moving car... so I don't read in a moving car.

These transitions don't happen except by user input... so just don't look at the screen when you do something that causes these transitions.

The reaction is so disparaging and heartless because the people with the problem, even if real, are massive whiners.

"I now have to close my eyes or cover the screen during transitions, which is ridiculous," she told The Guardian

These people have an easy solution and it is really just pure whining. It's first world problem. These complaining are histrionics, like your "literally giving me the shakes" is.

You know what makes me mad? Those people having so little sympathy for the blind, deaf, paralyzed, or others with *real* problems to overcome that they think their complaints are anywhere nearly on the same level.

Watches aren't flexible. Why would you think flexible display is important? The only way a flexible display could matter is if it unfolds to make a larger display than the watch face... but that's not going to happen.

The key feature will be the display though. An e-ink display that doesn't flash for instance (can change single pixels without having to refresh whole areas). An always-on display that takes next to no power is the key feature for a smart watch. Combine that with something useful like a always-on heart rate or blood pressure monitor would finish it.

You'll get a lot of replies saying "but they *don't* do that" or "check the source" or "use chromium". Even if it is true that Google *does* nothing bad with Chrome, currently, what do you think they will do when they hire too many people and need to raise more money? Or once there are no other browsers but Chrome?

At some point Google will reach a balance of income and spending because too many people will get fat raises and inefficiency will creep in, and any corporation is going to favor screwing over users/customers before giving themselves a haircut. If they own the browser then they're going to do things with it that Google fans right now think are unimaginable.

If your machine is ChromeOS then it has a secure bootloader and doesn't have any way to access the actual unix system except through Chrome, so there is no official way to access the passwords directly. But Chrome simply hands your passwords over and anybody using the computer unsupervised for 10 seconds can see all your passwords and take a photo of them to use later on. Just going to the bathroom while somebody is using your computer and all your saved passwords are compromised. A user would have to root ChromeOS in order to do this without Chrome's help, which is an extremely high bar.

The only difference between ChromeOS and desktop Chrome is that the bar to stealing protected passwords is lower than rooting the OS -- but the bar still exists and it is higher than most people can reach, so it is still mostly effective at protecting the passwords.

If Google feels that a master password is annoying and useless because people won't use it then the proper solution is to *never show the saved password*. Except then if some site changed their forms a lot then you couldn't log in unless you remembered the password, but so what? Use the site's password recovery mechanism.

The simple fact of the matter is that Google purposely made an insecure system to make the browser more convenient, and allows no option for people that want to choose security over convenience. This is Google's vision of the future internet: whatever they decide is your only option. That's the real reason why this teapot has a tempest in it... if Google gets what it wants and the only browser is Chrome, on ChromeOS, what then? Sure Chrome has poor security for the passwords, but the real problem here is Google's explanation which is "we decided to do it this way, and that's final".

Ironically this is the main reason why I use Windows, because it doesn't have a "proper" package manager. I can install an 8 year old copy of winamp alongside the newest iTunes and everything just works. You can't do this with a "proper" package manager like any of the ones for Linux because there will be 100s of conflicts.

Also due to this I get to decide when I want a completely new interface foisted on me. If I don't want Windows 8 I can continue using Windows 7 with almost any software for years. You just can't do that with the "proper" package managers in Linux, at least not without a ton of work.

Futurama has a cast of likable characters, great voice actors, is a cartoon, and it is set in the future in space so any story you can think of can be told. The problem with the Simpsons is the setting; once you explore every possibly lame alleyway and monorail, and every two-bit character in Springfield what's left? Shelbyville? Who cares?

That you can tell any story and are only limited by the writer's imagination is what made Star Trek, Dr. Who, and others such great programs. But even those had the problem of being live action, where you can only tell stories that can be filmed or CG'd. Futurama on the other hand has everything going for it and it shouldn't, and can't be allowed to die just due to some corporate politics.

This is a key point, that encryption only protects data when the encrypted part is off-line. If you get a malware and your My Financial Data volume is mounted then the malware can access it. And if you get a malware and then *ever again* pay your bills then it can just wait until that encrypted volume is mounted and then steal the data.

Encrypted drives only protect against theft. Encrypted volumes protect against 'temporary theft' like a roommate poking around while you're taking a shower and logged in. That's it... they aren't a security solution themselves.

