demanding proof for the existence of a Supernatural creator that exists outside of the boundaries and confines of a natural world seems illogical to me.
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened?... I'd like to understand how that's possible.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+sexual+reproduction , Wikipedia: "Sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species"
Kent State, Jim Crow killings, Dresden, etc. The difference however, is that the USA reflects on its past in a much more transparent way than China does today.
How many Americans reflect, or even know about, the Bonus Army protesters being brutally crushed by U.S. Army tanks in the streets of Washington D.C.?
I'm not even convinced that most Americans still remember the examples you gave (Kent State, Jim Crow killings, Dresden)... perhaps a certain amount of cultural forgetfulness is human, and only the mechanisms of this are different.
Killing civilians in this day and age reduces your chances of successfully imposing your will, so it's counter-productive, for all the damage you may cause to the enemy.
Really? The Taliban must be losing in a landslide then in Afghanistan. The Taliban make it their modus operandi to kill
Straw man argument - he said it is counter-productive, not that they absolutely will fail. There are some other factors to take in to account in Afghanistan, such as the fact that the opposing side (NATO) has also killed thousands of innocent civilians.
Civilians of the enemy nation are indeed the enemy.... the very fact that they are still in the enemy country, paying taxes, is also supporting the war.
It is a countries duty to police their politicians. If they are unable to hold them in check, they must suffer the consequences of the actions that those politicians take. It's a rough reality, but it is true.
That is exactly the same argument used by Osama bin Laden: bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions.
One thing that often does not get mentioned in these discussions of world war ii is what the allies demanded as conditions for peace.
No. World War II in Europe has one of the clearest reasons for starting of any war.
The cause of the war has nothing to do with the conditions of surrender. It is entirely possible for both claims to be true: that both the start of the war was legitimate, and the conditions of surrender many years later were unacceptable.
All assets of a country you are at war at are legitimate targets. Babies, puppies, little old ladies. Anything that would stop the German people from trying to rule the world was a legitimate target.
You do realise that this is exactly the same argument that Osama bin Laden used to justify attacks on the World Trade Center and other civilian targets?
The very idea that there are "rules of war" is just stupid.
So it is stupid that soldiers are not allowed to round up civilians and murder them? You do realise that you are arguing in support of Nazi-era policies that the civilised world finds abhorrent?
Would you shoot some strangers baby in the face if the alternative was that he would shoot your baby in the face?
What a strange world you live in, where these are the only two possible outcomes... In actual fact, shooting someone's baby will make them more likely to attack you, not less. You do realise that by advocating the murder of families you are arguing in favour of Nazi-style collective punishment?
Unfortunately, there is no consequence for the alarmists when sea level doesn't rise as they predicted. This lack of accountability means that anything goes, and bias rules the roost.
Where is the accountability for the people (Republican politicians, in this case) who are predicting zero rise? This lack of accountability means that anything goes, and bias rules the roost.
Google's decision to defend its position at a trial has paid off: it gets away unscathed, at least for another couple of years, with what it's done. Very few companies in Google's place would have taken the risks associated with his before the trial began, and the risks that still remain.
The literal jury was discharged more than a week ago, but the proverbial jury is still out on this one
Judge Alsup knew all along that a decision against the copyrightability of the asserted API SSO would face a considerable risk of being overturned... it's fair to say that even he is clearly unsure of the defensibility of his ruling on appeal
Caution is required because Google has built key parts of Android on a controversial theory..
At one point he even accuses the judge of "potentially misleading" (because he used a simple example to illustrate a method definition), and then deliberately using that "misleading" example to issue a sweeping ruling that covers more complicated functions:
public static int max (int x, int y)
The order makes clear that this is merely an example to illustrate, but the choice of this example is potentially misleading. Programmers know that there are far longer and more expressive names than "max" (those who read my blog won't be surprised to hear that my own coding style is to use rather long and expressive names -- not always, but sometimes) and, especially, more complicated parameter lists and, most importantly, more project-specific types of functions than the rather generic concept of calculating the greater of two values....
