The premise is backwards. Computer geekery is my hobby, so of course I do it at home. I have a job doing something that I love, so I've roughly duplicated my hobby environment at work. ;)

Here in the US, most new cars have fuel systems which are just fine with E85 (or more) as well. They just lack the appropriate sensors to identify the varying ethanol mix, and like the parent noted, lack adequate injector flow to handle the increased volume needed - 'cause that stuff costs money. :)

So, by replacing 10% of the gasoline with ethanol, you lose 20% of the energy? Man, ethanol really sucks! Does E85 reduce a flex fuel vehicle's mileage by 170%, then?

Since "anonymous coward" clearly doesn't know the answer, I'll help. People typically report losing about 20% of the mileage with E85 v/s gasoline, assuming no other changes (it's actually closer to 34%, but E85 is only 85% max, and then only in the summer; it's way less in cold weather, so that's probably why people see an average of 20-ish percent). Running E10 costs around 3% of your mileage, which is 1MPG in a 30 MPG car - or about the difference you'd see if you accelerate briskly from a couple more stoplights than usual.

Anything big enough to be a relevant general-use competitor will have a difficult time resisting the "suggestions" made by the NSA that "it would be for the best" if the data were made available to the government. You could easily set up a restricted access Word Press blog on your own server and give your friends author access, though. Then you can all write about your days on your own site, get emails when new posts are made, and generally keep in touch without everything being logged.

Or set up Majordomo and email each other. Or whatever else. ...Assuming you can set up good enough encryption, anyway. Otherwise, Prism has your number anyway. :)

So, the article at the top there is about selling advertising, which is a way to facilitate business people to communicate with their customers via Facebook. And you're suggesting that the idea of doctors communicating with their customers via Facebook is a ridiculous proposition which would have no application in the real world? Please come back when you're put a tad more thought into this, Anonymous Coward.

PS: I personally know at least two doctors treating chronically ill patients with whom they regularly communicate via Facebook. I might know more, but this is not a topic that I discuss with everyone I know. :) Normally, anecdote is not the sigular of data, but in this case I'm pretty sure that there has been "protected health information" recorded in Facebook's data centers.

Which bring up the question as to whether they're doing enough to comply with HIPAA laws. And PCI laws, as some bone head has probably sent credit card numbers through "private messages" at some point. With sufficient creativity, it'd probably be possible to shut Facebook down through regulatory compliance audits, unless their TOS is equally creative. ;)

What does the "view source" menu option do in *your* web browser? Seems like pretty much every web site is open source from my perspective.

Obligatory link to http://www.coboloncogs.org/

Microsoft provides a list of their bugs at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sitemap.aspx, but Wikipedia provides a better interface at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_software_applications.

So, an "anonymous" reader worded their submission as "at least at PubPeer .. we can". Sounds like this was submitted by someone from PubPeer. Coincidentally, the summary posted talks about how crappy this other place is for publishing without doing adequate review, while PubPeer is an awesome place because they do super amazing reviewing of the content they publish and this would have never happened.

The question isn't how easy it is for a user to do something bad; the question is how easy is it for a user to inadvertently do something bad. If the application is properly designed, all tasks should not only be easy to perform, but easy to perform accurately. Presumably, this deleterious task is something that does potentially need to be done, so it should be easy to do. But it should only be easy to do if the end user actually wants to do it, and not easy to do if the intention of the end user is to do something else. Your problem as a designer is to figure out how to accurately assess the user's intent.

"Grounds"? So, after allowing the facts to percolate, there'd bean no chance of convection?

You got a tank-style water heater in your basement? How often do you check the safety valve to make sure it's not going to explode? How often does the government come in and mandate that you do so?

Oh, I see, that's different because people don't get all hysterical over hot water heater explosions. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/08/14/20080814kpnx-waterheater.html Never forget Thunderbird Road! Ban water heaters! Publish a list of everyone who doesn't have a modern energy-efficient tankless water heater!

It's perfectly legitimate to charge less to someone who's less likely to make a claim, and more to someone who's more likely to make a claim. The "higher risk" person might not have an accident, and the "lower risk" person might have an accident. Say an accident costs $100, and there are two people insured. The company might gamble that only one will have an accident. So, they charge both people $50. But maybe one person never leaves home; they could charge him $40 and the other person - who drives a car with underinflated tires and has an auto accident every 2 years - $70. Both people still save money over paying for their own accident, and the company makes money either way.

The key here is that a company who can get a bunch of low-risk people in at a substantially lower rate than what those people would need to set aside, they will probably not have to pay out more than they took in. And that allows lower rates for low risks, which increases the number of low-risk people who may actually pay into the system without taking anything out. This is a self-feeding cycle. It doesn't take a genius to see that, with a large enough risk pool and reasonably accurate risk-assessment processes, everyone pays in less than they take out while the central organization still ends up making money.

But fine, if you, AC, think that saving $100 back every 6 months will provide me with the 250,000 I carry in coverage for someone else's medical costs for car insurance, you go right ahead and think that. Never mind the 100,000 I carry in coverage to me for uninsured motorist damage. Lemme know when you need a place to stay after someone who has state-minimum 25,000 coverage (if anything) hits you and makes you get physical therapy for a few months; I'm sure their insurance and the money you "set aside" will cover all your medical bills and personal car replacement just fine. Have fun putting aside money for your house insurance, too, since everyone is just fine putting aside more than the full amount of their mortgage (to pay for "stuff" too) into a savings account *while* paying off the mortgage and buying stuff.

As part of the demonstration, Cui inserted and removed a small external circuit board from the phone's Ethernet port

Seems like it'd be easier to just slap a traditional bug under the filing cabinet if you're going to need physical access anyway. And maybe leave behind a hardware keylogger while you're at it. Possibly also an annoyatron. :)

Uh-huh. You're going to index the internet with a Raspberry Pi. Good luck with that.

If I was one of those people who put amusing quotes from the same message board in his signature, this would be my new .sig.