That's not entirely implausible. It was Jan. 2003 when the first beta was released, and they'd certainly started on Safari earlier. Firefox didn't even exist as a name, it was Phoenix at the time, so they had certainly never heard of Firefox. And Phoenix had been out for less than 4 months.
Mozilla Suite existed beforehand. I can't blame Apple for not wanting that. Firefox forked for a reason.
I don't think you're actually contradicting me here.
First, Apple started developing its own web browser well before Steve Jobs announced it, particularly since they released a beta on that same day. I don't know when exactly they started. If they started before September 23, 2002, then not one release of Firefox even existed at the time. Mozilla did, but not FF (Phoenix).
Second, I think Jan to June 2003 is kind of significant in this context -- back then the project was called Phoenix and the latest release, one month earlier, had just added History. My recollection of the rendering and performance, which is admittedly hazy at this point, was that it kind of sucked. With IE6 as the basis of comparison. It got better later.
I'm just saying that Firefox was hardly a mature clear choice over Apple forking KHTML and rolling its own UI layer.
I do not know how mature Safari was on its first release, since around 2003 I wasn't seeing a lot of Macs.
Hard to say for sure. Perhaps in this language, the construct "find " will modify , which in this case happens to be tits. This is certainly what I would assume.
Alternatively, perhaps "tits" is intentionally not thread-safe, and therefore this is essentially a spinlock.
The whole point of the article is that the failure to compete might indicate that there is not a fair and equal level to compete on in the first place.
You've lost sight of the argument. The position being argued is:
Women aren't as competitive as men are. It's a fact. Get over it. We don't need any more equal opportunity programs, we don't need morons meddling in people's natures.
(with the further implication that this lack of competitiveness is why women aren't VCs etc.).
First, if you say "It's a fact. Get over it." you HAVE to put up references even if it's not peer-reviewed. This isn't common sense, this is a meme that may or may not be true, but without some backing it's an unsupported meme.
Second, that right there was the positive statement. I don't see what you think should have been referenced by the dissent on this.
Third, your entire argument here is beside the point, because nobody (in this particular branch of this particular thread, anyway) was arguing that there are no differences between men and women. That's a straw man.
If there are a disproportionate number of one race in a position of power, then something has gone wrong. That's all there is to it.
There are too many black people in jail, there are too many white guys as CEOs. Really those are two sides of the same coin. It's not that they're unqualified because they're white, it's that white people aren't specially qualified for this position and therefore it's troubling that white people occupy this position disproportionately. There will of course be random variations with things, and some cultural things, and maybe there are cases where one race is uniquely suited (the only thing that comes to mind is historical movies with a particular setting -- you don't put a Japanese man as the lead role of something set during the pre-Colombian wars between the Mayans and the Incas) which displace others. But continued disproportionate representation in positions of power could only be justified if either they were within expected statistical variance, or white people are more qualified than other races. If neither of these things are true, then there are too many white people.
It's privilege to be able to pretend that there is no link without even investigating the cause. The "too many Jews", "too many Arabs", etc. things you say -- whether that's racist depends on the rest of the sentence and the argument being presented. "There are too many Arabs being stopped at airport security". I don't even know whether that's true (I expect it is) but it's worthy of a second look. "There are too many Arabs in the oil industry" -- you can trace that back to geographic factors. Arabs are concentrated disproportionately in places that have a lot of oil. Thus, the disproportionate amount is expected.
In the case of "too many white people", the hypothesis that seems to be advanced is that CEO's are insular and are based on friendship / family rather than merit, which isn't necessarily in and of itself racist but it's still wrong and it ends up being racist because what it perpetuates comes from a time of greater racism.
The Arian supremist group strawman is ridiculous. Maybe you could start from the position that people who don't immediately agree with you might not be incredible morons, and then you could engage them rationally or come to the conclusion reasonably.
Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I've seen this over and over in "Israeli X does Y" articles on slashdot (eg. Intel engineers coming out with a cool new chip). I've yet to see the complaint launched at Norwegians.
Your hypothetical situation isn't parallel precisely because it didn't happen. If it did happen, then you have a point.
I've worked in several contemporary office environments and I've never seen this (and I'm a straight dude, etc., etc.), except on TV. I wonder if it's regional?
