Actually, Chrome has been doing that for ages with the existing suggestions. I setup a Squid cache for my house and found letter-for-letter requests coming from computers using Chrome. Try it yourself if you're curious--or you can just turn off suggestions.
While I agree that nobody likes patent trolls, I sure do hope that you didn't put it to the rep like that. It might've been more effective to talk about the fact that abuse of patents to stifle competition results in a lack of innovation in one's own products. You could state that you are concerned about the implications of the patent lawsuits on Oracle's own business strategy, and that you are not convinced they are truly interested in providing innovation to the medical sector--a sector that desperately needs any and all kind of innovation it can get.
I try to avoid using it. I haven't quite gone to shut it off, but I find it quite like a little brother: it interrupts, thinking that it knows what you're saying before you finish. Only in this case, it knows what you're typing. And just like the little brother, it's wrong a majority of the time. I'm sure that--like the little brother--I'll eventually say "shut up and let me finish", and turn the feature off; especially if it comes to the Chrome Omnibar.
You've made some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that they're fully thought-through. The current elite side with the copyright industry because that's where the money is--not because it's comfortable. The original copyright term was 7 years, plus 7 more if extended. The idea was that this is enough time to profit off an idea before opening it up to innovation. So copyright holders makes a ton of money and rather than wanting to actually work to continue their profit by creating new things, they take their favorite politicians out to dinner, cruises, etc. There is no "that's how it always was" here, but instead an active pressure from those with money.
What? You mean so that he has to walk in and keep a straight face as the clerk sees the price? Also, I doubt the price would stay at $0.49 for very long that way...
Then someone who browses userpages has essentially the equivalent of having JS turned off and gets bugged every 2 seconds. And the potential problem that someone might generate content you want to see and bug it. Gets bugged every 2 seconds? Have you used NoScript? It provides a very minimally intrusive bar along the bottom of the browser stating "NoScript has blocked X number of scripts", and you can even turn that off. And without scripting enabled on a page, how do you expect the page to "bug" users to enable JavaScript? The very best they can do is provide a <noscript> tag asking for it -- and then we'd be assuming the user can make the decision themselves.
Browsing websites such as MySpace works fine without JavaScript -- they want users on their pages, even if their browser doesn't support/enable JavaScript. It is extremely rare that I stumble across a website that I cannot get working. As for user-generated content, that's precisely the reason NoScript! allows you to whitelist specific pages. (Or being that I'm not a dev, perhaps it's just a handy use for that feature).
Please stop spreading FUD and use an extension before you try to knock it.
For your passwords saved in Firefox, do you use a master password?
As far as I know, unless you provide that master password as an external "key" there really isn't any way that Firefox can store your passwords in such a manner to prevent other programs from retrieving them while still able to access them as plain text itself.
Users could also disable JavaScript or use add-ons such as NoScript to set up rules to provide additional protection. In the age of Web 2.0 this would, however, mean that many pages would cease to function. That's very misleading. Allow me to clarify:
Users could also disable JavaScript, which in the age of Web2.0 would cause many pages to display incorrectly. A better alternative is NoScript!, an add-on that allows users to selectively white-list pages, servers, or domains to use JavaScript.
The alternative hypothesis contended that different populations independently evolved from Homo erectus to Home sapiens in different areas. (emphasis mine)
So the alternative theory is that different populations individually evolved into a race of agoraphobes? Makes sense...
Actually, the so-called hackers thought that "Do No Evil" was a command to those using Google's services. As such they went elsewhere.
In all seriousness, I'd be willing to bet that they used compromised Yahoo! accounts for a few reasons: yahoo users are generally less computer-savvy (read: easier to compromise), they probably use gmail accounts themselves so they didn't want to draw attention there, and google has been rumored before to keep e-mails even after being deleted from the account.
While I completely agree with you, I'd also like to point out that one can get foreign music for much cheaper.
About a month-or-so ago, I ordered 5 music CDs from Bangkok -- my first time ordering music from out-of-country. The website included the cost of shipping for each product as part of the price. In 7 days exactly, I received all 5 CDs together in good condition with decent packaging. And it was all for just under US$25.
Now granted, the lyrics were in Thai and it's a style of music that I only listen to on occasion (as opposed to daily) but it still impressed me. I've ordered American music online before and: paid extra for shipping, received horribly beat-up packages, received packages much later, etc. All that American "quality" for many multiples of the price. (Keep in mind that American countries are shipping domestically vs. that website shipping across the world)
I talked to one of my buddies who's lived in Thailand, and when I told him about the music I got he told me that I was ripped off horribly -- buying music locally there is (the baht equivalent of) about US$2. Whatever the case, if I'm not paying the MAFIAA as well as getting damn-cheap music, I'm going to continue exploring foreign countries to get "ripped off" when I purchase music.