In other words, he issued a sweeping ruling in order to prevent someone from potentially concluding from a ruling on this particular case of copying that there's room for potentially "sweeping" claims along the lines of monopolizing "max", or a fundamental math library.
What kind of storage system can work over seasonal timescales?
Pumped hydro storage for electricity, Ground source heat pumps for heating. The ground source can be heated in summer via solar or air conditioning, and the pumps can be driven by generated electricity in winter (an average heat pump has an efficiency of 400%, 660% efficient pumps are available in Japan):
Heat pumps are superior in efficiency to condensing boilers, even if the heat pumps are powered by electricity from a
power station burning natural gas. If you want to heat lots of buildings
using natural gas, you could install condensing boilers, which are “90% efficient,” or you could send the same gas to a new gas power station making
electricity and install electricity-powered heat pumps in all the buildings;
the second solution’s efficiency would be somewhere between 140% and
185%.
heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of 6.6 have
been available in Japan since 2006. The performance of heat pumps in Japan
improved from 3 to 6 within a decade thanks to government regulations.
So if we switch to ground-source
heat pumps, we should plan to include substantial summer heat-dumping
in the design, so as to refill the ground with heat for use in the winter. This
summer heat-dumping could use heat from air-conditioning, or heat from roof-mounted solar water-heating panels. (Summer solar heat is stored in
the ground for subsequent use in winter by Drake Landing Solar Com-
munity in Canada [www.dlsc.ca].) Alternatively, we should expect to need
to use some air-source heat pumps too, and then we’ll be able to get all
the heat we want – as long as we have the electricity to pump it.
He didn't say 100% of Europe's electricity - he was referring to Germany's (nuclear generated?) electricity. 203.7 billion Euros ($255 billion) would buy a lot of solar panels. I don't know if that would be enough to match whatever German electricity production figure the OP was referring to, perhaps someone will work it out.
An organization called DESERTEC [www.desertec.org] is promoting a plan
to use concentrating solar power in sunny Mediterranean countries, and
high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission lines (figure 25.7) to deliver
the power to cloudier northern parts. HVDC technology has been in
use since 1954 to transmit power both through overhead lines and through
submarine cables (such as the interconnector between France and England).
It is already used to transmit electricity over 1000-km distances
in South Africa, China, America, Canada, Brazil, and Congo. A typical
500 kV line can transmit a power of 2 GW. A pair of HVDC lines in Brazil
transmits 6.3 GW.
HVDC is preferred over traditional high-voltage AC lines because less
physical hardware is needed, less land area is needed, and the power losses
of HVDC are smaller. The power losses on a 3500 km-long HVDC line, including conversion from AC to DC and back, would be about 15%. A
further advantage of HVDC systems is that they help stabilize the electricity
networks to which they are connected.
When you see others posting and saying, "Oh but what happens when the sun isn't shining." quite a few of them are intelligent people.
The problem with your assertion is the "solar is useless because the sun does not shine 24 hours a day" argument assumes that a) sustainable energy proponents have not already thought of this (they have), and b) there are no possible solutions. Intelligent people who are actually interested in investigating and learning about the issues, rather than scoring some cheap political points, would have discovered that both of these assumptions are false, and hence wouldn't repeat that particular argument in the first place.
Sustainable energy sources fluctuate, but there are already solutions to this problem. In particular, pumped storage is already used in Britain to store 30 GWh of excess energy produced in the night, for release during the day with only 30 seconds delay for a whole hydro station to come online. The efficiency of this pumped storage system is 75% (it is estimated that newer facilities could achieve 85%). There are people proposing building a 1km drop pumped storage system beneath London.
Anyone who is intelligent and educated and who still claims that "solar power can't work at night" or "wind power can't work when it's not windy" is being deceptive, by deliberately ignoring the fact that energy can be stored. This is not a fantasy, it is a system that already exists and is in real use.
Part of the problem is that traditionally most companies have been happy to work out alternate licensing agreements. Apple is the first big player to actually pay the FRAND costs instead of negotiating.
