If this were a closed software project, you wouldn't even know about them.
If this were true, no independent researchers would ever be able to find security holes in things like Windows or Adobe products. Having access to source code is a nicety but the vast majority of security holes aren't found staring at source code it's by poking around at the binary.
What is there to disagree about? It was posted in the Linux section thus there was an implication that this was Linux only. What other news that involves software for both Windows and OS X as well are ever posted in the Linux section?
I fail to see how the section in which a summary is posted changes the contents of the summary, or suddenly somehow makes the word "includes" mean something different.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I was only referring to what was said above which is that the summary was attempting to imply that this was a Linux-only thing which it is not. You can go on and on trying to grammar nazi over the word "includes" in the summary but it doesn't change anything else.
The problem is that your entire point is mooted by the fact that this was posted in the Linux section. The very fact that it was posted in the Linux section is very much an implication of it being for Linux only.
Actually, yes they did. The biggest selling point was you could now check your email anywhere and all you would need is your web browser instead of needing AOL installed on the computer.
That's because the competitors to AOL provided additional features and services that people actually cared about. Pretty much no one using Facebook cares about whether or not the platform is open source, being able to run their own node or any of the other supposed selling points of Diaspora.
Hey, way to have extremely poor reading comprehension. Yes, the Royal Society of Newton's time had something of a peer-review system, but it is not comparable to the system of today. The peer-review system of today is about vetting articles to be published in a journal. What is considered the first peer-review journal and the peer-review system that grew out of that and was the foundation of the modern peer-review system didn't come out until after Newton died. But, hey, nice try.
If it were a true reflection of the opinion of a critical technical reviewer I would expect it would be from someone who wasn't paid by the author to write and spam around the review.
As a further aside, would you be quoting that same presentation of Microsoft had it said that Linux had only 1% of the desktop market? Of course not. You'd be talking about how Microsoft was once again making up things to FUD Linux. Oh the hilarity.
Actually the numbers come from Microsoft for the 9% of Linux usage.
Except that the powerpoint presentation that is used in order to justify that made up number, gives no number at all. Secondly, it's funny how often people claim how Microsoft is untrustworthy yet they have no problems taking what Microsoft claims is the marketshare of Linux and OS X as complete gospel truth. Thanks for proving my point that you will ignore stats from sources if you don't like what it says, but you will use other stats, even from that same supposedly untrustworthy source, if it says something you like.
Also, why does it matter? A degree is a piece of paper, judge the guy by how good the book actually is.
Don't even need to read the book. The fact that the only real review of this book that one can find is from a company who you pay to review your books in a positive light, one can easily tell this is a turd.
It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin, whore".
Probably because there wasn't really anything comparable at the time to the peer-review system of today. But even taking that into account if you think that Newton or Galileo didn't have debates with their contemporaries about their ideas or attempted to convince others of their ideas you would be wrong.
What is it with people who think that posting a bunch of disparate quotes from Einstein equates to an argument? Just because Einstein said something doesn't mean it's correct or instantly insightful.
I'm not. Your attempt to deflect from the facts using such a lame argument tactic won't work.
about a post which was clearly opinion and then clearly followed up with stating it was completely anecdotal?
Last time I checked this was a discussion board. If you didn't want people to respond to what you post, then don't post it. Otherwise you will be getting people to respond and *gasp* rebut you.
Even moreso, why did you reply when absolutely no reply was required in the first place, let alone a series of absolutely pointless replies.
Why did you post in the first place if you are just going to get bitchy and whiny about someone responding to you? If you wanted to make your statements in a vacuum where no one can respond to them, start a blog and disable comments. This is a discussion board and any and every comment is fair game to be responded to and as such I responded because I wanted to.
BTW let me guess you pulled this 10% figure from this article, right? One that bases it's entire claims on a Steve Ballmer statement and a year old projection from ABI Research of what Linux netbook sales might be that didn't end up being true. Yeah, that sounds like a extremely reliable basis for the claim. Oh wait...
