Even if not, we need to move beyond "just" Gmail. We need to speed up V8 and friends, as well as Webkit, Gecko and others. I want my browser to be my mobile desktop - a desktop which moves from machine to machine and where other companies host my not-too-private stuff and where I don't have to worry too much if I'm running a free GNU/Linux or a paid Windows version.
This includes games. (Flash sucks.)
Now, I have done some fugly hacks with Javascript arrays. Let's just say they were big, very big. Loading them took ages in Firefox 2.x compared to Opera and a Webkit browser from the same era. Firefox 3.x sped things up, and Firefox 3.5 brought them where they belong.
Just because you think Gmail doesn't need high performing Javascript, doesn't mean other potential apps don't either.
JS may not be all there is to web performance, but I'm pretty sure it will play a significant role in the future. After all, how else are you going to do proper pathfinding for large number of units over large maps in your web based (singleplayer) RTS?
I know exactly how they feel. I'm Croatian, and I'm not buying software either (XP courtesy of MSDNAA, and I don't use VS except for studying purposes, only where C# is mandatory).
But if $10 is a problem for an OS, cost of a machine is kind-of a problem as well. Do you have information how the Chinese people cope with machine costs?
They may lose even greater player base (more than just gold farmers). On the other hand, such moves might attract other non-cheating players, or keep the current non-cheating ones playing for longer time.
MMOs employing banning are counting on long-time effects, not on short-time effects. They probably weighted all the facts and concluded this is beter than losing players observing how many people are gold-mining, and how many people are buying the "illegally"-mined gold.
Is stupidity of people a reason to stifle technology? Don't the smart people have any rights today whatsoever? Here -- I forbidyou to play with Lego because small children may choke!
Also remember, point is, UK law says you have to give your password to the government, or it's jail time. So you are solving the different problem, resolved long time ago. If they can force you to give up your one and only encryption key to obtain access to your entire home folder...
Well, there's loads of proofs. Y'know, the proof how God can't be omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock that He cannot lift?
There's something to it, and there are things I find amusing about organized religions. Still, I don't feel it's all wrong and load of bull.
And yes, I'm personally not angered at what is being done with regards to science; I find it laughable. What angers me is the strength of the Church in some countries (such as mine) where they abuse their power. Even in time of crisis, they're not willing to give up on the truckloads of money given to them by the state. They're also harassing people, for example, (this is amazing) opposing artificial insemination and actually affecting our lawmakers. What happened to "We're pro-life" thing?
Still, overall, an intelligent designer is not really such a funny claim. It's just the timespan that creationists try to give us that's funny.
Nope, I'm saying intelligent designer set the initial conditions in the agent-based simulation, and launched The Reality 0.3. With perhaps occasional interventions.
No! We shall not succumb to your advocacy of taking our freedoms! We shal found Free Theology Foundation - FTF. We shall develop our religion, to oppose your monoteism: GNOM - GNOM's NOt Monotheism!
It's indeed not falsifiable, as someone will just answer "That's because god made it that way!!!!1" to whatever evidence for anything else anyone might present.
Personally, I believe in intelligent design by evolution, and I don't think intelligent design and evolution are exclusive. Instead of angering me, it fascinates me that some people actually try to find evidence that we exist for, what, 6000 years? Creationists are funny people.
There wasn't much propaganda needed here, people were already on the edge, and still were edgy until only a few years ago. Even nowadays people have prejudices. Publicly spoken words have some meaning here, but much fire was ignited in people's private homes, much fire was ignited by treatment in the workplace, much fire was transferred from parents to children.
Especially since on this issue the official stance of former Yugoslavia was: "Brotherhood and unity", not "Let's slaughter each other". In fact, until late 1980s, there were only occasional eruptions of nationalism and various peoples lived with each other quite happily. What was spoken behind closed doors was exactly that - spoken behind closed doors. It wasn't "hate everybody" situation; it was "don't like a faceless group".
So what happened? Well, nationalism simply erupted. It was politicians who started the whole thing, but, no matter that people lived with each other, no matter that people didn't actively hate their neighbors, no matter that people didn't really particularly care until late 1980s (except for a few small occasions), still, the dislike was amassing in people. And it exploded.
By suppressing some portions of free speech as you propose, you might prevent politicians from triggering a revolution. But what happens when the revolution is silently burning inside entire nations? What happens when over 90% of voters side with independence, as was the case in several countries of former Yugoslavia?