Okay. This will come off sounding as flamebait, but at least read it before marking it as such.
I'm willing to bet my Karma (what Karma, right?) that Bennett Haselton is, himself, a spammer. I periodically stumble, to my dismay, across his ramblings posted here as front-page material. With most of them overly self-righteous and witchunty in nature, I think he has a little something to hide.
So, to keep things concise I'll simply list facts here:
He delegitimizes spam-fighting cases by attempting to ridicule judges with his website, judgejokes.com. This is even more instrumental than it seems:
It is registered by his censor-fighting organization, Peacefire. Because making fun of judges is totally a worthwhile project for an organization as such.
It documents both his solicitation of other spammers, and lack of understanding of the law.
He's worked on filter-circumvention software, which made news years ago. A direct quote from that site: "That software, Haselton and the IBB acknowledge, could have other uses here at home".
He spams Slashdot with countless articles that could be summarized to 1-to-2 lines (and often are by comments shortly after being posted). A few of these are linked as related articles above.
He takes huge issue any time that any of his emails aren't received. This article is evidence enough.
And a few other things. I know I'm forgetting many. Anyone else want to step in?
Oh, and do yourself a favor, Bennett. Visit Web Pages That Suck to learn how not to design a webpage. I have yet to see one of your pages look even half-way professional -- which should be important to you if you really want Peacefire to catch on.
You, sir, suffer from standard/. syndrome. I'm sorry.
If you had managed to keep concentration enough to even read and comprehend the fucking summary, you would see that the author was referencing his phone conversation with Mr. Laine, not the comments supposedly written by M.J.L.
The simple answer is no, because nobody can be accurately sure without complicating it with all manners of outside factors. Such is the greatness of any political debate.
And for the proponents of cap. punishment, that article touches those wrongfully accused. My question to you is: What happens if a truly innocent person is found guilty? One less person to pay taxes or whatever else, while the real criminal is still running amok. And what about their family? (I know, it's a cheap shot and there are a million "what about ___" questions. The family, though, is something that I feel is actually fairly pertinent.)
[i]So you're a moral relativist?[/i]
How could any responsible and culturally literate individual not be somewhat of a relativist? Given that there is never any absolutes and no action has any inherent meaning, it's time we stepped out of the dark ages.
I'm not saying we should go around killing people for petty crimes, or even murder, but there are a lot of sociopaths and absolute shitbags that only leech off society. You can, maybe, rehabilitate the shitbags, but the sociopaths I'm not so sure about. We don't use BB code here, try <quote> instead. For other formatting uses, you can reference this table to learn some equivalents.
On topic, I must disagree with you. The shitbags may be able to be rehabilitated, but not by locking them in a box with X number of others just as bad or worse than they are. Who are we kidding that we're actually rehab'ing anyone there? As for the sociopaths, I've researched both for and against Cap. Punishment on-and-off for a couple years and have yet to see any hard evidence that execution reduces murder rate. I'm actually starting to see more evidence that states (and not just "American States") which reserve the right of execution have a higher rate of crime in and around them.
But enough of my ideas and readings that I can't source at the moment. A couple websites showing both sides of the argument are:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html (this one becomes increasingly hard to read due to the horrible formatting job)
It's especially interesting to note that while locking people in the slammer doesn't rehab, it's about US$2 billion cheaper than executing them.
I'm going to make the assumption that you paid with credit card -- being that it was an online order. Credit companies have "safeguards" that disallow customers from spending too much without advanced authorization. To reiterate, individual credit purchases have their own spending limits separate of the total credit limit available on the card. Since you ordered both computers at the same time, Dell's website said "Okay, we're processing your order now" and told you everything was fine. This answers your first question.
I recently went through a similar issue. I tried to order a new laptop and ship to an address that my credit company did not have on file. This being very recent (and not years ago as in your case), I received an email saying that my order had been canceled due to failed credit authorization. I had to jump the same hoops to get the system reordered, including confirming each selected option that had been available. I was quite pleased with the service I received once I got through to the right person. (I navigated a few automated menu systems and often found myself at the wrong department. Eventually, understanding my frustration one of the wrong-department's service reps looked up the exact number and exact 7-digit extension of the exact person to help me.)
As for your second question, it appears to be a hole in the system where your order got lost -- much like that of AnotherCaptainTux (aka "The Brick Guy") and his order just disappearing. The holes shouldn't be there, but nobody is perfect. I, personally, have been quite happy that Dell is once again trying to do a delicate dance in order to offer Linux, especially seeing as how the executives either didn't know about the CompleteCare removal or are realizing it's not acceptable and feigning ignorance.
