I own a 2012 Charger SRT8...no actual key. My previous Infiniti had the type you're mentioning, but not the Charger.

The only thing they did right.. [some UI thing]

No. Let's not forget Chrome's real claim to fame: it's multi-process. Different web pages don't need to be browsed in the same process. Give 'em some credit for that. Plenty of browsers still do the wrong thing here, Firefox being one of them.

Safari 6 has a bug like that. I think Safari is overall a fine browser, and I use to be very happy to use it as an alternative to Firefox's slow pokey waitiness. But it has a one-two combination of Amazing Stupidity, which make it virtually unusable for me.

1) It removes the protocol from the URL bar, so that entering (or clicking a link to) "http://example" becomes "example" in the URL bar. That's unnecessary and could never possibly be useful, but nevertheless, alone it would be mostly harmless.

2) It asks some search engine what the things in the URL bar mean, if you don't enter a protocol. That's unnecessary and not very useful, but alone it would be mostly harmless.

Together, they add up to lethal unusability.

If I go to "http://example?foo=bar1" then it works. But if I then I change bar1 to bar2 and hit enter, it goes to something like "http://google.com/?q=example%3Ffoo=bar2"

Stupid, stupid, stupid. (And Safari 4 didn't have this bug. Never tried 5.) This one thing, switched me to Chrome at work. And it discourages firing up Safari to test things. Guess what that means for run-of-the-mill users. I really hope someone at Apple got fired over this staggering incompetence. If not, then in a few years, Mac OS will be about as useful as iOS, i.e. not at all.

The companies who competed with Amazon, said they did. If I shop at Store X to pay $n, whereas the same item at store Y costs me $n*1.1, store Y's assertion that they have a .1 tax rate, really isn't something they made up, pulled out of their ass. You might be right in saying they don't "pay" the .1 tax, but oh, it's there and it matters in a major way as a market force. It's just as if they were paying it.

Using a car analogy, isn't this really the difference between how Porsche upgrades the 911 series every year, and how other auto companies come out with completely new models? Doesn't Agile work best when you can make multiple deliveries, instead of doing a complete ground up design each time?

Please excuse my ignorance. My software development work ended several years ago, when I was just starting to read about Extreme. Now I drive schedules and spreadsheets.

Sorry, I stopped reading at that point. You may have had a logical argument, but this kind of posting is uncalled for.

Please name any other industry where you feel you have a right to essentially make an ultimatum: "change things to suit my whims or I won't buy your product?"

All of them. There are some exceptions with utilities (e.g. local water company) but even those are less exceptional than the video industry thinks they are.

Oh, is it 1/5 the weight of that flock he hit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger#Flight_1549

Have you considered that many of these drones are much less expensive than their manned counterparts? Have you considered that w/o a human onboard, the payload ability increases dramatically? Have you considered that while you may not like some of the ongoing military actions, that some are actually worth fighting, or are you just letting your anti-military bias get the best of you? Not all UAVs are built to kill people. Sure there's plenty of room to cut the military budgets, and we should start by listening to the military when they wish to cancel a program, while some jackass Congressman continues to try to fund it.

The interesting chip here is the i7-4770R .. I expect it will be sold as motherboards with CPU soldered on for DIY builds, like the Atom boards.

I sure hope so. Maybe this is projection but I think such a mobo would be insanely popular for desktops.

Google's stance on a 60day turnaround of vulnerability fixes from discovery, and a 7-day turnaround of fixes for actively exploited unpatched vulnerabilities, is rather naive and devoid of commercial reality.

I think what you're saying, is that if someone is going around stabbing people in the heart, and if a doctor says these victims all need immediate medical attention (even the victims which are in isolated areas far from hospitals), then that doctor is being naive and devoid of medical reality.

I personally think you should quit blaming the doctor for the unfairness and horror that is inherent in the situation. Declaring the urgency of a problem being addressed, isn't "naive". It's not naive, even if addressing the problem is incredibly hard or even if it's effectively impossible.

If the doctor truly thinks the victims all really will get "immediate medical attention" then he'd be naive. But advising it isn't naive. Yelling at people "get that victim to the ER as fast as you can!" isn't naive. Telling people that heart stab wounds are very serious, isn't naive.

And the analogy with Google here, is that you just got stabbed in the heart, they're advising and hoping you get immediate medical attention, and 7 days from now, if your wife asks Google if they've seen you lately, they're going to tell your wife, "I heard he got stabbed in the heart last week. You took him to the hospital, right? If not, you better get on that, right now." You're concerned Google is going to scare your wife?! Be concerned that you're not at the hospital yet!

You think Google is being naive with unreasonably high expectations, but the need for those high expectations isn't their fault!

I will acknowledge that supply-side convenience can result in lower prices for customers, but I would still feel better of at least SOME of the GMO stories in the US talked about making the food better in some way other than cost.

Here you go. It's probably a hoax, though (been hearing about it for a long time yet I still don't see it in grocery stores).

Even then, if it is the same mechanism, you are still not infringing the patent.

Really? That sounds like copyright, where how you created something is what matters to whether or not it's a derived work. With patents, a completely independent implementation is still infringing, if in the end, it's the same mechanism. It doesn't matter how you got there. If you breed (rather than synthesize) Roundup Ready, it's still Roundup Ready. No?

...

The Roundup Ready patent has always struck a chord with me as a programmer, maybe because it parallels some things that happened to us. You could look at Roundup Ready as an interoperability requirement, something that is needed, in order to be functionally compatible with Glyphosate -- sort of like how you have to implement LZW to be able to read a GIF image.

(I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy. There are various differences. The big one up until 2000, was that lots of GIFs were in the wild and they could come from anywhere, whereas Roundup was single-source due to its own patent. So the "need" to be compatible with Roundup was more dubious than GIFs. But when the Roundup patents expired, the situations became much more similar, and Glyphosate could be argued to be almost a defacto standard.)

Since anyone is allowed to make or use Glyphosate, and it's pretty common and widely-deployed, its situation is a lot like a world where many users are sending you GIF images that you need to read, and the government is there, telling you that you're prohibited from doing so. I can sympathize with farmers a lot, when they say they ought to have the right to make plants which are compatible with a (now) non-proprietary weedkiller.

If that's the case then we don't know if it is safe for human consumption, do we?

Yep, to the same degree that we don't ever know if a new wild strain is safe for human consumption.

People, look at this as good news. This means that patented genes are in the wild, doing their own thing and the patent being infringed by mother nature herself. Confirmed by USDA, an authority courts can't merely blow off without looking silly.

The fact this happens, is a great reason why either gene patents ought to be abolished, or at least the patents in this particular genotype ought to be invalidated.

I'm really struggling to see how javascript is a moral issue.

When I go on about proprietary software being "unmaintainable and unauditable" do you think I'm talking about morality? If ever trade secret + legal monopoly software becomes as trustworthy as maintainable and auditable software, then we can pick morality nits.

Until then, let's stick to practical concerns. Practical concerns like "how can I be sure this foreign untrusted code isn't fucking me?" or "I figured out how this is fucking me, and I want to make it stop" or "I made it stop, but then I got a letter from a lawyer" or "I don't use that site anymore, because it was fucking me too much and their lawyers were assholes, saying I wasn't allowed to modify the code they were offering to my computer."