The answer is no, because it fits with my observed, anecdotal results.
So based off of nothing of any value that can be extrapolated to the population at large.
Why do you doubt it, because it fits with your biases?
No. I doubt it because you have no evidence for your claims other than anecdotes and what you want to be true. The problem is that the same people who put out these 10% figures claiming that web statistics are wrong will on the other hand write an article about IE losing marketshare and use web statistics (from usually the same source as the OS figures they will throw out) to make this claim. It's pure hypocrisy.
In other words, they are throwing more hardware at the problem (graphics cards AND multiple processor cores) instead of actually producing a faster or more resource efficient browser. Anyone else read that the same way?
So why is this somehow a negative for IE to do it yet you see no issue when Google and Mozilla do the exact same thing to boost performance in their browsers? Hypocritical much?
I recently read an article, which I can't seem to find, which purports Linux accounts for roughly 10% of desktops. I find this to be far more likely than the often quoted 2%.
Why do you find it far more likely? Because it fits in with your biases?
And given the frequent niches Linux fills, its far more likely for a Linux desktop to exist which is never accounted for by web statistics.
And yet the same people who whine about those web statistics when it comes to OS marketshare have no problem using them (even from the same source as the OS market share figures they rail against) to show how IE is dying and how Firefox and Chrome are stealing its marketshare.
Slashdot Mirror
If this were a closed software project, you wouldn't even know about them.
If this were true, no independent researchers would ever be able to find security holes in things like Windows or Adobe products. Having access to source code is a nicety but the vast majority of security holes aren't found staring at source code it's by poking around at the binary.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree.
What is there to disagree about? It was posted in the Linux section thus there was an implication that this was Linux only. What other news that involves software for both Windows and OS X as well are ever posted in the Linux section?
I fail to see how the section in which a summary is posted changes the contents of the summary, or suddenly somehow makes the word "includes" mean something different.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. I was only referring to what was said above which is that the summary was attempting to imply that this was a Linux-only thing which it is not. You can go on and on trying to grammar nazi over the word "includes" in the summary but it doesn't change anything else.
The problem is that your entire point is mooted by the fact that this was posted in the Linux section. The very fact that it was posted in the Linux section is very much an implication of it being for Linux only.
Actually, no they didn't.
Actually, yes they did. The biggest selling point was you could now check your email anywhere and all you would need is your web browser instead of needing AOL installed on the computer.
That's because the competitors to AOL provided additional features and services that people actually cared about. Pretty much no one using Facebook cares about whether or not the platform is open source, being able to run their own node or any of the other supposed selling points of Diaspora.
Hey, way to have extremely poor reading comprehension. Yes, the Royal Society of Newton's time had something of a peer-review system, but it is not comparable to the system of today. The peer-review system of today is about vetting articles to be published in a journal. What is considered the first peer-review journal and the peer-review system that grew out of that and was the foundation of the modern peer-review system didn't come out until after Newton died. But, hey, nice try.
Why does it matter what his qualifications are?
Because it helps to establish whether he actually knows what he is talking about.
Are you claiming that someone with a PhD can't write a bad book, or that someone without a PhD can't write a good one?
What does this stupid strawman have to do with anything?
Why not judge the book by it's contents?
No need. If the only review of a book one can find is a paid-for, shill review it can pretty easily be written off as nothing but tripe.
If it were a true reflection of the opinion of a critical technical reviewer I would expect it would be from someone who wasn't paid by the author to write and spam around the review.
Yeah, but that's the whole point of having a shill review. They will make sure to try their best to not make you look like a crank.
As a further aside, would you be quoting that same presentation of Microsoft had it said that Linux had only 1% of the desktop market? Of course not. You'd be talking about how Microsoft was once again making up things to FUD Linux. Oh the hilarity.
Actually the numbers come from Microsoft for the 9% of Linux usage.