I think that will stop Firefox and Webkit from incorporating it. Hypothetically somebody could fork a free software browser that decodes H.264 and distribute it into countries that recognize the patents, but I doubt that anybody without backing significant enough that civil disobedience is out of the question could reach a lot of people. Although I think that makes it a time bomb for any redistributors and not, in fact, free software.
Or they could do it via plugin, but that defeats the "without installing additional software" goal.
First, you don't get to claim that the entire environmental movement is anti-nuclear. We are sitting here making arguments that nuclear power is the environmentally friendly option (with the usual proviso that REALLY we could just stop using all electricity and starve ourselves to death and that wouldn't harm the environment much).
Second, your point doesn't eliminate the need for nuclear power, it just shows that, unless you make giant adjustable heat-sinks, it isn't a 100% solution. Neither is solar or wind though, which you yourself tacitly admit by showing you have to use a broad array of different sources to achieve 24/7 supply. This is the perfect place for water power, where available, or bio-gas to pick up the slack during peak hours. Turns out though that there's basically a minimum demand that always has to be met and using a non-variable source to meet that is not only effective, but it makes it easier for the somewhat regulable but also flaky (because they respond to the environment) renewable sources to pick up the slack.
Nobody is ever arguing "NO RENEWABLES. EVER.", so it really doesn't help your case to show that 100% nuclear doesn't solve the problem, particularly when 100% wind, 100% solar, etc. etc. clearly can't work either. You need a blended approach.
Most people would consider it to be a curve, because EVERYTHING is radioactive for a long time. We label things "radioactive" that are radioactive for a time, relative to everything else, that is extremely short, even if it is 10000 years.
In the case of nuclear byproducts, yes, something that is deadly for 50 years with minimal exposure and then is essentially as inert as the background is better in many ways than something that is toxic with sufficiently high exposure for thousands of years, because we can handle it within a lifetime. But the long half-life material is still what you'd rather be locked in a room with.
Yes, I'd have given Bush CPR. Even though I hated just about everything his Presidency stood for. I'm good like that.
Maybe I'd have let Hitler or Stalin choke. There are levels of evil.
Although it's hard to guarantee that letting such figures die wouldn't have led to even worse people taking over. The martyr effect can be powerful. We're still talking about one particularly important one about 2000 years later.
1. Nobody's talking about patent infringement. 2. McDonalds couldn't claim against McSomething, but that's not parallel. What's more similar here is McDonalds suing over MCDONALDS. Which I think is perfectly reasonable provided we all agree that it's okay to sue over McDonalds (which, maybe not, because that's a name so it's kind of weird in the first place -- I don't think iPad is a common human name, though I'm not aware of the common names of all countries). 3. Prepending a letter, particularly 'i', is common but that doesn't make it un-trademarkable. Apple is a trademark, and it's been an actual dictionary word for ages. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#3. The iPad is a suggestive mark under that categorization, as is the IPAD, but they are in very similar product lines -- a phone and a scaled-up-phone-without-a-phone-in-it:).
That's simply not true. That might be true in the GTA; I don't remember other strictly-cable companies (though Bell offered FiOS TV as well as satellite). But I'm from Ontario -- southern Ontario, even -- and hadn't heard of Rogers other than as a cellphone provider before leaving for University (U of T). We got Sautel; some people not far away got Shaw.
The article is misleading (it appears that the author is himself confused).
There's only one liquid phase, and it's the same one between graphite and diamond. SpinyNorman's phase diagram graph shows it well. Look at "graphite + metastable diamond". There are diamonds at that temperature, although they'd "rather" be graphite, to anthropomorphise it. Then increase temperature by going directly to the right. It will first turn to graphite as it crosses the dashed line, then it will melt. Cool it down by going left and it turns to graphite, then keep going left back where you started and you've got...still graphite. Because that's still a region where graphite can exist.
What they're describing was pushing it up via high pressure, before going right and then left. In this case, you don't cross the graphite-only region in either direction, but the diamond region, so there's no graphite involved.
"Second, sandboxing does absolutely nothing to stop social attacks, which are one of the leading ways that sensitive data is stolen from users."
True, and that's often lost on people, but irrelevant to the subject at hand. We were talking about whether a browser could do anything to mitigate insecure plugins as an attack vector short of disabling plugins.