You may silence the individual that started it in 1989, 1990 or 1991. But you'd get another individual, this time a non-politician, that would start the same thing in 1995, 1996 or 1997.
In other words, suppression of free speech may just delay the inevitable. On the other hand, in some cases it may contain a fire for much longer. But where do we say free speech must be suppressed? Where do you draw the line?
It is unconstitutional in most countries to demand independence. What if the country does not respect the wishes of some of its citizens? Do you suppress the wishes of the citizens because the law says so?
If someone went out to speak out against, say, European Union, or against the Federal Government of the USA, demanding exit from the Union or independence for the state from the USA, what would you do? Suppress that man, just to prevent violence? What if people of the country, or the state, want exit or independence?
Would you do the same as EU, pushing Lisbon Agreement when the European Constitution fails? And would you call it an agreement, just to avoid sending it on a referendum in most of its member states? Would you be like Croatian politicians and media, proclaiming support for Lisbon Agreement just because that way Croatia will be able to enter EU sooner that way? In Croatia, media keep mentioning that Lisbon Agreement is the key to our entry in EU, without mentioning its contents or explaining the reasons. Most of my countrymen are blind.
So where is free speech the key to liberties, and where is suppression of it key to security and nonviolence? I can't tell. I think free speech is suppressed enough already, and suppression doesn't bring us any good. Especially since the essence of what needs to be said is sometimes already in hearts and minds of the people.
No idea about Rwanda, but there was a bit more than just words that started the war(s?) in former Yugoslavia. Since I am a national of one of the countries, I have a very subjective opinion on the matter, but please don't say it was just words, because it went much deeper than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm from Croatia, but still, don't insult people from random countries. You probably don't know any Bosnians, while I do.
[citation needed]
Even if not, we need to move beyond "just" Gmail. We need to speed up V8 and friends, as well as Webkit, Gecko and others. I want my browser to be my mobile desktop - a desktop which moves from machine to machine and where other companies host my not-too-private stuff and where I don't have to worry too much if I'm running a free GNU/Linux or a paid Windows version.
This includes games. (Flash sucks.)
Now, I have done some fugly hacks with Javascript arrays. Let's just say they were big, very big. Loading them took ages in Firefox 2.x compared to Opera and a Webkit browser from the same era. Firefox 3.x sped things up, and Firefox 3.5 brought them where they belong.
Just because you think Gmail doesn't need high performing Javascript, doesn't mean other potential apps don't either.
JS may not be all there is to web performance, but I'm pretty sure it will play a significant role in the future. After all, how else are you going to do proper pathfinding for large number of units over large maps in your web based (singleplayer) RTS?
Yes, I am. And a new one won't be a bad thing. We need to be replaced by a security update.
Unless you are a CCP developer, it is not obvious for you as a reader of Slashdot summary.
I know exactly how they feel. I'm Croatian, and I'm not buying software either (XP courtesy of MSDNAA, and I don't use VS except for studying purposes, only where C# is mandatory).
But if $10 is a problem for an OS, cost of a machine is kind-of a problem as well. Do you have information how the Chinese people cope with machine costs?
Banning 2% players to decrease CPU usage by 30% is not obvious.
They may lose even greater player base (more than just gold farmers). On the other hand, such moves might attract other non-cheating players, or keep the current non-cheating ones playing for longer time.
MMOs employing banning are counting on long-time effects, not on short-time effects. They probably weighted all the facts and concluded this is beter than losing players observing how many people are gold-mining, and how many people are buying the "illegally"-mined gold.
Did you read his post? Because he agrees with you, and says CCP should have done this sooner rather than later.
Is stupidity of people a reason to stifle technology? Don't the smart people have any rights today whatsoever? Here -- I forbid you to play with Lego because small children may choke!
You forgot step ????.
www-data
Mac OS X FileVault?
Also remember, point is, UK law says you have to give your password to the government, or it's jail time. So you are solving the different problem, resolved long time ago. If they can force you to give up your one and only encryption key to obtain access to your entire home folder...
Whoosh yourself.
An android not able to have emotions? Say what?
I pronounce it Active-ex, or when using local Slavic pronouncement "modifications", Active-eeks. In fact, the latter is quite common in my country.
Church of Sayentolochy, and their overlord Davey "Zeenu" Miscarriage? :-)
Well, there's loads of proofs. Y'know, the proof how God can't be omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock that He cannot lift?
