Hes talking about the update service I presume, which is retarded since Linux has built in mechanisms to keep Firefox current and doesnt need a dedicated daemon to do so.
Once that was announced, Mozilla went back into discussion over whether it was even worth doing the rapid release model, since the primary incentive had been removed.
You havent installed Firefox 12, or looked at their blueprints, have you?
Heres a hint, the mozilla folks see the Updater and its ability to do less-than-frustrating updates as a good thing, and are working on (and have already released) an updater service for Firefox.
Of course, it can be uninstalled....but then, so can google updater.
I might also add, since we're taking potshots at browsers... Firefox: - Most frustrating upgrade experience for users in existence. No MSIs, no update service, randomly begs for admin rights, cripples extensions on upgrade... (though all of that sans the MSIs is in the works for a fix) - Much slower than Chrome - Tab performance leaves much to be desired - Stock HTML inspection isnt really comparable to Chromes inspector
If you actually READ the pdf in question, you would see that that is not at all what he is saying. He thinks that it isnt plausible, not that it isnt an economic theory.
Its right there on page two, first section, in big bold letters.
You also seem to think that I am some staunch supporter of Starve the Beast. Maybe I am, maybe Im not, I was just posting to call a spade a spade, or in this case, a bad post.
That Ive never seen the media claim that "copying any file is piracy", or that "nix is a tool for hackers", or that using third party stores is somehow illegal.
As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.
Do you struggle to understand basic emotion, or to empathize with other humans? There are times people have emotions that are not founded on logic, and thats OK. If you love someone not for what they can do for you, or you want to have kids for more reasons than "they will support me in my old age", thats perfectly fine.
It might occur to you that some people want kids because theyve seen how much joy they can bring to a household-- but then that requires you to actually care about other humans, which concept you seem to be struggling with.
I mean marriage itself is pretty unromantic when you think about it. Marriage is "yeah we could decide just to be together, you and me, on our own... but wait! let's add a contract with the government because legal systems and licenses are soooo romantic!" A prenup is really just a variation.
What people seem to completely forget is that "marriage", at least in theory, has religious implications. For Christians, its a man and woman saying "I choose only you for the rest of my life". I know its hip, modern, and PC to pretend that "marriage" is just some secular thing with no more meaning than a business contract, but not everyone views or treats it that way.
Im not saying I think Zuckerberg is a Christian or that he views it that way, but surely theres something romantic that he decided to make their relationship more permanent than simply dating. You can call it "emotional appeal that makes no logical sense", but then it sounds like you completely miss the entire point of marriage and love.
but did you consider the possibility that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics or software results in it arming the device when it's not supposed to be armed, or acts as if a passcode has been entered and starts a countdown when no human has instructed it to arm or detonate?
Probably no more than you have considered that your ATM will malfunction and randomly allow a PIN of 1111 to access your bank account, even without your ATM card.
I mean, if you want to doubt in the capability for reliable electronic authentication, why stop at warheads? Bad news for you, a large part of the world we live in relies on electronic authentication. Social security, loans, credit, payroll, taxes, communication....
The rule of law and not being murdered in your bed certainly help you start a business, but lets not pretend that we're the only country with such things.
If you think the Tea Partiers or Libertarians could ever work together with the Occupiers, you have a serious misunderstanding about what those groups are all about.
And here I thought people WANTED more jobs to be created, but I guess I was mistaken. You seem ready to tar and feather him for his entrepreneurial spirit.
(I don't want to hear that Facebook employs people - sure it does, but so did the websites FB competed against.
So what your saying is, we should have stuck with horse buggy manufacturing and never moved onto cars, because car jobs just displace the old horse buggy jobs and really you havent come out ahead at all!
You might want to go back to econ 101.
2. He thinks the world owes him simply because that same world gave him a lot of moolah.
How is saying "I no longer wish to receive the benefits of being a US citizen nor to pay for them" thinking anyone owes you anything? If anything, the senators in question think Saverin owes THEM something. Listen, I can assure you US regulations are not the primary driving force in entrepreneurship.
Im not clear here, is there something the government DID that helped the facebook crowd make their money? I kind of got the impression it was the government staying the hell out of the way of free enterprise that accomplished that.
Lets not kid ourselves. Taxes pay for some necessary things, but they arent responsible for the success of facebook, google, microsoft, intel, etc etc etc.
Or if you feel like being more secure and spending less time on it, get a torx screw driver, open it up, remove the platters, and play frisbee with them for a bit until they shatter.
Slashdot Mirror
Not correct. You can make symlinks on Windows, but the data doesnt get stored in both locations. Ditto with hardlinks, on windows.
Hes talking about the update service I presume, which is retarded since Linux has built in mechanisms to keep Firefox current and doesnt need a dedicated daemon to do so.
Once that was announced, Mozilla went back into discussion over whether it was even worth doing the rapid release model, since the primary incentive had been removed.
Installs Google Updater
You havent installed Firefox 12, or looked at their blueprints, have you?
Heres a hint, the mozilla folks see the Updater and its ability to do less-than-frustrating updates as a good thing, and are working on (and have already released) an updater service for Firefox.
Of course, it can be uninstalled....but then, so can google updater.
I might also add, since we're taking potshots at browsers...