"Third, it doesn't matter how much sandboxing you do when the underlying operating system is Windows, and is already full of holes and incapable of providing a sufficient level of security in the first place."
To be fair, alignment issues could be resolved by using tabs to indent, and then spaces for the fine-grained spacing within the code.
Of course, that also means that there are inevitably going to be invisible, non-syntactic "mistakes" in the code that will cause people with editors set to different tab-stops to see different results.
The solution to that would be language-aware auto-indenter which runs before checkin, but once you have that you can have all the benefits of tabs with pure spaces anyway (you just have to apply its inverse on each sync to source).
I prefer spaces precisely because it *isn't* different for everybody, which reduces the possibility of miscommunication, and code is a place for precision. Still, I'm happy so long as the source is consistent.
Also, I find it easier to use the "find" functions in editors when there are leading spaces, simply because the tab key is so often used for keyboard accessibility in the find dialog or what-have-you that comes up, so I've got to paste in a tab character or remember whatever arcane command this application on this OS uses to type a tab. I could use a regex or similar, but that's often overkill, and that also has the problem that every damn program has slightly different regex syntax.
"There is no doubt that their accuracy will be no better than random chance."
True
"Put a box that may or may not actually be a wi-fi router right next to them, and this should be like stuffing peanuts down the throat of someone who is allergic to them."
Don't know where you get that conclusion.
It's not science if you start from a conclusion, even a correct one, and then design an experiment that doesn't actually test the hypothesis.
My cat allergies take a few hours to show up even if I play with a cat, and I have a profound allergy to cats -- not fatal or anything, but one that irritates my eyes to the point where I cannot read or look at a light source including a TV or computer screen. The fact that ingested allergens like peanut allergies are pretty quick is meaningless.
You first need to establish what they think the mythology "EM allergy" is, then you can debunk it. You can't just decide that EM radiation is basically the same thing as peanuts.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not entirely implausible. It was Jan. 2003 when the first beta was released, and they'd certainly started on Safari earlier. Firefox didn't even exist as a name, it was Phoenix at the time, so they had certainly never heard of Firefox. And Phoenix had been out for less than 4 months.
Mozilla Suite existed beforehand. I can't blame Apple for not wanting that. Firefox forked for a reason.
I don't think you're actually contradicting me here.
First, Apple started developing its own web browser well before Steve Jobs announced it, particularly since they released a beta on that same day. I don't know when exactly they started. If they started before September 23, 2002, then not one release of Firefox even existed at the time. Mozilla did, but not FF (Phoenix).
Second, I think Jan to June 2003 is kind of significant in this context -- back then the project was called Phoenix and the latest release, one month earlier, had just added History. My recollection of the rendering and performance, which is admittedly hazy at this point, was that it kind of sucked. With IE6 as the basis of comparison. It got better later.
I'm just saying that Firefox was hardly a mature clear choice over Apple forking KHTML and rolling its own UI layer.
I do not know how mature Safari was on its first release, since around 2003 I wasn't seeing a lot of Macs.
Not to mention, a web browser isn't the kind of thing you throw together overnight on a coffee bender.
You learn something new every day.
Hard to say for sure. Perhaps in this language, the construct "find " will modify , which in this case happens to be tits. This is certainly what I would assume.
Alternatively, perhaps "tits" is intentionally not thread-safe, and therefore this is essentially a spinlock.
So?
What are you saying? Women not being CEOs is the same thing as men not being midwives?
The whole point of the article is that the failure to compete might indicate that there is not a fair and equal level to compete on in the first place.
You've lost sight of the argument. The position being argued is:
Women aren't as competitive as men are. It's a fact. Get over it. We don't need any more equal opportunity programs, we don't need morons meddling in people's natures.
(with the further implication that this lack of competitiveness is why women aren't VCs etc.).
First, if you say "It's a fact. Get over it." you HAVE to put up references even if it's not peer-reviewed. This isn't common sense, this is a meme that may or may not be true, but without some backing it's an unsupported meme.
Second, that right there was the positive statement. I don't see what you think should have been referenced by the dissent on this.
Third, your entire argument here is beside the point, because nobody (in this particular branch of this particular thread, anyway) was arguing that there are no differences between men and women. That's a straw man.
If there are a disproportionate number of one race in a position of power, then something has gone wrong. That's all there is to it.
