I think you hit on the solution: A hard power switch.

And better yet, also add: A hard microphone switch and a physical shutter for the cameras. I wouldn't mind having a hard radio switch and/or GPS switch too.

No software can work around that when you need real privacy.

>"Ubuntu is now the leading cloud and scale-out Linux-based operating system"

More than CentOS/RHEL? I would want to see real numbers to back up that claim or at least a clarification of their definitions.

I agree that the results are interesting and the three possibilities you listed are exactly what I considered (except that in #3, you don't have to be altered to have no accidents :) people have accidents all the time while sober). Both #1 and #3 are highly improbable (and yet possible). The study is so severely flawed, drawing any conclusions from it is questionable at best.

Here are some other confounds and factors off the top of my head without even thinking about it very much:

* If any people were THC high (which we don't know and isn't even defined), it doesn't relate HOW altered they might be and how that relates to safety.

* I doubt there were many controls for all possible other chemical factors that could be present beyond alcohol and THC (cold medications, dozens of other illicit drugs, etc).

* One can be altered in such a way that causes OTHER (non-altered) people to have more accidents even if the THC-positive people don't (for example, driving too slowly or staying in the wrong lane, causing other people to get irritated and more aggressive/dangerous (this seems to be common with "older" drivers, for example)).

> So, wait... The THC-positive group, you are saying, would have included both people who are sober and people who are high?

The group might have even contained NOBODY that was high. We simply don't know. The presence of THC metabolite doesn't mean someone is high/altered at the time the sample was taken.

> So, then, if they were only including people in that group who were actually high, there would be a much smaller number of accidents in the group? Got it.

No. And I don't see how anyone could logically reach that strange conclusion. The article concludes that "Marijuana Use Doesn't Increase Auto Crash Rates" and probably 99.9% of people would read that as "being high on marijuana doesn't cause any additional danger when driving" and the study proves no such thing at all.

>So, you are saying it's possible that the 'high' drivers in the sample hadn't actually smoked any pot before driving their car. So what?

In the study, there is no evidence that ANY of the drivers were high. Only that at some point they were exposed to or consumed THC.

>Let me guess, for one reason or another, you don't smoke pot.

What I choose to or not to do has nothing to do with my posting, which is based on fact, logic, and reason... not emotion.

The study is relatively meaningless because it wasn't collecting data about people who were HIGH on marijuana, but people who tested positive for having consumed it at some point. It could have been many hours ago or even days ago.

The conclusion reached by the horrible article is outright wrong and doesn't even have face validity. In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.

>Also, don't crash constantly.

Hmm, Linux Firefox almost never crashes here, and I run it for many weeks at a time with many dozens of tabs and windows open at a time.

>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/the-addon-bar/

Yes, well, that and this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... (Classic Theme Restorer)

But why should the basic UI choices be an addon while they add useless stuff like developer tools, voice chat, text chat, etc directly into the program? Seems very backwards to me.

Oh and one thing I left off the list that is perhaps the most important and likely never to be added:

7) Give users a way to turn down and/or control all this new javascript animation and tight loops so it doesn't destroy thin clients, older machines, and decimate the batteries on laptops and phones. And no, no-script will not work... you either ruin the site or need a degree in programming to figure it out so most users can't use it at all.

>"Firefox Succeeded In Its Goal -- But What's Next?"

Here is what I *HOPE* is next:

1) Stop trying to be and look like Chrome. Just stop.

2) Stop trying to force users to not have tabs on bottom, having a menu bar, having separate buttons, etc. Let users control their user interface how they want.

3) Remove all that developer stuff that 99.99% of users don't use or care about and put it in an addon.

4) Remove all that chat and conferencing stuff that 99% of users don't care about and put that also in an addon.

5) Focus on speed, security, stability, bug-fixing, and documentation. You don't have to be a feature-of-the-month club.

6) Continue to support as many platforms and systems as possible, including old ones.

Oh- and thank you for all the hard work that went into Firefox- the browser of my choice (and that for my users, family, and friends) for the last decade.

>"Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox,Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox"

And this surprises anyone? This is what happened with most everything Oracle acquired from Sun- they poisoned everything. It is what they do best. It is also why OpenOffice was forked.

Fortunately, VirtualBox still works very well... for now. And I, for one, like that it is stable.

You may believe what you like. I have a computer degree (BS), am in charge of an I.T. department serving 500 employees, have been a computer professional for nearly 30 years, and have probably used more different types of machines and operating systems than you have even read about.

We support LO every single day, and it if looked different and acted differently on different machines, this would not help with support- it would hinder it. I am not saying this might be perfect for every organization, but saying that looking native makes support better is not necessarily true.

Spoken like a MacOS user. I knew it reading just the first sentence.

It is more important to business that the UI look the same across platforms (I know, I am business, and we use LO) so I am not sure why you would use that as a reason for looking more native.

>"...if I can still make it crash within ten seconds, like all the previous versions. :-p"

I have 150 people using it every day. It is nowhere near that unstable. Having it crash is actually a very rare event.

> They added MS style ribbons, all in the name of UX

Thank God no. But they did add a somewhat strange "Sidebar" type thing a few versions ago and it has progressed enough that they turned it on by default. Unfortunately, it is riddled with lots of pretty major bugs (the sidebar; lots of unresolved bug reports but work is progressing).

At least you can turn it off... for now. I hope we can continue to do so....

Anyway, LO is a great program and there are lots of improvements with each release.

I suppose, but it is misleading- many people will read it as the "app" industry is more return or revenue than "[all of] Hollywood", not "one single aspect of Hollywood earnings among many." Of course, I expect such things from sensationalist reporting.