• Adblock exists for chrome.
• Firebug is actually not as good as the built-in Chrome/Safari (Webkit) developer's tools.
• Flashblock equivalents work fine in Chrome, google flash block chrome.
• NoScript can't be ported, at least not with whitelists
• RIP I think not quite all functionality can be ported but there are mostly working equivalents.
• View dependencies: see webkit development tools, under Resources.
• xmarks is out for Chrome.

I should add that the only plugin I really care about, Vimperator, cannot be ported to Chrome (Chrome doesn't allow the level of control necessary for a full port), so for that reason only I'm still using Firefox (okay, Noscript is nice too and I even have a noscript plugin for vimperator).

Oops, too late: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NOK+Interactive#chart3:symbol=nok;range=1m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

It is from the article linked by this story. Flip through TFA.

This is the chart from the article, college educated wages are increasing, lower class wages are stagnant not declining (chart is in 2009 dollars): http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/01/22/sr/20110122_src762.gif

Sure 'anyone can' but you had it way harder than the kids whose parents had the checkbook out. For every kid like you there are 5 who had privileged backgrounds and didn't have to lift a finger, and 10 who, for whatever reason, just didn't make it.

Even though it's possible for anyone to make it, it's way easier for some than for others not because of merit, but because of who their parents were. And that has everything to do with class.

Goldman never needed a bailout. The treasury just had to give all the banks money so it wouldn't be obvious which banks *cough* BoA *cough* citi *cough* really needed the money.

Goldman had meetings about how much money they were going to make off the subprime crash as early as 2007. Bright guys, they were. Apparently they made a net $50m profit off the subprime crash.

Not exactly. They have narrowed it down to two likely outcomes: B causes C or (A and B) cause C. Either way, gaming is implicated. You can split more hairs about the role of A, but you can't deny the role of B (well, at least, you can't deny that these findings implicate B).

I think that is a reasonable followup. But in my personal experience, I've seen a lot of kids seriously addicted to gaming, and I've almost never seen one seriously addicted to gardening. So you might be right, but gaming is probably the bigger concern to parents and educators.

You're a little mixed up on this point.

The following relations held:

A -> B
B -> C
A -> C
A -> ~C

Because C and ~C both followed A, A is an unlikely cause of C.

I posted this down the thread but I want to post it here because people don't RTFA.

The study was longitudinal, meaning that they could follow the kids around and look at the order in which things happen. This means that they were able to show that lower social competence and greater impulsivity were predictors (ahead of the fact) of 'pathological' gaming, and that depression, anxiety, social phobias, and lower school performance were seen to increase within subjects who developed pathological gaming, after they developed pathological gaming. Since causation probably doesn't run backwards in time, this actually is evidence that pathological gaming caused the problems, rather than being caused by them or being comorbid with them.

The study was longitudinal, meaning that they could follow the kids around and look at the order in which things happen. This means that they were able to show that lower social competence and greater impulsivity were predictors (ahead of the fact) of 'pathological' gaming, and that depression, anxiety, social phobias, and lower school performance were seen to increase within subjects who developed pathological gaming, after they developed pathological gaming. Since causation probably doesn't run backwards in time, this actually is evidence that pathological gaming caused the problems, rather than being caused by them or being comorbid with them.

So you're saying, that if you donate money to this politician or do them favors, they will dick you over in return?

Why would this politician sabatoge any possibility of more sketchy contributions by acting this way? And wouldn't the politician get caught in the shitstorm anyway?

This line of reasoning just doesn't make nay sense.

Wait, so your logic is:

1. 1. Mastercard gives politician money.
2. 2. Politician screws Mastercard via credit reform
3. 3. Mastercard now also owes the politician favors?

... Usually it's the other way around.

Although what you have said is true, it's a little bit off topic because parent was worried about Google specifically. My point was, the only parts that aren't open source are designed by your manufacturer or your carrier, either of whom is in an excellent position to snoop on you no matter what OS you use.

Stock froyo (which is what my phone runs): http://developer.android.com/sdk/index.html

And this is where you get Samsung's froyo mod: http://opensource.samsung.com/ (search for i900 under mobile )

And this is where you get the source for the HTC phones: http://developer.htc.com/

I guess you love to see that?

Even if you were right about manufacturers releasing the source, my point about stock android being open would still completely valid. Parent said it was google that made them so nervous. Sense, motoblur, and other android mods were written by hardware companies. And if your hardware manufacturer wants to snoop on you, they don't have to modify the OS. Which was, of course, my actual point.

Shit for brains.