You're probably just trolling, but since you mentioned Mitchell Baker I feel compelled to call bullshit on your little rant about her. Here's a very good piece on the history of Mozilla and her involvement throughout its existence: Mitchell Baker and the Firefox Paradox. I'll leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions.
Yes, she is a woman, with no technical experience. I don't see how that makes her incapable of running the Foundation, though. It's actually an important point mentioned in the piece I linked. If you read her blog or (again) the article I linked, you'll realize that she's a woman of incredible ideas and great sense on how to run a community. Like it or not, the Firefox community sets the bar in the open source world, and that makes Mitchell Baker one of the most influential individuals in software history. Well, that's my take on it.
How is this a bad month for Firefox? If vulnerabilities are found, they would be fixed promptly. This is something Mozilla has always done and something that keeps us users and developers very happy. It was bad timing that he disclosed this vulnerability right after 2.0.0.2 was released, but rest assured that a fix will be out very soon. I think this happened once before, where Firefox version X and version X + 1 were released within the same month.
It would be good that such vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place, but anyone that knows a bit about big software will tell you that that's wishful thinking. Firefox has proven to be extremely safe to use, and Mozilla has proven to be committed to keep it that way.
And yes, I wouldn't say this when a vulnerability for IE is released, because I'm well aware that their release cycle has a span of months, even years. Close source / Open souce or free / MS have nothing to do with it. Firefox is a better product, period.
Same here. Even when I used Windows I decided that it was kind of risky to install such an app on my desktop. Sure, it sounded tempting to have such a powerful indexing scheme and be able to find everything on your hard drive with relative ease and a very innovative UI for it, but I came to the conclusion that is was not worth it given that I don't search for files that often, and I don't want to trust Google with absolutely everything (I use gmail and Google calendar though).
I think what really matters here is whether there's a two way communication or one way communication. I would assume that ebay would follow proper design and security patterns, and just allow for the transaction servers to notify the email servers about state changes, so that they can send the appropriate message. The question is whether you can access more than just email if you break into the email servers, which would imply that there is some kind of access from the email servers to the transaction servers, a HUGE security oversight.
If you have full access to the mail servers you could access state changes for most transactions and most users, but this shouldn't be enough to obtain their financial or even personal information. A proper security scheme would prevent this.
Probably until it either gains majority market share or opens up it's source.
That has nothing to do with it. If Google is excluding Opera users from one of their services, it's probably for one of the following reasons:
Opera hasn't implemented (or has bugs in) certain Javascript functions required by their service. This just means that Opera needs to expand (fix) its implementation.
There's some general policy in Google to support certain browsers and exclude all others to "play it safe". This is something that I've seen in a lot of corporate web software. The browser may very well support the app but there's a compatibility check the browser doesn't pass. The solution to this is changing the user-agent string, which I believe Opera can do easily.
Google is using non-standard features of IE and Firefox to implement their services. In this case your point about market share is correct since Google can't spend too much time to please a relatively small group of users.
Being open source has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Allow me to be the first to tell you that this is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long, long time. It's an amazing idea and one of those things that just make sense:).
It's a matter of perspective. The comment you linked mentioned the televised competitions as an example of the popularity of the game in SK, so I assumed you were responding to the topic, not the example. You are correct in that I missed the word "watch", which is the only hint that you were actually referring to just that. Either way, since you think playing it is boring, my comment still applies, offtopic or not.
Maybe it's just not for you. What I found very appealing about Startcraft was the fact that you had sufficiently distinct races, while at the same time very well balanced. Most games preceding Starcaft had races that differed in colors and names, mostly.
I don't find competitive online play very amusing for these types of games because, as you said, it's all about being efficient and rushing with a large amount of units. You also correctly pointed out that Zergs are usually the way to go.
Starcraft in campaign mode is one of the most enjoyable game experiences I've ever had. But that's just me.
On a related note: Starcraft 2. I think I would be totally dizzy rotating the screen for 4 hours.
It's unfortunate that Microsoft continues to be allowed to operate as an illegal monopoly based in the United States.