The problem is that there is no $ value assigned to patents. A cash price that Apple considers "fair" is not the same cash price that Samsung considers "fair". What exactly is a "fair" price for an essential wireless patent? Read this article part-authored by a Chicago patent attorney:
In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. Nokia could be asking for $1 per iPhone -- chump change for Apple -- or it could be asking for $100 per iPhone. As of right now we have no real way of knowing -- but since all Nokia's asked the court to do is set a price, it's clearly willing to simply accept cash and move on.
StatCounter recently announced that they have updated their data as of May 1, 2012 to reflect prerendering in Chrome. However, there is no indication of either methodology
They state the methodology in their FAQ:
BROWSERS: Do you adjust your browser stats for prerendering/pre-loading? Two browsers are affected by preview-type requests - Chrome and Safari.
Chrome Further to a significant number of user requests, we are now adjusting our browser stats to remove the effect of prerendering in Google Chrome. From 1 May 2012, prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are not included in our stats.
Some points to note:
Prerendering was announced by Chrome in June 2011. This change did not have any significant impact on our stats.
Chrome is currently allowing the detection of prerendering behavior via its Page Visibility API.
Google specifically states:
" Important: This is an experimental API and may change-or even be removed-in the future, especially as the Page Visibility API standard, which is an early draft, evolves."
This means that in the future it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on Chrome.
If other browsers adopt prerendering then it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on those browsers. In that case, the fairest solution would be to include all page views (prerendered or not) for all browsers rather than only excluding prerendering in Chrome. That scenario would require us to revisit this methodology change in the future.
We publish a graph showing total prerendered page views tracked in Chrome, together with the portion of prerendered pages which are not actually viewed by the end user. The prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are removed from our stats. For May 2012, the percentage of prerendered pages (not viewed) in Chrome is approximately 1.3%. Note that this change has not had any significant impact on our browser stats. This is due to our use of page views to track browser usage - page views are less susceptible to influence by prerendering than unique visitors.
Safari
The Top Sites feature in Safari shows preview thumbnails of frequently visited sites. These preview thumbnails are refreshed by Safari periodically. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exclude these previews from being tracked. To get a bit technical, this is because the "X-Purpose: preview" header is only sent with the request for the base page. The header is not sent as part of requests for images, CSS or JavaScript that have to be downloaded and executed as part of the Top Sites preview. With online web analytics (as provided by StatCounter) the relevant header information is not passed so these preview requests can't be detected and therefore can't be removed. Ideally Safari will change this to ensure to send the "X-Purpose: preview" header with all Top Sites HTTP requests, however this is not the case at present.
Interesting that Safari is still being over-counted though.
A modern-day browser like Chrome with Flash will not run properly on just 512MB of RAM
Chrome without Flash, on the other hand, will run fine. I used to run Tiny Core Linux on a Wyse terminal with 64MB RAM, and it was fine for general web browsing. Opera also ran ok.
They're cloning the software token, not breaking the scheme that the hardware uses.
The algorithm that the software and hardware implement is the same. What has been done here is to show that the software mechanisms in place to protect the token file under Windows can be broken, despite the claims of RSA:
This file can be viewed by any SQLite database browser, but sensitive information such as the checksum and seed values are encrypted. RSA documentation states that this database file is both encrypted and copy protected: “RSA SecurID Software Token for Windows uses the following data protection mechanisms to tie the token database to a specific computer:
* Binding the database to the computer's primary hard disk drive
* Implementing the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI)
These mechanisms ensure that an intruder cannot move the token database to another computer and access the tokens. Even if you disable copy protection, the database is still protected by DPAPI.”
So if the RSA software token is installed on a Windows PC, and you can access that PC (remotely or physically), then you can copy the token; the result is the same as having cloned a person's hardware token.
If you're going to shill against Google, you should make sure your points are valid; there are some valid things that they could be criticised for, but just making stuff up isn't going to work.