They probably removed it due to lack of demand. Geeks don't pay for warranties anyway, do they? Apparently they do, as one "geek" wanted to buy CompleteCare. In this case it's a hardware warranty, so your bit about training Ubuntu tech support is a bunch of wasted space. By the way, Dell is partnered with Canonical so they don't have to provide the support anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Chrome has been doing that for ages with the existing suggestions. I setup a Squid cache for my house and found letter-for-letter requests coming from computers using Chrome. Try it yourself if you're curious--or you can just turn off suggestions.
While I agree that nobody likes patent trolls, I sure do hope that you didn't put it to the rep like that. It might've been more effective to talk about the fact that abuse of patents to stifle competition results in a lack of innovation in one's own products. You could state that you are concerned about the implications of the patent lawsuits on Oracle's own business strategy, and that you are not convinced they are truly interested in providing innovation to the medical sector--a sector that desperately needs any and all kind of innovation it can get.
I try to avoid using it. I haven't quite gone to shut it off, but I find it quite like a little brother: it interrupts, thinking that it knows what you're saying before you finish. Only in this case, it knows what you're typing. And just like the little brother, it's wrong a majority of the time. I'm sure that--like the little brother--I'll eventually say "shut up and let me finish", and turn the feature off; especially if it comes to the Chrome Omnibar.
You've made some interesting points, but I'm not convinced that they're fully thought-through. The current elite side with the copyright industry because that's where the money is--not because it's comfortable. The original copyright term was 7 years, plus 7 more if extended. The idea was that this is enough time to profit off an idea before opening it up to innovation. So copyright holders makes a ton of money and rather than wanting to actually work to continue their profit by creating new things, they take their favorite politicians out to dinner, cruises, etc. There is no "that's how it always was" here, but instead an active pressure from those with money.
What? You mean so that he has to walk in and keep a straight face as the clerk sees the price? Also, I doubt the price would stay at $0.49 for very long that way...
Browsing websites such as MySpace works fine without JavaScript -- they want users on their pages, even if their browser doesn't support/enable JavaScript. It is extremely rare that I stumble across a website that I cannot get working. As for user-generated content, that's precisely the reason NoScript! allows you to whitelist specific pages. (Or being that I'm not a dev, perhaps it's just a handy use for that feature).
Please stop spreading FUD and use an extension before you try to knock it.
For your passwords saved in Firefox, do you use a master password?
As far as I know, unless you provide that master password as an external "key" there really isn't any way that Firefox can store your passwords in such a manner to prevent other programs from retrieving them while still able to access them as plain text itself.
It's poor wording. Whether or not this wording is intentional, however, may be a good topic of debate...
Users could also disable JavaScript, which in the age of Web2.0 would cause many pages to display incorrectly. A better alternative is NoScript!, an add-on that allows users to selectively white-list pages, servers, or domains to use JavaScript.
So the alternative theory is that different populations individually evolved into a race of agoraphobes? Makes sense...
Nowadays I do my banking at WaMu, get a daily paper from WaPo... What next, I'll be reading SlaDo?
Actually, the so-called hackers thought that "Do No Evil" was a command to those using Google's services. As such they went elsewhere.
In all seriousness, I'd be willing to bet that they used compromised Yahoo! accounts for a few reasons: yahoo users are generally less computer-savvy (read: easier to compromise), they probably use gmail accounts themselves so they didn't want to draw attention there, and google has been rumored before to keep e-mails even after being deleted from the account.
On the other "hand", I find them rather fun. Why don't you try your "hand" at one?
Floodgate is open, but at least you can say you were there to witness it "first hand".
You do realize you're on /. , right?
While I completely agree with you, I'd also like to point out that one can get foreign music for much cheaper.
About a month-or-so ago, I ordered 5 music CDs from Bangkok -- my first time ordering music from out-of-country. The website included the cost of shipping for each product as part of the price. In 7 days exactly, I received all 5 CDs together in good condition with decent packaging. And it was all for just under US$25.
Now granted, the lyrics were in Thai and it's a style of music that I only listen to on occasion (as opposed to daily) but it still impressed me. I've ordered American music online before and: paid extra for shipping, received horribly beat-up packages, received packages much later, etc. All that American "quality" for many multiples of the price. (Keep in mind that American countries are shipping domestically vs. that website shipping across the world)
I talked to one of my buddies who's lived in Thailand, and when I told him about the music I got he told me that I was ripped off horribly -- buying music locally there is (the baht equivalent of) about US$2. Whatever the case, if I'm not paying the MAFIAA as well as getting damn-cheap music, I'm going to continue exploring foreign countries to get "ripped off" when I purchase music.
Anyone have a good site for European music?
