That's simply not true. It's time for you to read up on placebos!

It's the safety aspect that will stop this ever being a problem, realistically.

You can't land an unsafe plane in Europe. They won't let you:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/list_en.htm

Don't be amazed when Boeing and Airbus lobby the shit out of the EU to declare all Chinese-made aircraft unsafe. Problem solved.

Depends. I already pay for The Economist as a news source. Sure, there are plenty of other places to get "breaking news" online. If I want to read high quality journalism ... less so. When the NYT goes proper paywall, I'll pay. When the Daily Mail does, I'll rejoice ;-)

-P

Surely that would be better written as "terrifying" rather than "impressive"

I like this idea. Also, here are the tricks I use to manage mine:

- Enforced break software like AntiRSI for the Mac, or WorkRave for the others
- Either lying in bed with a laptop or using a Natural Keyboard
- Regular shoulder dislocates

This + cellphone technology + in-ear speaker = telepathy

I skim-read this, and was disappointed on closer reading when I realized they hadn't created a 3d montage from the video shot from all the different angles :-/

Remember when we were all agog about Linus working for some breakthrough company that was going to change everything forever, and in fact, was just TransMeta?

I think you're mostly right here.

If I enjoyed reading The Times like I enjoy reading The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Economist, and they made a half-decent iPad/iPhone app for it, I'd subscribe and not look back. Easily worth £2 a week, which seems to be their pricing model. And while I currently get my news from the first two for free (and subscribe to the dead-tree version of the third), if they want to start charging me £2 a week for it, I'll be first in line to pay.

But that doesn't explain, in any way at all, the Nordic-type EBEs looking back through the portholes, and miming: "Please stop exploding those nasty, contaminating, nuclear devices on your planet! They are affecting our transmission of Magnetic Hallucinations direct to your cranial stimulus centers, and blocking our essential message!"

That's not from lack of awareness. That's from both fear and lack of access to medical treatment. Are you aware of the cost of things like mammograms? How do you expect the average American without health insurance to swing inspections like that? And if they *can,* then they have to overcome the "if I don't know about it, it's not real" thinking. Increasing awareness won't help either of those things. Increasing access to medical testing facilities and improving detection methods to in-clinic abilities would help that.

Asia's a big damn place. I live in Thailand, I've been to lots of factories, and none of the conditions you're mentioning apply. Do you actually just mean 'China'?

No, you're wrong.

True: it's very fast to deploy a dynamic web-page with PHP, and all the complexity of request handling are hidden. This is PHP's killer feature. This + a large number of pre-written open-source applications is the ONLY benefit PHP has over almost any other dynamic language.

Don't get me wrong - it's a HUGE benefit. It's a huge enough benefit that people are willing to work with PHP in order to have it. But it's really the only one. Everything else about PHP is bloated, inconsistent, and poorly designed when compared to its cousins (Python, Perl, Ruby, etc).

-P

As someone has said elsewhere, the more important issue here is here:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951

The previous graph shows something we already know: that people happily flit between versions of the same browser, especially home users. This graph shows browser-family usage. And it shows a steady decline of IE against FF and Chrome.

But again, actually, that's not the important issue here. Here's what matters: the browser war was won when IE's monopoly was broken. Developing for just IE used to be a legitimate business practice - you were only alienating 10% of your customers, and most of them had IE on their system anyway. I remember when all my online banking required IE, as did a bunch of other sites I wanted to use.

I couldn't care less if Chrome eats FF's market-share. If Safari trumps them both. What matters, what's important, is the forced interoperability that comes from not having one browser with 90% coverage. And when that happens, everyone wins: as is rapidly becoming that case. Each new version of IE becomes more and more standards compliant, because they can no longer abuse their monopoly.

-P