GO Microsoft!

I think this is the first time I can truly raise my head up high when I say I use Microsoft products.

Well, Wii U, too, pal! and yes... for those who are oblivious, replace Wii with F***

That is all speculation on your part. I don't know what hiring practices itself has to do with this - employees generally will do as they are instructed. But as for management... I would like to note that I have never hired employees at Google, or been hired there. Unless you have, it's all speculation on your part. But, I don't see what that has to do with what/how managers approve / instruct employees.

As for the management part, we can only speculate that their management is better than that. I certainly hope it is... But unless either of us has a direct point of reference (aka - somehow interacting with these managers - be it being employed by Google, having one as a friend, etc...), there is no way to state for certain that Google's management is truly better than that.

I definitely hope you are right. But I'll believe it when I see it.

They don't specifically say it. But they don't mention anything about any type of warning either. When a web site doesn't want to work for me it usually states something like "this is an unsupported browser". So while I can honestly only say that it is speculation (based on past experience) on my part, I wholeheartedly believe that my scenario is a reasonable possibility. I don't think it's any less reasonable than your assumption that there will be a warning message displayed on unsupported browsers.

Companies do such things to keep the general public from accessing something that won't work for them, and to help minimize confusion, and to get them to upgrade if possible. That is why, while they don't state it specifically, I believe they may end up doing this user-agent filtering in the end. I realize you do not concur with my conclusion. I think we're at a stalemate. It's anyone's guess what might happen.

Your right - it won't solve any bugs (or being out of date) in the browser. But I've seen stuff like this before where the server will only accept specific user agents. If they block firefox 3.5 user agent, but it unofficially works, my suggestion above is a good workaround. I've actually had to do this on a few websites on occasion as I use a 3rd party re-compiled version of firefox 4 and the user agent is just slightly different enough that some websites cry foul. It's not that the browser doesn't have the capability in these instances - it's just that the web server is set to deny everything but a limited list of user agents. As for google apps, you don't know that for a fact - they may in the future only allow specific user agents. I understand why they do this - to make sure their software will work with your browser. But at the same time it can be a pain as sometimes the website would work fine with a different browser or version. So in reference to the above information, I specifically refute your statement that "Deceiving the server about the version your'e using won't fix any bugs in the browser.". Sometimes it will allow you to a access a page that you otherwise wouldn't be able to. Weather you consider being able to access a page depending upon your user agent to be a bug, or not, I leave up to you. Only time will tell if this becomes true with Google's apps and websites.

no need to update. simply install the User Agent Switcher plug-in for firefox - and set it to send out a "version 4.0" user agent... and it should probably run fine - at least for a while. As far as the web server is concerned, you'd be running 4.0

Two Words: Duct Tape

Like many other things, I like the intent of the scanners, but don't like how it's implemented. Give me a scanner that looks like the one in Total Recall (see link below for youtube reference). Also make it safe (low radiation) and you'll have me sold. Until that happens though, the TSA won't be seeing my privates in any form - I'll refrain from flying until this is fixed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wY0bk31ylA

Don't these "researchers" have anything better to do than watch Back to the Future, Part III? I mean really - a flying train... Give me a break!

I wasn't thinking of needing an adapter for speed. I was thinking of one for compatibility should thunderbolt take place of usb (to a point where usb is no longer offered on motherboards and the cards are rare or expensive as everyone will have switched over to the then current standard).

I predict this will not be the monumental change in technology they think it will be. It will probably be on the range of FireWire... When was the last time you heard a windows box with a firewire port or card? Although I did use firewire before upgrading to eSATA, I just can't see this as becoming mainstream much outside of the mac community.

I mean SATA is already at 6Mbps, I'm sure 12Mbps is just around the corner. I've already got fast enough ports for the things I need. Another issue - whenever you try to mix multiple things into one plug, there is the issue of redundancy - or lack thereof. Also it concerns me - as the more you put into one port, the more there is to go wrong. I've got one of these mac 19" flat screen Apple Studio Displays from years ago - with built in usb, power button (that turns on the whole computer including the monitor) , and a button that brings up the brightness control panel. The power for the monitor comes in through the same cable too - directly from the mac. Guess what - the usb shorted out, and the buttons don't work any more... In addition the brightness can't be adjusted - even directly in the control panel (I think the monitor electronics have malfunctioned, preventing any changes). Thank god I upgraded to a pci usb2 card - and that my mac has a power button on the board itself - otherwise it'd be useless.

I guess this means I'll need yet another adapter for my adb keyboard... adb to usb; usb to thunderbolt.

I don't know what it is with that my name, but my electronics feel fried already!

"Google is funding an AI project that will introduce the technical concept of regret"

Um... yes... and I'm sure the AI regrets Google teaching it such. Now if we could only affix a robotic arm with a shotgun attached to it's "hand"... and see what happens...

I'd be interested to know if the AI shoots itself, shoots the Google programmers teaching it regret, or both. What a conundrum.

Exactly. A few of my accounts got hacked and I got a warning e-mail. One example of this new spam: the last few days I've been getting FaceBook Spam -

Hi, $random_name_here has left you a private message on facebook * A HREF="$hacker_url"* Click here * /A* to log in.

The funny thing - I don't even use Facebook. Shows you what those stupid hackers know!

>>The device uses a thin sheet of light like that used to scan supermarket bar codes

Dr. Evil: Okay no problem. Here's my second plan. Back in the 60's, I had a weather changing machine that was, in essence, a sophisticated heat beam which we called a "laser."

I thought this was supposed to be an open debate - you are more than welcome to your point of view - but please don't knock me.

I never said you could see the flicker. I did say however that the flicker over time can damage your eyes.

The legislation effectively bans the incandescent in most used ranges. You might not call it a ban. But I do. But let's not get into a word game. Either way I am sure we can agree that unless the law changes, incandescent bulbs in their most used forms won't be around for much longer after 2014.

Another thing - you mention low efficiency. In regard to electrical use you are right. But most people skip the part that is most important: What is better for our eyes. Our eyes are designed for the constant non-flickering light of the sun - light that is similarly mimicked by halogen and standard incandescent bulbs. So it is electrically inefficient. But more importantly, it is vision / eye efficient.

The one above - the philips you mentioned is a halogen bulb if I recall right - which as I mentioned is the best compromise between the two technologies.

If you like the CLF's - then I say use them. I'm not going to try to stop those that want to change to CFL's or other technologies. The change though shouldn't be forced upon us. If they are a better technology, people will naturally transition without the need for legislation to force it along.