Great example is hotel, restaurant etc reviews on Google Maps. They are all taken from competitors services
No. The reviews on Google maps are submitted by users directly to Google. Non-Google sourced reviews are linked at the bottom ("Reviews from around the web:"), not embedded.
If you want to use AdWords, you cannot run your ads on competitors services. It is prohibited in the terms.
Google currently has 66% of the search market... Interesting that Microsoft is arguing that 66% market share amounts to a dominant, monopolisitic amount that puts Google into anti-trust territory. I wonder what market share Windows and Office currently have, and if Microsoft would accept that they have a monopoly there?
Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.
Indeed, but it's worth remembering that there are plenty of places in the world where the social stigma of being filmed having heterosexual sex would likely lead one of the partners to suicide.
You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it.
So we shouldn't prosecute terrorism as a crime in itself?
What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime.
So you see no difference between shooting someone because you think that they intend to harm your family, and shooting someone because you think they are Jewish and you (Nazi) want to kill all Jews? The end result is the same - you shot someone, they died - the only difference is your motivation.
The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off.
Try not to be so emotional, it inhibits your rational thought.
Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong. If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.
So protecting minorities like Alan Turing (homosexual) or Einstein (Jew) from persecution would result in no benefits to our society?
Slashdot Mirror
demanding proof for the existence of a Supernatural creator that exists outside of the boundaries and confines of a natural world seems illogical to me.
Russell's teapot:
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.
Creationism is based on specific facts,
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? ... I'd like to understand how that's possible.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+sexual+reproduction , Wikipedia: "Sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species"
Riddle me this: there are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA. Virus copies are also found in chimp DNA. Why would a creator insert broken copies of viral DNA into his creations? I've never heard a good creationist explanation for that.
Kent State, Jim Crow killings, Dresden, etc. The difference however, is that the USA reflects on its past in a much more transparent way than China does today.
How many Americans reflect, or even know about, the Bonus Army protesters being brutally crushed by U.S. Army tanks in the streets of Washington D.C.?
I'm not even convinced that most Americans still remember the examples you gave (Kent State, Jim Crow killings, Dresden)... perhaps a certain amount of cultural forgetfulness is human, and only the mechanisms of this are different.
Killing civilians in this day and age reduces your chances of successfully imposing your will, so it's counter-productive, for all the damage you may cause to the enemy.
Really? The Taliban must be losing in a landslide then in Afghanistan. The Taliban make it their modus operandi to kill
Straw man argument - he said it is counter-productive, not that they absolutely will fail. There are some other factors to take in to account in Afghanistan, such as the fact that the opposing side (NATO) has also killed thousands of innocent civilians.
Civilians of the enemy nation are indeed the enemy.... the very fact that they are still in the enemy country, paying taxes, is also supporting the war.
Which is exactly the same argument Osama bin Laden used to justify attacking American civilians. Be careful of the company you keep.
It is a countries duty to police their politicians. If they are unable to hold them in check, they must suffer the consequences of the actions that those politicians take. It's a rough reality, but it is true.
That is exactly the same argument used by Osama bin Laden: bin Laden's 'Letter to America' justifies attacking civilians by stating that they are a complicit part in the American military actions abroad because they have chosen their government democratically, and pay taxes to fund their actions.
One thing that often does not get mentioned in these discussions of world war ii is what the allies demanded as conditions for peace.
No. World War II in Europe has one of the clearest reasons for starting of any war.
The cause of the war has nothing to do with the conditions of surrender. It is entirely possible for both claims to be true: that both the start of the war was legitimate, and the conditions of surrender many years later were unacceptable.
All assets of a country you are at war at are legitimate targets. Babies, puppies, little old ladies. Anything that would stop the German people from trying to rule the world was a legitimate target.
You do realise that this is exactly the same argument that Osama bin Laden used to justify attacks on the World Trade Center and other civilian targets?
The very idea that there are "rules of war" is just stupid.
So it is stupid that soldiers are not allowed to round up civilians and murder them? You do realise that you are arguing in support of Nazi-era policies that the civilised world finds abhorrent?