There are too many black people in jail, there are too many white guys as CEOs. Really those are two sides of the same coin. It's not that they're unqualified because they're white, it's that white people aren't specially qualified for this position and therefore it's troubling that white people occupy this position disproportionately. There will of course be random variations with things, and some cultural things, and maybe there are cases where one race is uniquely suited (the only thing that comes to mind is historical movies with a particular setting -- you don't put a Japanese man as the lead role of something set during the pre-Colombian wars between the Mayans and the Incas) which displace others. But continued disproportionate representation in positions of power could only be justified if either they were within expected statistical variance, or white people are more qualified than other races. If neither of these things are true, then there are too many white people.
It's privilege to be able to pretend that there is no link without even investigating the cause. The "too many Jews", "too many Arabs", etc. things you say -- whether that's racist depends on the rest of the sentence and the argument being presented. "There are too many Arabs being stopped at airport security". I don't even know whether that's true (I expect it is) but it's worthy of a second look. "There are too many Arabs in the oil industry" -- you can trace that back to geographic factors. Arabs are concentrated disproportionately in places that have a lot of oil. Thus, the disproportionate amount is expected.
In the case of "too many white people", the hypothesis that seems to be advanced is that CEO's are insular and are based on friendship / family rather than merit, which isn't necessarily in and of itself racist but it's still wrong and it ends up being racist because what it perpetuates comes from a time of greater racism.
The Arian supremist group strawman is ridiculous. Maybe you could start from the position that people who don't immediately agree with you might not be incredible morons, and then you could engage them rationally or come to the conclusion reasonably.
Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I've seen this over and over in "Israeli X does Y" articles on slashdot (eg. Intel engineers coming out with a cool new chip). I've yet to see the complaint launched at Norwegians.
Your hypothetical situation isn't parallel precisely because it didn't happen. If it did happen, then you have a point.
I've worked in several contemporary office environments and I've never seen this (and I'm a straight dude, etc., etc.), except on TV. I wonder if it's regional?
You do not understand what "political correctness" means.
I think that will stop Firefox and Webkit from incorporating it. Hypothetically somebody could fork a free software browser that decodes H.264 and distribute it into countries that recognize the patents, but I doubt that anybody without backing significant enough that civil disobedience is out of the question could reach a lot of people. Although I think that makes it a time bomb for any redistributors and not, in fact, free software.
Or they could do it via plugin, but that defeats the "without installing additional software" goal.
First, you don't get to claim that the entire environmental movement is anti-nuclear. We are sitting here making arguments that nuclear power is the environmentally friendly option (with the usual proviso that REALLY we could just stop using all electricity and starve ourselves to death and that wouldn't harm the environment much).
Second, your point doesn't eliminate the need for nuclear power, it just shows that, unless you make giant adjustable heat-sinks, it isn't a 100% solution. Neither is solar or wind though, which you yourself tacitly admit by showing you have to use a broad array of different sources to achieve 24/7 supply. This is the perfect place for water power, where available, or bio-gas to pick up the slack during peak hours. Turns out though that there's basically a minimum demand that always has to be met and using a non-variable source to meet that is not only effective, but it makes it easier for the somewhat regulable but also flaky (because they respond to the environment) renewable sources to pick up the slack.
Nobody is ever arguing "NO RENEWABLES. EVER.", so it really doesn't help your case to show that 100% nuclear doesn't solve the problem, particularly when 100% wind, 100% solar, etc. etc. clearly can't work either. You need a blended approach.
Most people would consider it to be a curve, because EVERYTHING is radioactive for a long time. We label things "radioactive" that are radioactive for a time, relative to everything else, that is extremely short, even if it is 10000 years.
In the case of nuclear byproducts, yes, something that is deadly for 50 years with minimal exposure and then is essentially as inert as the background is better in many ways than something that is toxic with sufficiently high exposure for thousands of years, because we can handle it within a lifetime. But the long half-life material is still what you'd rather be locked in a room with.
Yes, I'd have given Bush CPR. Even though I hated just about everything his Presidency stood for. I'm good like that.
Maybe I'd have let Hitler or Stalin choke. There are levels of evil.
Although it's hard to guarantee that letting such figures die wouldn't have led to even worse people taking over. The martyr effect can be powerful. We're still talking about one particularly important one about 2000 years later.
