No

What exactly do you think this is, a ban all pesticides and gm crops statement? If so, you're reading something I'm not. This is a study (methodology questions aside) about does this specific thing give you cancer. Since, as you've pointed out, so many people eat the food being tested, it deserves scrutiny.

It's simple. We test EVERYTHING to see if it causes cancer, and remove the ones that do. In this case, if the data supports the conclusions, that particular company can take the billions it's made so far on those products and use it to develop new ones.

I have the 570, and love it. I've replaced parts along the way, but it runs at least 3 times a week, every week, and keeps my floors spotless. It runs while I'm out of the house, and I only have to empty it once a week or so. The main work to do is to keep stuff off of my floor so it doesn't get stuck, but that helps keep my place tidy.

It broke a little while back, and while waiting for the part I had to pull out my old vacuum. That was a terrible experience after having a Roomba for a couple of years now. Btw, your issue of never it finishing out in the open, while exactly true, is not a problem if you have the remote for it. Took me a few times of crawling under the bed to realize that.

Apple? I'd be a lot more interested to see what showed up for Microsoft.

Exactly. The only thing you should see is a 5 second "Thank you for supporting our business".

You really don't understand the situation. People like me are paid to be paranoid, and to make sure that our company's data is safe from prying eyes as much as absolutely possible (In fact, we are legally responsible for it). I cannot afford to just toss our data out there and not worry about it. My job is to mitigate all of the possible things an outside entity could do to access that data. And fyi, a provider can setup the server such that they cannot read the data on it while still being able to administer the server itself.

And to the trade representative, boo-fucking-hoo. Instead of allowing US companies to guarantee data privacy, even when hosted outside of the country, the Patriot Act forces them to guarantee the opposite. As much as I would like to use a lot of the cloud services out there, I can't just because of that.

There is clear signs of piracy, that was intentional. Close down ALL of it, all the newspapers, the tv stations, everything, and sort it out in court first.

Thats what they did to Megaupload, fair is fair.

Those would be perfectly valid if upon discovering your girder was 3 inches too short you could instantly create a copy of it, set the original aside, then alter and test that copy of the girder. Then you might leave a few extras lying around.

I bet he's off to finally build a beowulf cluster...

New devices that will use a new form of radiation perhaps? Radio will not be changing anytime soon. And the airlines and manufacturers can then start working with the knowledge gained to mitigate the problem if there is one. If not, the world is better for the knowledge gained.

Are you sure you should be reading this site? I'm responding to this on my tablet while taking a dump, what's the difference? (Ok I'm not, but it wouldn't be the first time...)

I have no reasonable response to that, it is true.

There's a difference between "society" paying for things, and the airline industry performing due diligence. It isn't the airline industry's business or responsibility to cure cancer or worry about auto safety. It is, however, exactly their business to ensure flight safety, especially for any circumstances that they know will happen thousands of times daily . If something may cause a problem on a flight, especially when there is "anecdotal evidence" for it, they have to know, if only as a responsibility to their shareholders. Plane goes down, they get sued, no matter the cause short of being shot down.

It's not the mild inconvenience that's the problem, it's the people that either forget or refuse to turn theirs off. Out of the 75 people I mentioned per flight, 1 in 75 is a fair (and again, I think, conservative) guess at how many will forget or refuse. That's 1 per flight, 28,000 times a day.

Come to think of it, isn't that anecdotal evidence in itself that there is likely no problem?

Seriously? The number that a casual Google search shows is about 28,000 commercial flights a day. Multiply that by a conservative 75 people a flight and you get at least 2,100,000 people taking a flight per day, just in the US . You think that doesn't warrant an all-out investigation to resolve the questions involved in a methodical and scientific manner, regardless of the cost?

Perhaps the airlines are more interested in monetizing the use of said devices and the studies would possibly show something different than they might want. I have a hard time believing the major airplane vendors have not already done extensive lab and real-world testing on this, at their lawyers insistence.

They are the Tacoma Narrows bridge of the IT security world now. They will be the textbook case example of the generations of students, with the entire repertoire of what not to do every step of the way, especially the one about not pissing-off a malevolent, anonymous mass.

It isn't always the regular staff that are against moving up from IE6. I have a situation where one business we work with is still on IE6, and the IT staff are the ones against changing it. They have the "If it seems to work don't fix it" mentality about it, and trying to convince them that it is the source of a problem is like banging my head against a wall...