Monopolies are perfectly legal in the United States. The way you use your position as a monopoly is what's subject to restrictions. For instance, Microsoft pushing its "free" software bundled with the Windows OS (particularly IE) is what the DOJ and EU commission have been trying to nail Microsoft for years. They can be a monopoly, what they can't do is use their position as a monopoly to squash their competitors.
Slashdot Mirror
You're probably just trolling, but since you mentioned Mitchell Baker I feel compelled to call bullshit on your little rant about her. Here's a very good piece on the history of Mozilla and her involvement throughout its existence: Mitchell Baker and the Firefox Paradox. I'll leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions.
Yes, she is a woman, with no technical experience. I don't see how that makes her incapable of running the Foundation, though. It's actually an important point mentioned in the piece I linked. If you read her blog or (again) the article I linked, you'll realize that she's a woman of incredible ideas and great sense on how to run a community. Like it or not, the Firefox community sets the bar in the open source world, and that makes Mitchell Baker one of the most influential individuals in software history. Well, that's my take on it.
How is this a bad month for Firefox? If vulnerabilities are found, they would be fixed promptly. This is something Mozilla has always done and something that keeps us users and developers very happy. It was bad timing that he disclosed this vulnerability right after 2.0.0.2 was released, but rest assured that a fix will be out very soon. I think this happened once before, where Firefox version X and version X + 1 were released within the same month.
It would be good that such vulnerabilities weren't there in the first place, but anyone that knows a bit about big software will tell you that that's wishful thinking. Firefox has proven to be extremely safe to use, and Mozilla has proven to be committed to keep it that way.
And yes, I wouldn't say this when a vulnerability for IE is released, because I'm well aware that their release cycle has a span of months, even years. Close source / Open souce or free / MS have nothing to do with it. Firefox is a better product, period.
Same here. Even when I used Windows I decided that it was kind of risky to install such an app on my desktop. Sure, it sounded tempting to have such a powerful indexing scheme and be able to find everything on your hard drive with relative ease and a very innovative UI for it, but I came to the conclusion that is was not worth it given that I don't search for files that often, and I don't want to trust Google with absolutely everything (I use gmail and Google calendar though).
It's a non-issue with Spotlight now :).
I think what really matters here is whether there's a two way communication or one way communication. I would assume that ebay would follow proper design and security patterns, and just allow for the transaction servers to notify the email servers about state changes, so that they can send the appropriate message. The question is whether you can access more than just email if you break into the email servers, which would imply that there is some kind of access from the email servers to the transaction servers, a HUGE security oversight.
If you have full access to the mail servers you could access state changes for most transactions and most users, but this shouldn't be enough to obtain their financial or even personal information. A proper security scheme would prevent this.
That has nothing to do with it. If Google is excluding Opera users from one of their services, it's probably for one of the following reasons:
Being open source has absolutely nothing to do with this.
Allow me to be the first to tell you that this is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long, long time. It's an amazing idea and one of those things that just make sense :).
Can't wait for the gun mode :P.
Works for me.
Firefox and Safari on Mac, US version of the website.
Maybe a locale issue?
-1, Technicality
It's a matter of perspective. The comment you linked mentioned the televised competitions as an example of the popularity of the game in SK, so I assumed you were responding to the topic, not the example. You are correct in that I missed the word "watch", which is the only hint that you were actually referring to just that. Either way, since you think playing it is boring, my comment still applies, offtopic or not.
Maybe it's just not for you. What I found very appealing about Startcraft was the fact that you had sufficiently distinct races, while at the same time very well balanced. Most games preceding Starcaft had races that differed in colors and names, mostly.
I don't find competitive online play very amusing for these types of games because, as you said, it's all about being efficient and rushing with a large amount of units. You also correctly pointed out that Zergs are usually the way to go.
Starcraft in campaign mode is one of the most enjoyable game experiences I've ever had. But that's just me.
On a related note: Starcraft 2. I think I would be totally dizzy rotating the screen for 4 hours.
Monopolies are perfectly legal in the United States. The way you use your position as a monopoly is what's subject to restrictions. For instance, Microsoft pushing its "free" software bundled with the Windows OS (particularly IE) is what the DOJ and EU commission have been trying to nail Microsoft for years. They can be a monopoly, what they can't do is use their position as a monopoly to squash their competitors.
Modded as funny? This is as real as it gets. At least in the private sector.