Would you shoot some strangers baby in the face if the alternative was that he would shoot your baby in the face?
What a strange world you live in, where these are the only two possible outcomes... In actual fact, shooting someone's baby will make them more likely to attack you, not less. You do realise that by advocating the murder of families you are arguing in favour of Nazi-style collective punishment?
Unfortunately, there is no consequence for the alarmists when sea level doesn't rise as they predicted. This lack of accountability means that anything goes, and bias rules the roost.
Where is the accountability for the people (Republican politicians, in this case) who are predicting zero rise? This lack of accountability means that anything goes, and bias rules the roost.
Google's decision to defend its position at a trial has paid off: it gets away unscathed, at least for another couple of years, with what it's done. Very few companies in Google's place would have taken the risks associated with his before the trial began, and the risks that still remain.
The literal jury was discharged more than a week ago, but the proverbial jury is still out on this one
Judge Alsup knew all along that a decision against the copyrightability of the asserted API SSO would face a considerable risk of being overturned... it's fair to say that even he is clearly unsure of the defensibility of his ruling on appeal
Caution is required because Google has built key parts of Android on a controversial theory..
At one point he even accuses the judge of "potentially misleading" (because he used a simple example to illustrate a method definition), and then deliberately using that "misleading" example to issue a sweeping ruling that covers more complicated functions:
public static int max (int x, int y)
The order makes clear that this is merely an example to illustrate, but the choice of this example is potentially misleading. Programmers know that there are far longer and more expressive names than "max" (those who read my blog won't be surprised to hear that my own coding style is to use rather long and expressive names -- not always, but sometimes) and, especially, more complicated parameter lists and, most importantly, more project-specific types of functions than the rather generic concept of calculating the greater of two values....
In other words, he issued a sweeping ruling in order to prevent someone from potentially concluding from a ruling on this particular case of copying that there's room for potentially "sweeping" claims along the lines of monopolizing "max", or a fundamental math library.
What kind of storage system can work over seasonal timescales?
Pumped hydro storage for electricity, Ground source heat pumps for heating. The ground source can be heated in summer via solar or air conditioning, and the pumps can be driven by generated electricity in winter (an average heat pump has an efficiency of 400%, 660% efficient pumps are available in Japan):
Heat pumps are superior in efficiency to condensing boilers, even if the heat pumps are powered by electricity from a power station burning natural gas. If you want to heat lots of buildings using natural gas, you could install condensing boilers, which are “90% efficient,” or you could send the same gas to a new gas power station making electricity and install electricity-powered heat pumps in all the buildings; the second solution’s efficiency would be somewhere between 140% and 185%.
heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of 6.6 have been available in Japan since 2006. The performance of heat pumps in Japan improved from 3 to 6 within a decade thanks to government regulations.
So if we switch to ground-source heat pumps, we should plan to include substantial summer heat-dumping in the design, so as to refill the ground with heat for use in the winter. This summer heat-dumping could use heat from air-conditioning, or heat from roof-mounted solar water-heating panels. (Summer solar heat is stored in the ground for subsequent use in winter by Drake Landing Solar Com- munity in Canada [www.dlsc.ca].) Alternatively, we should expect to need to use some air-source heat pumps too, and then we’ll be able to get all the heat we want – as long as we have the electricity to pump it.
being naked in public
Again, doesn't compare. The freedom to express one's ideas is far more important than the claimed right of showing off one's genitals.
It is amazing that you can't see the inherent contradiction in your statement. Is being naked in public not an act of self expression?
We could have gotten 100% of Europe's electricity
He didn't say 100% of Europe's electricity - he was referring to Germany's (nuclear generated?) electricity. 203.7 billion Euros ($255 billion) would buy a lot of solar panels. I don't know if that would be enough to match whatever German electricity production figure the OP was referring to, perhaps someone will work it out.
shipped it with a 50% loss across half the globe
No, 15%:
An organization called DESERTEC [www.desertec.org] is promoting a plan to use concentrating solar power in sunny Mediterranean countries, and high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission lines (figure 25.7) to deliver the power to cloudier northern parts. HVDC technology has been in use since 1954 to transmit power both through overhead lines and through submarine cables (such as the interconnector between France and England). It is already used to transmit electricity over 1000-km distances in South Africa, China, America, Canada, Brazil, and Congo. A typical 500 kV line can transmit a power of 2 GW. A pair of HVDC lines in Brazil transmits 6.3 GW.
