Then why not let the market decide? I'm happy with either format, it is up to the content providers to decide what is best for them, if they choose to use flash I don't like it, but such is life. Why is Google trying to put their finger on the scales? I like chrome, it's got a nice debugging environment and the built in translation and individual process per tab are really nice, but I want to have more choices, not less. I don't think it should be the position of browser manufacturers to dictate what kind of media should be produced. But my feeling is that they over reached. It's a big fuck you to the content providers who turned their back on GoogleTV I think.

Seriously, he has the most redundant, dupe, non-interesteing, so five weeks ago postings of all the editors here. What a waste of space.

I had the same experience with a iPhone 3G (not 3GS) after upgrading to OS 3.0 Some stuck process drained my battery to zero in a very short period of time. I wasn't near my charger, and initially I thought that the unit had died. I've never drained the battery before, and trying to power it up in that state didn't give a response of any kind. Once I got home I was relieved when it woke up after docking it.

This is an OS issue I think, not the battery. The side effect is heat and reduced life though. I'd imagine that the thermal monitoring isn't able to shutdown the unit when it gets into that state. I wasn't handling my unit at the time so I don't know if there was heat related to the event.

I'll leave it to others to attack the flawed methodology (although I can't resist pointing out that using a Javascript/DOM compatibility inspector as a test is seriously dumb. The thing is designed to short circuit on a matched API call, the order is going to have inherent bias by design!) My question is if you are willing to include Beta's why not include Webkit (and even IE8 just to be fair.) You could have painted a much more balanced picture...

But at east he did all the tests on the same day, we all know that network latency doesn't vary in less than 24 hour periods of time.

Subversion has the same (poor) merging capabilities as CVS.

FYI, I use Subversion but merging in Subversion and CVS is not nearly as simple as with Perforce or Arch. I subscribe to the subversion dev mailing list and I think it's probably at least another 1-2 years before Subversion has merging capabiliies on par with Perforce, Arch, ....

If you're interested in doing lots of merging with Subversion then you'll want to look at svnmerge (http://www.dellroad.org/svnmerge/index). I haven't used it but it gets good marks from the svn users mailing list.