The sad part about that scenario is what you left off:
CEO: Well force the OS X and Linux development machines to use Vista then! We can't afford to have infected machines in the company.
I'm willing to bet my Karma (what Karma, right?) that Bennett Haselton is, himself, a spammer. I periodically stumble, to my dismay, across his ramblings posted here as front-page material. With most of them overly self-righteous and witchunty in nature, I think he has a little something to hide.
So, to keep things concise I'll simply list facts here:
- He delegitimizes spam-fighting cases by attempting to ridicule judges with his website, judgejokes.com. This is even more instrumental than it seems:
- It is registered by his censor-fighting organization, Peacefire. Because making fun of judges is totally a worthwhile project for an organization as such.
- It documents both his solicitation of other spammers, and lack of understanding of the law.
- He's worked on filter-circumvention software, which made news years ago. A direct quote from that site: "That software, Haselton and the IBB acknowledge, could have other uses here at home".
- He spams Slashdot with countless articles that could be summarized to 1-to-2 lines (and often are by comments shortly after being posted). A few of these are linked as related articles above.
- He takes huge issue any time that any of his emails aren't received. This article is evidence enough.
- And a few other things. I know I'm forgetting many. Anyone else want to step in?
Oh, and do yourself a favor, Bennett. Visit Web Pages That Suck to learn how not to design a webpage. I have yet to see one of your pages look even half-way professional -- which should be important to you if you really want Peacefire to catch on.Now commence the -1, Flamebait if you see fit. =D
You, sir, suffer from standard /. syndrome. I'm sorry.
If you had managed to keep concentration enough to even read and comprehend the fucking summary, you would see that the author was referencing his phone conversation with Mr. Laine, not the comments supposedly written by M.J.L.
The simple answer is no, because nobody can be accurately sure without complicating it with all manners of outside factors. Such is the greatness of any political debate.
A recent article exploring Canada's semi-recent abolition of capital punishment tells us that their murder rate is lower 30-years after the abolition than 9 years preceeding. Again, there's 40 years worth of factors both helping and hindering the murder rate, but it's still impressive.
And for the proponents of cap. punishment, that article touches those wrongfully accused. My question to you is: What happens if a truly innocent person is found guilty? One less person to pay taxes or whatever else, while the real criminal is still running amok. And what about their family? (I know, it's a cheap shot and there are a million "what about ___" questions. The family, though, is something that I feel is actually fairly pertinent.)
I'm not saying we should go around killing people for petty crimes, or even murder, but there are a lot of sociopaths and absolute shitbags that only leech off society. You can, maybe, rehabilitate the shitbags, but the sociopaths I'm not so sure about. We don't use BB code here, try <quote> instead. For other formatting uses, you can reference this table to learn some equivalents.
On topic, I must disagree with you. The shitbags may be able to be rehabilitated, but not by locking them in a box with X number of others just as bad or worse than they are. Who are we kidding that we're actually rehab'ing anyone there? As for the sociopaths, I've researched both for and against Cap. Punishment on-and-off for a couple years and have yet to see any hard evidence that execution reduces murder rate. I'm actually starting to see more evidence that states (and not just "American States") which reserve the right of execution have a higher rate of crime in and around them.
But enough of my ideas and readings that I can't source at the moment. A couple websites showing both sides of the argument are:
It's especially interesting to note that while locking people in the slammer doesn't rehab, it's about US$2 billion cheaper than executing them.
I'm going to make the assumption that you paid with credit card -- being that it was an online order. Credit companies have "safeguards" that disallow customers from spending too much without advanced authorization. To reiterate, individual credit purchases have their own spending limits separate of the total credit limit available on the card. Since you ordered both computers at the same time, Dell's website said "Okay, we're processing your order now" and told you everything was fine. This answers your first question.
I recently went through a similar issue. I tried to order a new laptop and ship to an address that my credit company did not have on file. This being very recent (and not years ago as in your case), I received an email saying that my order had been canceled due to failed credit authorization. I had to jump the same hoops to get the system reordered, including confirming each selected option that had been available. I was quite pleased with the service I received once I got through to the right person. (I navigated a few automated menu systems and often found myself at the wrong department. Eventually, understanding my frustration one of the wrong-department's service reps looked up the exact number and exact 7-digit extension of the exact person to help me.)
As for your second question, it appears to be a hole in the system where your order got lost -- much like that of AnotherCaptainTux (aka "The Brick Guy") and his order just disappearing. The holes shouldn't be there, but nobody is perfect. I, personally, have been quite happy that Dell is once again trying to do a delicate dance in order to offer Linux, especially seeing as how the executives either didn't know about the CompleteCare removal or are realizing it's not acceptable and feigning ignorance.
What were you saying again?