HVDC is preferred over traditional high-voltage AC lines because less physical hardware is needed, less land area is needed, and the power losses of HVDC are smaller. The power losses on a 3500 km-long HVDC line, including conversion from AC to DC and back, would be about 15%. A further advantage of HVDC systems is that they help stabilize the electricity networks to which they are connected.
When you see others posting and saying, "Oh but what happens when the sun isn't shining." quite a few of them are intelligent people.
The problem with your assertion is the "solar is useless because the sun does not shine 24 hours a day" argument assumes that a) sustainable energy proponents have not already thought of this (they have), and b) there are no possible solutions. Intelligent people who are actually interested in investigating and learning about the issues, rather than scoring some cheap political points, would have discovered that both of these assumptions are false, and hence wouldn't repeat that particular argument in the first place.
Sustainable energy sources fluctuate, but there are already solutions to this problem. In particular, pumped storage is already used in Britain to store 30 GWh of excess energy produced in the night, for release during the day with only 30 seconds delay for a whole hydro station to come online. The efficiency of this pumped storage system is 75% (it is estimated that newer facilities could achieve 85%). There are people proposing building a 1km drop pumped storage system beneath London.
Anyone who is intelligent and educated and who still claims that "solar power can't work at night" or "wind power can't work when it's not windy" is being deceptive, by deliberately ignoring the fact that energy can be stored. This is not a fantasy, it is a system that already exists and is in real use.
This entire subsidy crap stinks of corruption and cronyism and celebrating this is frankly sickening.
You do realise that power production from nuclear and fossil fuels is also subsidized by the government?
Part of the problem is that traditionally most companies have been happy to work out alternate licensing agreements. Apple is the first big player to actually pay the FRAND costs instead of negotiating.
The problem is that there is no $ value assigned to patents. A cash price that Apple considers "fair" is not the same cash price that Samsung considers "fair". What exactly is a "fair" price for an essential wireless patent? Read this article part-authored by a Chicago patent attorney:
In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. Nokia could be asking for $1 per iPhone -- chump change for Apple -- or it could be asking for $100 per iPhone. As of right now we have no real way of knowing -- but since all Nokia's asked the court to do is set a price, it's clearly willing to simply accept cash and move on.
Tormenting telemarketers
StatCounter recently announced that they have updated their data as of May 1, 2012 to reflect prerendering in Chrome. However, there is no indication of either methodology
They state the methodology in their FAQ:
BROWSERS: Do you adjust your browser stats for prerendering/pre-loading?
Two browsers are affected by preview-type requests - Chrome and Safari.
Chrome
Further to a significant number of user requests, we are now adjusting our browser stats to remove the effect of prerendering in Google Chrome. From 1 May 2012, prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are not included in our stats.
Some points to note:
Prerendering was announced by Chrome in June 2011. This change did not have any significant impact on our stats.
Chrome is currently allowing the detection of prerendering behavior via its Page Visibility API.
Google specifically states: "
Important: This is an experimental API and may change-or even be removed-in the future, especially as the Page Visibility API standard, which is an early draft, evolves."
This means that in the future it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on Chrome. If other browsers adopt prerendering then it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on those browsers. In that case, the fairest solution would be to include all page views (prerendered or not) for all browsers rather than only excluding prerendering in Chrome. That scenario would require us to revisit this methodology change in the future.
We publish a graph showing total prerendered page views tracked in Chrome, together with the portion of prerendered pages which are not actually viewed by the end user. The prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are removed from our stats. For May 2012, the percentage of prerendered pages (not viewed) in Chrome is approximately 1.3%. Note that this change has not had any significant impact on our browser stats. This is due to our use of page views to track browser usage - page views are less susceptible to influence by prerendering than unique visitors.
