I've only been to neighboring countries - Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica. I'm not sure why I said four. Am I forgetting a country that I've been to? Was I counting the People's Republic of California? shrug

I've been told US dollars are ubiquitous in Singapore. I'm curious. My thought is that in most industrialized countries one could spend USD, maybe at a crappy exchange rate. I wonder if that's true.

Though the _most_common_ money in most countries is the local currency, I've been to four countries and never had any problem spending US dollars in any of them, including at supermarkets restaurants, and bars In one non-US country, sellers saw that I looked like an American and quoted prices in USD. I surprised one shop keeper when I paid in local currency. I had acquired a small amount of local currency but found out there was no need for it.

> So the answer to "how many regular cars light on fire on the highway" is 187,500 last year.

You would think. If you read the reports, you find the term has a non-intutive meaning. NFPA says:

    92% of vehicle fire deaths involved highway-type vehicles such as cars, trucks, buses, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles.
The term “highway vehicle fires” is used to describe the type of vehicle, not the location of the fire.

It goes on to say 8% of highway-vehicle fires are intentionally set and 5% are from exposure to some other fire such as a house fire.
I didn't read how many were unintentionally set. My brother unintentionally set the contents of my car on fire once.

I asked how many cars get lit on fire (arson, smoldering cigarettes, etc.) versus how many light themselves on fire.

You think I claimed cars can't burn. Only on Slashdot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
I asked a couple of questions:
How many gas cars light on fire as opposed to being lit on fire?
How can electric cars be made safer?

It's not clear what you're trying to say, so tell me if I have this right:

You have no idea what the answer is to either question, but "Tesla comes out on top". Why? Because Tesla man! Fuck yeah Tesla motherfucker! Tesla kicks ass man!

Do I have that about right?

>. Flex where? If it's up against the battery, when it flexes it will compress the cells, causing exactly the kind of damage that causes fires...

Intuitively, you'd think to make a car safer, you'd make it stronger. In fact, you reduce G forces by designing it to crush - crumple zones. How can the shielding or battery positioning be improved? I don't know, but I hope Tesla's engineers are asking those questions.

At Texas Transportation Institute (part of the agency I work for) they're still crash testing gas cars to figure out how safety can be improved. The same needs to be done with Tesla cars, that's all.

Yeah, I assume that's obvious. Send the html first, then css, js, and images concurrently.

Also, I hope you don't browse too many pages with 20MB of images. :)

Yes, you just need to redo http. While you're redoing http, you make several improvements.
As you improve http, you realize the biggest performance issues for http come from the fact that it's limited by the requirement that sends and recieves via an ancient protocol that wasn't designed to carry http. Http doesn't run atop TCP because it's a good fit - on runs atop http because that's what was available.

I think it's more like designing automobiles 3.0, designed to go 300 MPH, and realizing that if you want 300 MPH vehicles, you might need to make some significant changes to highway design.

The "all car fires" stat includes dropped cigarettes that smolder, cars intentionally set on fire, etc.
How many regular cars light on fire on the highway after running over a debris such as a hitch?

Also, how many do you want to have on fire? How many would ignite if there was a shield that would flex rather than puncture?

> You're conflating HTTP with TCP.

I'm discussing how HTTP over TCP works, in contrast to how it works over QUIC.
TCP provides one stream, which when used with HTTP means one file.

QUIC provides multiple concurrent streams specifically so that http can retrieve multiple concurrent files.

Thank for that info, and for making your test scripts available on Github.
I'm curious* what were the results of web page tests? Obviously a typical web page with CSS files, Javascript files, images, etc. is much different from a monolithic 10 MB file.

* curious, but not curious enough to run the tests for myself.

As I understand it, QUIC is largely about multiplexing - downloading all 35 files needed for a page concurrently. The test was the opposite of what QUIC is designed for

    TCP handles one file at at a time* - first download the html, then the logo, then the background, then the first navigation button ....

QUIC gets all of those page elements at the same time, over a single connection. The problem with TCP and the strength of QUIC is exactly what TFA chose NOT to test. By using a single 10 MB file, their test is the opposite of web browsing and doesn't test the innovations in QUIC.

* browsers can negotiate multiple TCP connections, which is a slow way to retrieve many small files.

Did you copy / paste the whole review? How long was it? If it was more than a few sentences, you probably should have linked to the full review and copied only a few sentences, or better yet, a few key phrases, like this:

      I agree with Jody Bruchon, who says " It's unfortunate that there aren't SLAPP laws in every state". Write our own opinion, blah, blah, blah.
      Blah, blah, Bruchon is incorrect is the assertion that "the person with the most money always wins" because ...

You say you copied the review "so I could refute it ", but you don't have to copy and paste an entire work in order to refute it. I can refute Obama's latest speech without copying and pasting the entire thing.

Of course if the original review was only two sentences, my comment doesn't apply.

> They cant pick and choose.

In fact they MUST pick and choose. To avoid losing their mark, they need to be proactive about instances that could be considered infringement.
They can allow certain users and decline others. What they can't do, under the law, is ignore potential infringement - they are supposed to either allow it or object to it.
One way they do that is through the published policy, which grants people the right to use their trademark in specific ways:

http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy

One thing their policy explicitly grants permission for is:

        You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical.

It seems to me this use was already authorized under that published statement of permission.

The system above IS in use on some tranny sites!