Firefox:
- Most frustrating upgrade experience for users in existence. No MSIs, no update service, randomly begs for admin rights, cripples extensions on upgrade... (though all of that sans the MSIs is in the works for a fix)
- Much slower than Chrome
- Tab performance leaves much to be desired
- Stock HTML inspection isnt really comparable to Chromes inspector
If you actually READ the pdf in question, you would see that that is not at all what he is saying. He thinks that it isnt plausible, not that it isnt an economic theory.
Its right there on page two, first section, in big bold letters.
You also seem to think that I am some staunch supporter of Starve the Beast. Maybe I am, maybe Im not, I was just posting to call a spade a spade, or in this case, a bad post.
That Ive never seen the media claim that "copying any file is piracy", or that "nix is a tool for hackers", or that using third party stores is somehow illegal.
As for "hackers are bad", seems like you are one of those folks who insist on using a definition that may be technically correct but will inevitably confuse all laypersons. The common definition of a hacker now refers to black-hats; get over it.
Im taunting it for saying, paraphrased,
We think that this policy is a bad idea for the following reasons:
1) this policy is a bad idea.....
Wow, what amazing insight.
Strawmen ahoy.
Or else life is about more than just money and taxes.
Do you struggle to understand basic emotion, or to empathize with other humans? There are times people have emotions that are not founded on logic, and thats OK. If you love someone not for what they can do for you, or you want to have kids for more reasons than "they will support me in my old age", thats perfectly fine.
It might occur to you that some people want kids because theyve seen how much joy they can bring to a household-- but then that requires you to actually care about other humans, which concept you seem to be struggling with.
I mean marriage itself is pretty unromantic when you think about it. Marriage is "yeah we could decide just to be together, you and me, on our own... but wait! let's add a contract with the government because legal systems and licenses are soooo romantic!" A prenup is really just a variation.
What people seem to completely forget is that "marriage", at least in theory, has religious implications. For Christians, its a man and woman saying "I choose only you for the rest of my life". I know its hip, modern, and PC to pretend that "marriage" is just some secular thing with no more meaning than a business contract, but not everyone views or treats it that way.
Im not saying I think Zuckerberg is a Christian or that he views it that way, but surely theres something romantic that he decided to make their relationship more permanent than simply dating. You can call it "emotional appeal that makes no logical sense", but then it sounds like you completely miss the entire point of marriage and love.
The 4530s that I have has a proper mousepad with physical buttons not part of the touch surface.
Possibly there is a new version, but I have ordered scads of these and theyre all fine.
From the first page of that PDF:
There are three major problems with the starve-the-beast argument: (1) it is not a plausible economic theory;
Breakign news: Person who thinks an economic theory isnt viable has produced a paper saying said theory isnt viable. Details at eleven.
HP Probook 4530s has a full number pad, as do many many many other 15" laptops these days.
but did you consider the possibility that a faulty electrical component in the unit's electronics or software results in it arming the device when it's not supposed to be armed, or acts as if a passcode has been entered and starts a countdown when no human has instructed it to arm or detonate?
Probably no more than you have considered that your ATM will malfunction and randomly allow a PIN of 1111 to access your bank account, even without your ATM card.
I mean, if you want to doubt in the capability for reliable electronic authentication, why stop at warheads? Bad news for you, a large part of the world we live in relies on electronic authentication. Social security, loans, credit, payroll, taxes, communication....
Microsoft isnt the dealer, theyre the parts manufacturer.
Too bad thats not free for commercial use.
Youll have to define what you mean by corporatism. I dont believe Tea Partiers or Libs are against people making money, if thats what you mean.
You mean the fiber lines that never got built?
How about copyright, patent and trademark laws?
The rule of law and not being murdered in your bed certainly help you start a business, but lets not pretend that we're the only country with such things.
If you think the Tea Partiers or Libertarians could ever work together with the Occupiers, you have a serious misunderstanding about what those groups are all about.
1. He co-created Facebook.
And here I thought people WANTED more jobs to be created, but I guess I was mistaken. You seem ready to tar and feather him for his entrepreneurial spirit.
(I don't want to hear that Facebook employs people - sure it does, but so did the websites FB competed against.
So what your saying is, we should have stuck with horse buggy manufacturing and never moved onto cars, because car jobs just displace the old horse buggy jobs and really you havent come out ahead at all!
You might want to go back to econ 101.
2. He thinks the world owes him simply because that same world gave him a lot of moolah.
How is saying "I no longer wish to receive the benefits of being a US citizen nor to pay for them" thinking anyone owes you anything? If anything, the senators in question think Saverin owes THEM something. Listen, I can assure you US regulations are not the primary driving force in entrepreneurship.
Are you trying to imply that a significant fraction of the US population has no money? Perhaps that we are all downtrodden poor?
You might want to google some statistics before replying, just a hint.
Do you really think the solution to "rich people want to leave for somewhere more friendly" is "lets go after these guys"?
Im not clear here, is there something the government DID that helped the facebook crowd make their money? I kind of got the impression it was the government staying the hell out of the way of free enterprise that accomplished that.
Lets not kid ourselves. Taxes pay for some necessary things, but they arent responsible for the success of facebook, google, microsoft, intel, etc etc etc.
Or if you feel like being more secure and spending less time on it, get a torx screw driver, open it up, remove the platters, and play frisbee with them for a bit until they shatter.