Safari
The Top Sites feature in Safari shows preview thumbnails of frequently visited sites. These preview thumbnails are refreshed by Safari periodically. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exclude these previews from being tracked. To get a bit technical, this is because the "X-Purpose: preview" header is only sent with the request for the base page. The header is not sent as part of requests for images, CSS or JavaScript that have to be downloaded and executed as part of the Top Sites preview. With online web analytics (as provided by StatCounter) the relevant header information is not passed so these preview requests can't be detected and therefore can't be removed. Ideally Safari will change this to ensure to send the "X-Purpose: preview" header with all Top Sites HTTP requests, however this is not the case at present.
Interesting that Safari is still being over-counted though.
A modern-day browser like Chrome with Flash will not run properly on just 512MB of RAM
Chrome without Flash, on the other hand, will run fine. I used to run Tiny Core Linux on a Wyse terminal with 64MB RAM, and it was fine for general web browsing. Opera also ran ok.
They're cloning the software token, not breaking the scheme that the hardware uses.
The algorithm that the software and hardware implement is the same. What has been done here is to show that the software mechanisms in place to protect the token file under Windows can be broken, despite the claims of RSA:
This file can be viewed by any SQLite database browser, but sensitive information such as the checksum and seed values are encrypted. RSA documentation states that this database file is both encrypted and copy protected: “RSA SecurID Software Token for Windows uses the following data protection mechanisms to tie the token database to a specific computer:
* Binding the database to the computer's primary hard disk drive
* Implementing the Windows Data Protection API (DPAPI)
These mechanisms ensure that an intruder cannot move the token database to another computer and access the tokens. Even if you disable copy protection, the database is still protected by DPAPI.”
So if the RSA software token is installed on a Windows PC, and you can access that PC (remotely or physically), then you can copy the token; the result is the same as having cloned a person's hardware token.
If you're going to shill against Google, you should make sure your points are valid; there are some valid things that they could be criticised for, but just making stuff up isn't going to work.
Great example is hotel, restaurant etc reviews on Google Maps. They are all taken from competitors services
No. The reviews on Google maps are submitted by users directly to Google. Non-Google sourced reviews are linked at the bottom ("Reviews from around the web:"), not embedded.
If you want to use AdWords, you cannot run your ads on competitors services. It is prohibited in the terms.
[citationneeded]
Google currently has 66% of the search market... Interesting that Microsoft is arguing that 66% market share amounts to a dominant, monopolisitic amount that puts Google into anti-trust territory. I wonder what market share Windows and Office currently have, and if Microsoft would accept that they have a monopoly there?
Both are just wrong, but the first one is more so because it carries social prejudice along with it.
Indeed, but it's worth remembering that there are plenty of places in the world where the social stigma of being filmed having heterosexual sex would likely lead one of the partners to suicide.
Antiguan Girl Attempts Suicide After Sex Tape Leak
Yang Qi Han Attempts Suicide For Sex Video
Officer videoed having sex on duty attempt suicide
You should prosecute a person for what they did, not for what they felt while doing it.
So we shouldn't prosecute terrorism as a crime in itself?
What a person does is crime. What a person thinks or feels, is only thoughtcrime.
So you see no difference between shooting someone because you think that they intend to harm your family, and shooting someone because you think they are Jewish and you (Nazi) want to kill all Jews? The end result is the same - you shot someone, they died - the only difference is your motivation.
The whole concept of "hate crime" pisses me off.
Try not to be so emotional, it inhibits your rational thought.
Maybe I DON'T WANT MY FUCKING TAX DOLLARS being spent to "protect" a weakling, by punishing the strong. If we continue to coddle weak mindedness in our society, the only possible outcome will be our eventual downfall, and enslavement to a society which chose another path.
So protecting minorities like Alan Turing (homosexual) or Einstein (Jew) from persecution would result in no benefits to our society?