Weird. The stock brakes on both the '95 Caprice and '96 Impala SS sitting in my driveway can hold the car in place. That was true when the engine was stock, and is still true after adding a shift kit, PCM tune, cat-back, intake, and valve train upgrades. It's been true on both the factory tires and the substantially wider aftermarket tires. It might be time for you to replace your brake material; you're seemingly endangering the other cars on the road.

When you're trying to power brake, BTW, you'll want to let up on the brakes just a little, and mash the gas. Don't ease in to it. ;)

Well, if it was in article comments on the Internet, that's a whole new story... ;)

No one sells a car in the US with exclusive brake-by-wire, because nearly every state mandates the existence of a second braking system independent of the primary braking system. That's often the thing people call the "emergency brake," as compared to the "service brake." For IL, look at Article III at http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio.... They must be separated such that a failure in any one part does not leave the vehicle without brakes. IL also prescribes a maximum stopping distance from a couple of speeds.

It's not really "free" to watch OTA - you have the show interrupted every few minutes by commercials, which cost you time. The problem here is that OTA broadcasting costs pretty much the same whether it goes to one TV or one million. All they pay to do is vibrate the air[1]. Cable's not that different. With Internet streaming, however, each individual connection typically costs more.

The solution is to fix the medium, IMHO. Big networks and content producers should be pushing for less expensive bandwidth or, even better, for working multicasting. :)

[1] yeah, I know how radio actually works, but I'm trying to make a point here.

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!