How about a version of ZFS for Windows that doesn't need to be usable for a boot drive but can be used just for separate data drives?

Then Windows could do it's own thing with the boot drive and NTFS and it's cache etc, and ZFS would keep all your other data nice and safe.

I'd pay for even that much ZFS capability in Windows!

Well, that depends. Send me a pic. ;) (Yes, I know I misspelled "Hear". :P)

LOL! And I'll keep in mind Mr. Coward that it was too much for you to notice the obvious fact that his equation missed the greater depth of 5.25 inch bays, meaning the figure is incorrect since it doesn't account for enough platters. :P It's fun making fun of people instead of actually being constructive isn't it?

Nice. That plus however many more platters you could fit into it considering the 5.25 bay is deeper than a 3.5 inch HD.

Also, thanks for not making an issue of my misspelling one word. I'd been up since the previous day working and am also not feeling well, so I'm not going to feel bad about one obvious misspelling. ;)

This is all well and good, but couldn't just one manufacturer afford to set aside one measly manufacturing line for making 5 1/4 inch Hard Drives again?

Here me out. Now that they are up to 1TB per platter with current tech on 3.5 inch drives just imagine what they could fit into a 5 1/4 inch drive now!!

I know I wouldn't be the only one willing to shell out bux for one of those, providing they used all that space intelligently: With Data Spaces that large it would pretty much be a requirement to include built in internal Mirroring RAID of some sort between the platters, or at least provide the option, for data integrity and protection and longevity of the unit.

I've been salivating over that dream for years now.

Seriously? Seriously? That's why they don't "allow" the "option" of a separate master password like Thunderbird has? Really?

If someone is going to be super-unsecure in how they do things, then fine, that's them. But to then mandate that as the standard and not even "allow" better security practices? I'm scratching my head really hard trying to understand this point of view of "crappy-security = best-security" newspeak that some people including the chrome dev keep trying to defend...

Sounds like it is depending on external software to do that, software that isn't on all platforms. As nice as it is to have the option of using that external software when using that particular OS, it would be even nicer if it also directly supported such a feature like Thunderbird does. When using Thunderbird in Windows it offers that same functionality by default within itself without requiring some possibly-not-present external software. Why can't chrome do that too? Especially if, as another poster says, it is using the same core code for password storage as Thunderbird already?

If chrome uses the same code for password storage as Thunderbird does then they have even less of an excuse for not allowing a separate Master password like Thunderbird does by default. That then does in fact become chrome's fault. It makes the chrome dev's obtuse iron-clad stance look even more nefarious and deliberate than before...

Thunderbird's master password system has nothing to do with the OS so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I have to type my separate master password into Thunderbird in order to access those passwords in plaintext, regardless of how I'm otherwise logged in. Perhaps you've never actually used it?

You are both missing the point entirely. The issue is to have the default security bar set high enough to at least stop casual information theft. Your definition of a "Malicious person" only accounts for an incredibly tiny percentage of people with such skill sets and doesn't even consider the majority of people. As it is now chrome is practically begging average people to steal that info if even the slightest opportunity arises.

Most kids or people in general likely don't know enough or aren't motivated enough to bother setting up some kind of exploit on a usb stick or website to do the kind of things you are talking about. However; if you make it as incredibly easy as chrome does to grab that info without having even necessarily pre-planned to do it then those same people will be highly tempted to do it, and enough will.

It's the same principle as locking your home or your car. Sure, someone could pick the lock or break it, does that mean you give up and don't bother locking it and just count on the "security" offered by the police force? Does that make locking your door "Security Theater"? No, because for the most part the lock is more than enough of a barrier to block "casual" entry and most people won't pick it or break it. However; leave your car & home unlocked all the time when you are gone with a sign on them saying they are unlocked (equivalent of using chrome while logged in but stepped away for even a short time) and eventually some otherwise "honest" citizen or lazy crook will not be able to resist the temptation. The percentage of illegal activity will shoot way up. There is a solid case for locking your door, as well as keeping password lists locked under a separate Master password.

Again; Why not just allow a separate Master password like Thunderbird does? It's clearly not difficult to implement or use.