Except that the powerpoint presentation that is used in order to justify that made up number, gives no number at all. Secondly, it's funny how often people claim how Microsoft is untrustworthy yet they have no problems taking what Microsoft claims is the marketshare of Linux and OS X as complete gospel truth. Thanks for proving my point that you will ignore stats from sources if you don't like what it says, but you will use other stats, even from that same supposedly untrustworthy source, if it says something you like.
Also, why does it matter? A degree is a piece of paper, judge the guy by how good the book actually is.
Don't even need to read the book. The fact that the only real review of this book that one can find is from a company who you pay to review your books in a positive light, one can easily tell this is a turd.
It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin, whore".
FTFY.
Newton did the same thing. Also Galileo.
Probably because there wasn't really anything comparable at the time to the peer-review system of today. But even taking that into account if you think that Newton or Galileo didn't have debates with their contemporaries about their ideas or attempted to convince others of their ideas you would be wrong.
Yeah, that wasn't meant to be in there. Though, maybe after you pay for the review they do the spamming of it for free?
What is it with people who think that posting a bunch of disparate quotes from Einstein equates to an argument? Just because Einstein said something doesn't mean it's correct or instantly insightful.
It's a way for them to get free publicity for their book because this Pacific Book Review company will spam their shill reviews all over the internet.
Why are you so angry
I'm not. Your attempt to deflect from the facts using such a lame argument tactic won't work.
about a post which was clearly opinion and then clearly followed up with stating it was completely anecdotal?
Last time I checked this was a discussion board. If you didn't want people to respond to what you post, then don't post it. Otherwise you will be getting people to respond and *gasp* rebut you.
Even moreso, why did you reply when absolutely no reply was required in the first place, let alone a series of absolutely pointless replies.
Why did you post in the first place if you are just going to get bitchy and whiny about someone responding to you? If you wanted to make your statements in a vacuum where no one can respond to them, start a blog and disable comments. This is a discussion board and any and every comment is fair game to be responded to and as such I responded because I wanted to.
BTW let me guess you pulled this 10% figure from this article, right? One that bases it's entire claims on a Steve Ballmer statement and a year old projection from ABI Research of what Linux netbook sales might be that didn't end up being true. Yeah, that sounds like a extremely reliable basis for the claim. Oh wait...
Oddly enough, someone in this same thread made reference to that same 10%.
So what? Just because someone else says wrong things doesn't somehow start to make it true.
The answer is no, because it fits with my observed, anecdotal results.
So based off of nothing of any value that can be extrapolated to the population at large.
Why do you doubt it, because it fits with your biases?
No. I doubt it because you have no evidence for your claims other than anecdotes and what you want to be true. The problem is that the same people who put out these 10% figures claiming that web statistics are wrong will on the other hand write an article about IE losing marketshare and use web statistics (from usually the same source as the OS figures they will throw out) to make this claim. It's pure hypocrisy.
You think they can't decrypt these of they want to?
So you're saying they have an insecure system for storing passwords? Because, no, they should not be able to decrypt a person's password.
You do realize that every place with password requirements (capital letters, numbers, etc) reads your password too, right?
Only if the authentication system was designed by a moron. They should only be verifying against hashes not the actual plaintext password itself.
In other words, they are throwing more hardware at the problem (graphics cards AND multiple processor cores) instead of actually producing a faster or more resource efficient browser. Anyone else read that the same way?
So why is this somehow a negative for IE to do it yet you see no issue when Google and Mozilla do the exact same thing to boost performance in their browsers? Hypocritical much?
I recently read an article, which I can't seem to find, which purports Linux accounts for roughly 10% of desktops. I find this to be far more likely than the often quoted 2%.
Why do you find it far more likely? Because it fits in with your biases?
And given the frequent niches Linux fills, its far more likely for a Linux desktop to exist which is never accounted for by web statistics.
And yet the same people who whine about those web statistics when it comes to OS marketshare have no problem using them (even from the same source as the OS market share figures they rail against) to show how IE is dying and how Firefox and Chrome are stealing its marketshare.