So in the event of potentially unsafe driving conditions, something with the intelligence of a 2-year-old and the strength of 1000 gorillas randomly grabs the wheel from you. I can't see anything that could possibly go wrong with this.
Look, I'm sure some of you clicked on this post in bewilderment, expecting to see some hypocritical pro-Ubuntu argument from a known digerati eliteist here. You're not gonna find one. But the answer to the question is Ubuntu.
The problem is that the question is wrong. Like many such users, their actual biggest problem is just not knowing how to ask the right questions. The question "What's the easiest Linux distro for a newbie?" was formulated by someone who wanted a Linux distro that would not leave them running in terror, frightened and disgusted of all open source software forever. While Ubuntu (or Mint, or whatever... something even more absurd) may indeed be the easiest for new adopters to understand, it's a far cry from a good example of the pinnacle of quality in open source software that they want and need.
After only 5 minutes with Hadoop I could figure out it was nothing but a giant boondoggle. It only took to the end of that afternoon to be completely sure. Now, what... 3, 4 years later the rest of the industry is starting to figure it out, en-masse? Seems about right.
Yea, but UA string matching/parsing IS NOT "feature recognition." Feature recognition is done by testing individual functions and objects for known behaviors. Be really careful about being a non-coder reading reddit posts by novice coders and thinking that means you know stuff about how code works.
Well, first of all, it's a plausible fix but only for really badly-written javascript. Even back when it was necessary sometimes, it was still ill-advised to serve a different copy of the page to every browser. You're much better writing browser-agnostic code. Yes, they do have a common denominator of functionality that makes that possible if you're competent. Second of all, even if true, all this proves is they wrote ONE case for IE and broke everything else on purpose. In summary, your argument just takes the conversation back to square one: they obviously bungled this on purpose. It's that obvious to everyone who's actually done browser compatibility that they're forgetting to mention it, which is why you missed out on the significance.
You haven't been watching the news lately, have you? Basically here's what happened a couple weeks ago when they tried to stop it: We found out that the only force less stoppable than Trump is Microsoft.
Yea, but he doesn't give a fuck about Californians, and he LOVES unregulated monopolies so... I don't really foresee any action being taken by the Executive branch with regards to this, not unless it starts negatively impacting coal mining corporations somehow.
No. Sorry I just can't let this one fly. Title should have been "IBM discovered to not actually understand the fundamental technology underlying a successful telecommuting strategy."
In what sense does it not suck? I get a huge amount of spam from there. They appear to be allowing anonymous relay. It can't possibly be any more secure than Yahoo.com.
... until they're sued by Comcast, Cox, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Disney and my Mom over lost profits from metered bandwidth fees. After all, it worked for the Oil industry for decades...
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
Absolutely none of this stuff can be gotten "via regular http/web." Through Facebook, the "permission" you refer to consists merely of being signed up and being within 2 degrees of separation of a malicious app developer.
Who are you shilling for, actually? Facebook? Or malicious app developers everywhere?
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
The cat's out of the bag now, jokers! Good luck stuffing it back in there. Eventually everyone else will realize you should have built privacy into the API.
Slashdot Mirror
So in the event of potentially unsafe driving conditions, something with the intelligence of a 2-year-old and the strength of 1000 gorillas randomly grabs the wheel from you. I can't see anything that could possibly go wrong with this.
But does it run Linux?
That's not even a dent in this problem. Laundering H1B visas is the mainstay of the IT industry.
Who wants to start a betting pool on how long it takes for the first S8 to explode?
Should have stocked more Wii-U editions of the new Zelda, idiots. That's why BestBuy ate your lunch.
Look, I'm sure some of you clicked on this post in bewilderment, expecting to see some hypocritical pro-Ubuntu argument from a known digerati eliteist here. You're not gonna find one. But the answer to the question is Ubuntu.
The problem is that the question is wrong. Like many such users, their actual biggest problem is just not knowing how to ask the right questions. The question "What's the easiest Linux distro for a newbie?" was formulated by someone who wanted a Linux distro that would not leave them running in terror, frightened and disgusted of all open source software forever. While Ubuntu (or Mint, or whatever... something even more absurd) may indeed be the easiest for new adopters to understand, it's a far cry from a good example of the pinnacle of quality in open source software that they want and need.
After only 5 minutes with Hadoop I could figure out it was nothing but a giant boondoggle. It only took to the end of that afternoon to be completely sure. Now, what... 3, 4 years later the rest of the industry is starting to figure it out, en-masse? Seems about right.
Yea, but UA string matching/parsing IS NOT "feature recognition." Feature recognition is done by testing individual functions and objects for known behaviors. Be really careful about being a non-coder reading reddit posts by novice coders and thinking that means you know stuff about how code works.
Well, first of all, it's a plausible fix but only for really badly-written javascript. Even back when it was necessary sometimes, it was still ill-advised to serve a different copy of the page to every browser. You're much better writing browser-agnostic code. Yes, they do have a common denominator of functionality that makes that possible if you're competent. Second of all, even if true, all this proves is they wrote ONE case for IE and broke everything else on purpose. In summary, your argument just takes the conversation back to square one: they obviously bungled this on purpose. It's that obvious to everyone who's actually done browser compatibility that they're forgetting to mention it, which is why you missed out on the significance.
Not that anyone on Windows could figure out how, but it would be hilarious if it happened.
You haven't been watching the news lately, have you? Basically here's what happened a couple weeks ago when they tried to stop it: We found out that the only force less stoppable than Trump is Microsoft.
Yea, but he doesn't give a fuck about Californians, and he LOVES unregulated monopolies so... I don't really foresee any action being taken by the Executive branch with regards to this, not unless it starts negatively impacting coal mining corporations somehow.
No. Sorry I just can't let this one fly. Title should have been "IBM discovered to not actually understand the fundamental technology underlying a successful telecommuting strategy."
Uranus.
He means the FDIC.
I'm more worried more about their apparent inability to secure the system against spying and other types of abuse by 3rd parties.
Say it ain't so!!
Outlook.com doesn't suck.
In what sense does it not suck? I get a huge amount of spam from there. They appear to be allowing anonymous relay. It can't possibly be any more secure than Yahoo.com.
... until they're sued by Comcast, Cox, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, Disney and my Mom over lost profits from metered bandwidth fees. After all, it worked for the Oil industry for decades...
That almost sounds like sound logic, but... why punish AMD and Linux for something that you squarely admit is Microsoft's fault?
(meant as a reply to the snakeoil post above)
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
Absolutely none of this stuff can be gotten "via regular http/web." Through Facebook, the "permission" you refer to consists merely of being signed up and being within 2 degrees of separation of a malicious app developer.
Who are you shilling for, actually? Facebook? Or malicious app developers everywhere?
No, that is false. You in fact CAN just sign up for a 3rd party developer account, and all it takes to harvest all the personal details of someone is for them or any one on their friends list to use your app. There is no technical roadblock against doing this. The only restrictions on data use are in the ToS and (at least up until now) that was enforced solely by the honor system.
The cat's out of the bag now, jokers! Good luck stuffing it back in there. Eventually everyone else will realize you should have built privacy into the API.
Well how are we supposed to know they're starving if they can't even be bothered to sign on to Facebook and post about it?