To actually secure data you have to use encryption to protect from theft, but also never mix different levels of protection. This basically means using a separate computer entirely for your banking, or however you want to assign the security say one system for high risk activities like gaming and porn and another for everything else. Ideally you don't share data between zones, but if you do it's always the higher protection one that accesses the lower one (banking computer mounts gaming computer shared folder, never the other way). Also any zones that overlap are the same; if you have a gaming system and a porn system with the same password, they might as well be the same computer.

It isn't a good explanation at all, it's just a claim with no facts to back it up.

Drives are encrypted using the algorithm in counter mode so that they are random access and parallel. That means every block is independent, so any simple corruption only affects the corrupted parts. The only way you could lose the whole container is if you have insertions/deletions in the data, which will corrupt a whole plain filesystem container as well (but since it isn't encrypted you could possibly repair that).

What you described is a middle-man. Google is a middle-man between users and authors. A middle-man pays the source and charges more than they paid. They provide some value-add like "search".

But that's not how Google works. They take the content for free then charge money for it (indirectly through advertising), giving nothing back to the source. They're a middle-man that never pays their suppliers.

People say that if Google had to actually pay for content they wouldn't make any money. That's not true at all. They just wouldn't make as much, but there would still be profit. Just as the net effect of advertisers competing is to raise the price of ads the net effect of content people competing would be to lower the price they charge. Creators that have really valuable content could get a larger price from Google, whereas junk sites or blogs would change less to get more visitors. But it wouldn't be zero universally, highway robbery, like it is now.

Paying newspapers and investigative journalism is *more important* to society than Google employees getting a free lunch.

There are literally shittons of emails talking about Google needing a license, trying to get a license, not doing clean-room because they were confident they would get a license, etc. To show it wasn't clean-room Oracle doesn't even have to show anything was copied, Google up and said it. 'Should we do this clean-room?' 'No, it'll be fine'.

Google now needs to prove to a jury not just that they didn't actually need a license, but also that all their top execs and engineers were wrong. If say in a police interrogation you admit to doing the crime a jury will still convict you even if there is absolute proof that you didn't do it. Human nature says if you admitted to it then you did it, so Google has a huge uphill battle to climb here with these emails. At this point they may be already planning the appeal, where the actual law matters.

On the other hand only Firefox is checked with static analysis tools before released, meaning that there are very, very few actual flaws in the browser (IE might be, Chrome certainly isn't). For instance when Chrome added a very basic memory checker to their test servers they caught dozens of bugs -- and that's just from the most basic of runtime checks. When people have run their commercial static analyzers on Chrome they've found several hundreds of potential flaws.

What does this mean in practice? The inner sandboxed code in Chrome is wide open to attack. They aren't even using serious methods to try to protect that code and are instead relying completely on the sandbox. This is the reason why you'll get random crashes in Chrome, and why they purposely try to keep you from using too many tabs (if a process is rendering more than one tab then when it crashes more of your tabs have to reload). On the flip side, this is the reason why in a years of running Firefox nightly it has never crashed once. Yes, there are errors in Firefox, but they are complex ones not the simple mistakes that crash Chrome left and right.

Personally I've never had a malware in dozens of years, so browser stability matters a whole lot more to me than security. A sandbox would be nice, but one that is relied on and causes random page crashes is worse than not having one but having far fewer crashes.

The possible threat is from mass panic and/or social unrest. Take somebody's whole lifetime of religious belief and pull the carpet out from under it and they'll react irrationally. Do that to the majority of people on the planet and you potentially have big problems.

I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet, let alone how people in some place like the Middle East would react. You know for a certainty people would at least try to blow up the radio telescopes and cover up the knowledge. What else? Who knows, but the government having some time to plan and prepare before word got out would be valuable preparation.

Just get a USB optical drive. They use two USB ports to legitimately get enough power, although you can usually just use one plug. They're basically just a laptop optical drive in a box and work just fine for almost everything, even installing an OS from scratch usually works. And you don't need to have it inside the computer for the 99% of the time you don't need it.

Right, what he meant to say is that Android is having all sorts of patent problems because it's a complete rip-off of previous new work and designs by other companies (Apple and Sun). The real testament to Google's lack of innovation is they had to pay $12 billion for Motorola Mobility in order to get some patents of their own. If they had actually invented things themselves they wouldn't have needed to do that.

It's just sour grapes. Patents are supposed to 'skim off the top' if you're using somebody else's inventions. It's the "ripoff tax" and it's good for society.

If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me) or using the respect of their office then it isn't ad hominem to attack their person -- they opened the door by using themselves as their argument. Unfortunately there aren't very many compelling arguments for religion that don't boil down to 'trust me' or 'god spoke to me', but it isn't Dawkin at fault.