I bought four 2TB Samsung drives from Newegg, just a couple days after the floods started. They had been a few dollars cheaper still, but I got them for $80 each. Since then, they peaked at $249 each, but are back down to $199 now.

Madcow

>> I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.

You mean based on reports like this?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2012226/Cancer-Cluster-Possibly-Found-Among-TSA-Workers

Apparently I have issues creating valid acronyms too... :) Still, the description is accurate even if the acronym isn't.

Department of Rights Termination.

Ever see Logan's Run?

Sometimes making something harder or stronger doesn't actually solve the problem. Firstly, you can simply shift the breakage point to something more expensive (the circuit board itself). Often, making something more flexible and forgiving goes a lot further. A "soft" connector that flexes instead of breaks would be much more useful.

I see this with surface coatings all the time. If we have a problem with scratching, making the surface harder actually is counter-productive. Making it softer and more malleable is more likely to solve the problem (the surface deforms around the particle that's scratching it, often resulting in no damage. Even when it still scratches, the resulting defect is much less noticable).

"Bend with the wind"... it's why Bamboo is such a useful material.

I hear ya... I was almost embarassed that my son thought I was amazing because I knew how to boost my wife's car. "You can DO that? Wow!"

(and this from a kid that knows I'm already a Mr. Fixit type guy around the house)

Hmmm... that's hardly re-assuring.

>> "We've thought hard about this issue, and we don't believe there is any additional risk to users," a Google spokesman explained.

"Sites marked as potentially harmful by our Safe Browsing technology will not be pre-rendered, nor will sites that Chrome detects as suspicious. We also exclude sites with SSL certificate issues and those that try to download files or display popup alerts."

Google added that search engine poisoning to promote scareware sites and the like is an industry-wide problem. ®

So... the way I read this is that if an infected site is pre-fetched (pre loaded, pre-rendered, or whatnot), then YES it could harm your computer. But, we're supposed to trust that their browser is smart enough to know a trustworthy site from an untrusty one, and only prefetch "safe" sites.

That's all well and good until a "safe" site (that I would never actually visit anyway) is hacked. But that's NEVER happened before, right? Not.

For most users the intuition of "don't click on that link" is the last layer of security between the wild west of the Internet and your computer. Prefetching breaks that barrier, and potentially exposes you to any malware writer that's capable enough and determined enough to get their infected (or pwnd) website into the top search results.

Sorry... although Chrome is decent and maybe more secure than other browsers, until they can promise PERFECT security I don't want to take that chance.

That'll never happen.

If I can survive this far on my company-mandated, outdated IE browser without getting pwnd myself (yet), I think that last layer of security may be the most important one of all.

Actually, I used to skydive and the general rule of thumb was that you'd hit terminal velocity in about 12 seconds, during which time you'd cover 1200 feet and accellerate to about 120mph, if you were "flat flying" (i.e. on your belly). "Free Flying" in a sitting position or head down would take slightly longer (and cover more distance) because you get up as fast as 180mph in those positions.

You are Facebook's PRODUCT... not their customer. Their customer is the advertisers. Their only motive is to not piss you off enough to go away.

I guess he hasn't ever been outside the USA...

I'll just add to your comment on India - it's a vegetarian's dream... EVERY restaurant has a veg-only menu (and usually a meat one too), and the food is amazing and varied. I love meat myself, but if I lived in India I could easily be a happy vegetarian.

MadCow.

I agree 100%. I have wound up in security lines for these things several times, and every time I've opted out.

1) they do NOT make it easy to opt out. They don't tell you it's an option. They avoid answering it directly when you ask.

2) recently they've shifted heavily towards making the opt-out as inconvenient and embarassing as possible. They ensure it's a very lengthy, public process.

Acting like you enjoy the search to make them uncomfortable? Heck, if they start prodding my buttocks, the natural reaction is to fart in their face. Sorry - hazard of your job.

These things do NOT solve the core problem - they're for show only. The "sniffer chambers" which sniff for chemical traces of explosives are by far better (at least for the threat of bombs), and are not invasive in the same way as real or electronic strip searches.

This country has given up liberty for nothing in return. Don't you think the terrorists enjoy the inconvenience they've caused millions upon millions of us so far?

MadCow.

Yep - and in today's day and age, I guess there's nothing preventing you using your phone camera to snap a screen shot of your digital vote casting (or video, I guess) either.

There's no such thing as a "perfect" system, I guess... :(

Vote buying. That's what's wrong with it.

ANYTHING that gives the voter the opportunity to walk out with confirmation of HOW they voted is a huge problem. In the system you describe, the voter could decide to not put their paper slip into the box, or to drop in a fake substitute (and no, you couldn't verify it was a real slip without making their vote non-anonymous in the process).

So, they walk out the door, show their slip to "Guido", and poof - their vote has been bought.

The only time their vote gets screwed up is if a manual recount is done at that station, which in terms of % is low (by design - with an electronic system).

You need a solution where the original vote is cast on paper, and is scanned in (and retained) by the system... and the voter verifies their vote electronically on screen before walking off empty-handed.

MadCow.