You've got it backwards. She was providing context, not removing it. The original full quote was:
"We will typically focus on High and Critical impact bugs, but any clever vulnerability at any severity might get a reward."
1. Nobody's talking about patent infringement. :).
2. McDonalds couldn't claim against McSomething, but that's not parallel. What's more similar here is McDonalds suing over MCDONALDS. Which I think is perfectly reasonable provided we all agree that it's okay to sue over McDonalds (which, maybe not, because that's a name so it's kind of weird in the first place -- I don't think iPad is a common human name, though I'm not aware of the common names of all countries).
3. Prepending a letter, particularly 'i', is common but that doesn't make it un-trademarkable. Apple is a trademark, and it's been an actual dictionary word for ages. See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#3. The iPad is a suggestive mark under that categorization, as is the IPAD, but they are in very similar product lines -- a phone and a scaled-up-phone-without-a-phone-in-it
That's simply not true. That might be true in the GTA; I don't remember other strictly-cable companies (though Bell offered FiOS TV as well as satellite). But I'm from Ontario -- southern Ontario, even -- and hadn't heard of Rogers other than as a cellphone provider before leaving for University (U of T). We got Sautel; some people not far away got Shaw.
The article is misleading (it appears that the author is himself confused).
There's only one liquid phase, and it's the same one between graphite and diamond. SpinyNorman's phase diagram graph shows it well. Look at "graphite + metastable diamond". There are diamonds at that temperature, although they'd "rather" be graphite, to anthropomorphise it. Then increase temperature by going directly to the right. It will first turn to graphite as it crosses the dashed line, then it will melt. Cool it down by going left and it turns to graphite, then keep going left back where you started and you've got...still graphite. Because that's still a region where graphite can exist.
What they're describing was pushing it up via high pressure, before going right and then left. In this case, you don't cross the graphite-only region in either direction, but the diamond region, so there's no graphite involved.
"Second, sandboxing does absolutely nothing to stop social attacks, which are one of the leading ways that sensitive data is stolen from users."
True, and that's often lost on people, but irrelevant to the subject at hand. We were talking about whether a browser could do anything to mitigate insecure plugins as an attack vector short of disabling plugins.
"Third, it doesn't matter how much sandboxing you do when the underlying operating system is Windows, and is already full of holes and incapable of providing a sufficient level of security in the first place."
Explain.
To be fair, alignment issues could be resolved by using tabs to indent, and then spaces for the fine-grained spacing within the code.
Of course, that also means that there are inevitably going to be invisible, non-syntactic "mistakes" in the code that will cause people with editors set to different tab-stops to see different results.
The solution to that would be language-aware auto-indenter which runs before checkin, but once you have that you can have all the benefits of tabs with pure spaces anyway (you just have to apply its inverse on each sync to source).
I prefer spaces precisely because it *isn't* different for everybody, which reduces the possibility of miscommunication, and code is a place for precision. Still, I'm happy so long as the source is consistent.
Also, I find it easier to use the "find" functions in editors when there are leading spaces, simply because the tab key is so often used for keyboard accessibility in the find dialog or what-have-you that comes up, so I've got to paste in a tab character or remember whatever arcane command this application on this OS uses to type a tab. I could use a regex or similar, but that's often overkill, and that also has the problem that every damn program has slightly different regex syntax.
"die slow miserable deaths in short periods of time"
Can you explain how you die a slow death in a short period of time?
I would argue that 2 is a subset of 1.
"There is no doubt that their accuracy will be no better than random chance."
True
"Put a box that may or may not actually be a wi-fi router right next to them, and this should be like stuffing peanuts down the throat of someone who is allergic to them."
Don't know where you get that conclusion.
It's not science if you start from a conclusion, even a correct one, and then design an experiment that doesn't actually test the hypothesis.
My cat allergies take a few hours to show up even if I play with a cat, and I have a profound allergy to cats -- not fatal or anything, but one that irritates my eyes to the point where I cannot read or look at a light source including a TV or computer screen. The fact that ingested allergens like peanut allergies are pretty quick is meaningless.
You first need to establish what they think the mythology "EM allergy" is, then you can debunk it. You can't just decide that EM radiation is basically the same thing as peanuts.