They were not going to ALLOW any blade that locks. Note box cutters lock. If you have ever used a knife, a locking mechanism is what makes a knife safe to use. A knife without a locking blade is almost always more dangerous to the wielder than the foe. Only thing a non-locking knife is good for is cutting apples.

They are not engineered to handle that kind of constant abuse. Downshifting without rev matching can be extremely taxing on the drivetrain, particularly if you are moving from an engine speed of 2000 RPM up to 6000RPM.

Synchromesh gearboxes removed the requirement to double clutch, they also made it possible to downshift without rev matching, however it is still rough on the drivetrain to send such a large impulse through the system.

Wouldn't such a system make toe-n-heel impossible? While most drivers of a manual do not know how or even why to do such a maneuver, it is required in order to properly downshift a manual transmission. If you do not rev match when downshifting it not only makes for a rough ride but is also very rough on the drivetrain.

Must be a slow evening; this article was posted 2 days ago here on /.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/22/175200/RNA-Loaded-Nanoparticles-Fight-Cancer?art_pos=1

Do you REALLY believe that Best Buy, a company with revenues of 45 BILLION dollars in 2008, and a company who makes most of its money selling 'technology related goods', isn't having a technically savvy TEAM review things? I'm afraid you're overly simplifying things here...

Did they screw up? Yes. Should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Maybe. Their past fumblings do indeed show a pattern, so my inclination to give them the benefit of the doubt becomes smaller and smaller each time I read stories like these. And right now, my inclination is quite small.

Heck, I'd have trouble *writing* some of my passwords. My really complex ones are purely by finger/type memory.

I go to www.cuil.com and search on the term 'cuil'. It has no idea that the search engine exists (itself).

Sorry, but if a search engine has no idea of its own existence in its own indexes, there's something seriously wrong with their algorithm :-)

Too bad that is Mazda's slogan.

I think that there are more indirect behaviors that go into determining if a message is spam or not (given a filter misses it and it gets to your inbox). First and foremost, do I know the sender? That's a big variable that that quiz cannot reproduce or take into account - so of course people will have a tough time determining if a message is spam or ham. Second is the presence of attachments. If I know the sender, and the message isn't something like "check out this great video!", I'll be pretty sure it's ham.

That quiz is great for the basics and the practice of looking at headers, but I feel it misses the most fundamental aspect of knowing the sender and letting your brain do the work that filters miss.

Of course, you'll note with a quick search, there are no Britney songs available for download.