In general I agree, I disable the auto-password feature in my browser but many many people do use the browser password memory system. One way or another, if chrome is going to offer the feature they should at least allow the option for the use of a master password instead of categorically refusing to for some unknowable reason.

It's very easy to implement and open source code is readily available for them to copy or learn from at their leisure. I just can't see any rational excuse for them to maintain this stance.

Exactly. Mozilla's email client Thunderbird also uses a Master Password to unlock the view-ability of the stored passwords.

For those who insist on saying that chrome's security method is good enough consider this: How many people use separate log-in's for the "Family" computer that stays on most of the time? Not very many I'd imagine, just too much trouble for most to deal with. This means that both other family members as well as house guests can casually access all those passwords in no time.

Even if you do use different log-ins consider this type of common scenario: Your son or daughter has a "friend" over and they are cruising the web on her account doing whatever. Say that they are reading some news item or article together when the daughter gets up to go the bathroom. Do you think for one second that she is going to lock the computer and force her friend to wait to finish what she is doing? No. Her "friend" will then be able to casually and quickly access all those passwords and type them into her iphone for safe keeping before your daughter gets back. She now pwns your daughters facebook account, bank account, cellphone account and who knows what else.

How can anyone with a straight face say that is an acceptable security method? The fact that my open source email client has an easily useable default master password system proves that it is something that chrome could easily implement as well, hell, just copy the open-source code from thunderbird if you need to...

To be quite frank; when I think of Google or Microsoft "my security" is not something I honestly expect from them, and this newest revelation just further confirms that perception.

Here is a stand-alone Lego Motor block from 1976:
http://www.toysperiod.com/lego-set-reference/universal-building-set/supplemental/lego-107-1-4-5v-motor-set/

Here is a page full of Lego Technics sets from 1977:
http://www.brickset.com/browse/themes/?theme=technic

I remember wanting that motor block and those shiny new Technics sets when they first came out, I wanted them so bad...

This type of structure is considered to be an Arcology.

"Arcology, a portmanteau of the words "architecture" and "ecology", is a set of architectural design principles aimed toward the design of enormous habitats"
http://www.bookdrum.com/books/neuromancer/9780441012039/glossary.html

My first exposure to the word and concept of Arcology/Arcologies was with [William Gibson's novel Neuromancer in 1984]. But thanks to gp poster (Bruce66423) and parent poster (YuppieScum) I now know about the earlier use of the word and concept in [Larry Niven's 1981 novel "Oath of Fealty"].

Oath of Fealty (1981) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_(novel)
Neuromancer (1984) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer

* 'Oath of Fealty' looks really good, I'm tracking it down to buy it now! Again, thanks to Bruce66423 and YuppieScum for this discovery.

"Orbital Spaceships".

Branson didn't elaborate on exactly what he meant by these. Sort of sounds like a reusable Space Shuttle type of craft though which can go into orbit and stay there for as long as its supplies last then return to Earth.

I wonder how long it will be though before he starts sending special "Orbital Spaceships" on a one-way trip into orbit where they will stay and act as "Space Stations" that normal "Orbital Spaceships" can later dock with?

In fact; perhaps he could design them in such a way so that multiple special orbital spaceships can be interconnected one at a time to form a larger space station? That way each piece of the space station can carry itself up into orbit in one go without requiring another ship to carry the equivalent parts up in several trips.

But regardless; even using the piecemeal method it seems like Branson could start ferrying Space Station parts into orbit as soon as those new "Orbital Spaceships" are launching. Simply send up some of those sections and parts up with each and every tourist trip, with as many of those tourist trips as he is planning to have it shouldn't take very long to accumulate as much material up in orbit to build whatever he wants (perhaps an Orbital Virgin Galactic Hotel?).

Heck; he wouldn't even need to bother with spacewalks and spacesuits, just drop a couple of tele-robotics builders in orbit with the material stash and his guys could start building from the comfort of their office chairs down at Headquarters on Earth, possibly wearing Oculus Rift VR headsets. The future is being built!

It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".

Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.

Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117303/article.html

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/

Other than that, it's all good news. I think we'll all be glad to be free of the glasses.
\.