There's something to it, and there are things I find amusing about organized religions. Still, I don't feel it's all wrong and load of bull.
And yes, I'm personally not angered at what is being done with regards to science; I find it laughable. What angers me is the strength of the Church in some countries (such as mine) where they abuse their power. Even in time of crisis, they're not willing to give up on the truckloads of money given to them by the state. They're also harassing people, for example, (this is amazing) opposing artificial insemination and actually affecting our lawmakers. What happened to "We're pro-life" thing?
Still, overall, an intelligent designer is not really such a funny claim. It's just the timespan that creationists try to give us that's funny.
Nope, I'm saying intelligent designer set the initial conditions in the agent-based simulation, and launched The Reality 0.3. With perhaps occasional interventions.
No! We shall not succumb to your advocacy of taking our freedoms! We shal found Free Theology Foundation - FTF. We shall develop our religion, to oppose your monoteism: GNOM - GNOM's NOt Monotheism!
However, when examples of falsifying evidence are raised, a common defence of the theory is to shift the intentions of the proposed designer.
Here's a different defense: It was easiest for the designer this way; you know how lazy are engineers sometimes :-)
It's indeed not falsifiable, as someone will just answer "That's because god made it that way!!!!1" to whatever evidence for anything else anyone might present.
Personally, I believe in intelligent design by evolution, and I don't think intelligent design and evolution are exclusive. Instead of angering me, it fascinates me that some people actually try to find evidence that we exist for, what, 6000 years? Creationists are funny people.
But... but... Swine already flu!
There wasn't much propaganda needed here, people were already on the edge, and still were edgy until only a few years ago. Even nowadays people have prejudices. Publicly spoken words have some meaning here, but much fire was ignited in people's private homes, much fire was ignited by treatment in the workplace, much fire was transferred from parents to children.
Especially since on this issue the official stance of former Yugoslavia was: "Brotherhood and unity", not "Let's slaughter each other". In fact, until late 1980s, there were only occasional eruptions of nationalism and various peoples lived with each other quite happily. What was spoken behind closed doors was exactly that - spoken behind closed doors. It wasn't "hate everybody" situation; it was "don't like a faceless group".
So what happened? Well, nationalism simply erupted. It was politicians who started the whole thing, but, no matter that people lived with each other, no matter that people didn't actively hate their neighbors, no matter that people didn't really particularly care until late 1980s (except for a few small occasions), still, the dislike was amassing in people. And it exploded.
By suppressing some portions of free speech as you propose, you might prevent politicians from triggering a revolution. But what happens when the revolution is silently burning inside entire nations? What happens when over 90% of voters side with independence, as was the case in several countries of former Yugoslavia?
You may silence the individual that started it in 1989, 1990 or 1991. But you'd get another individual, this time a non-politician, that would start the same thing in 1995, 1996 or 1997.
In other words, suppression of free speech may just delay the inevitable. On the other hand, in some cases it may contain a fire for much longer. But where do we say free speech must be suppressed? Where do you draw the line?
It is unconstitutional in most countries to demand independence. What if the country does not respect the wishes of some of its citizens? Do you suppress the wishes of the citizens because the law says so?
If someone went out to speak out against, say, European Union, or against the Federal Government of the USA, demanding exit from the Union or independence for the state from the USA, what would you do? Suppress that man, just to prevent violence? What if people of the country, or the state, want exit or independence?
Would you do the same as EU, pushing Lisbon Agreement when the European Constitution fails? And would you call it an agreement, just to avoid sending it on a referendum in most of its member states? Would you be like Croatian politicians and media, proclaiming support for Lisbon Agreement just because that way Croatia will be able to enter EU sooner that way? In Croatia, media keep mentioning that Lisbon Agreement is the key to our entry in EU, without mentioning its contents or explaining the reasons. Most of my countrymen are blind.
So where is free speech the key to liberties, and where is suppression of it key to security and nonviolence? I can't tell. I think free speech is suppressed enough already, and suppression doesn't bring us any good. Especially since the essence of what needs to be said is sometimes already in hearts and minds of the people.
Ask a Rwandan or Bosnian
No idea about Rwanda, but there was a bit more than just words that started the war(s?) in former Yugoslavia. Since I am a national of one of the countries, I have a very subjective opinion on the matter, but please don't say it was just words, because it went much deeper than that.
...whoosh? See #28740071.