Youre not allowed to label a compiled version "chrome" AFAIK, but judging by the SRWare Iron team's work, you certainly can compile a full blown chrome-clone with whatever pieces removed and whatever added you want.
For the tinfoil hat crowd, theres always SRWare Iron, which is Chrome, with updated webkit, with any google-related tracking removed. You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho, which personally i enjoy.
6 month release cycles have their place. Ubuntu is a useful testing ground for beta software, and it evolves very rapidly. It sacrifices stability, but when you look at how far it has come in 3 years it is very impressive.
Is that why the last LTS had Firefox 3.0 beta 4 installed on it, as well as an unstable and poorly supported soundsystem? Im a fan of ubuntu too, but lets not try to claim that ANY of their releases are anything other than bleeding edge beta quality releases. Ubuntu tends to be most stable several months after the release, even moreso than other distros / OSes.
That has nothing to do with Linux. People use windows because it is preinstalled on computers, and has productivity software preinstalled (works, office trials), and browsers preinstalled, etc. It has nothing to do with windows vs Linux. If you had OEMs shipping linux and actually caring about it, and marketing it as strongly as windows is, people would use that. The vast majority of people dont care what is on their computer so long as they dont have to think.
TBQH I think linux is better at this because of its software repositories and centralized updates. Updating software on windows is generally a nightmare on windows, between Windows asking you to reboot every 10 minutes, to Java begging you to click next, to Skype complaining that you havent shown it enough love when you open it, to LogMeIn popping crap up on screen when youre trying to work....
Remind me again why its "easier" to use and install software on Windows? Oh thats right, youre confusing "easier" and "supported / marketed more strongly".
I prefer common sense. Ive started to find on client machines that i spend a several hours a year setting up and working on the antivirus solution-- between Symantec EP going out of control and eating up server drive space (30gb database FTW), having to update licenses, having to download patches to fix ridiculous bugs, having to install it onto new machines, not to mention lost productivity from the slower computer.
On the other hand, regardless of the AV solution used, I invariably spend about 15-30 minutes every 3-4 months removing a virus from one computer or another. While Im doing so, i also get to remove other crap thats accumulated in the startup list. Seems to me its cheaper and smarter to just avoid using antivirus altogether and simply run as non-admin, and be prepared to get a computer checkup every few months.
Plus you never have to worry about your antivirus deciding that all of your techie tools on your flash drive are "hack tools" and deleting them, despite you having turned the antivirus off.
I thought it was common knowledge that viruses dont need admin to do a large number of things? I could swear this comes up every time arguments about whether linux can get viruses start. Viruses dont need admin to auto run (users can have per-user settings on that), send packets, send email, launch popups, install BHOs, install firefox addons, read files, etc etc etc.
The things "non-admin" stops are the important things, like installing drivers, installing rootkits, installing LSPs, hooking system files, patching system files, etc etc etc. THOSE are all that matters. If you have a computer set up for the family to use with a non admin account (on XP), the point isnt that you think itll prevent them from getting crapware, its that the crapware wont affect other parts of the system (hopefully).
Its also a hell of a lot easier to remove viruses installed with non-admin priveleges-- the difference is night and day. Non admin viruses usually just stick a single entry (maybe 2) in the startup list, and SysInternals Autoruns or HijackThis cleans that in about 15 seconds. Admin-installed viruses tend to take on the order of 15-30 minutes of manual removal, or booting into linux, or running combofix, or some combination of the 3, and if you screw up once and miss a file the whole thing reinstalls.
FWIW Im an IT consultant (part of my job is helpdesk) and I have yet to deal with a nasty virus / rootkit on Vista. XP on the other hand, I've seen viruses that took 45 minutes to remove even with tools like SDFix, the SysInternals suite, and launching ubuntu to manually remove the infected DLLs sorting by date.
Im fairly certain businesses have every right to decide who they want to do business with so long as it doesnt run afoul of racial / sexual / other discrimination issues.
Thats not how licensing works. Isnt this the same crowd that cries about how unfair it is when some company violates the GPL? Guess what, Apple made the OS, they get to license it how they want.
You possibly have the most relevant post in this entire conjecture filled thread. We have no way of PROVING anything with this data, because the only things it could prove or disprove are the theories that would be used to interpret the data in the first place (speed of light, distance, etc). It can further validate things, or show the insignificance of the effects mentioned on the speed of light. Its really obnoxious to hear people claiming that because there is discrepancy in the reading, but certain effects can produce discrepancies, that necessarily these effects which caused the observed discrepancy.
Except that youre relying on the fact that they arrived at the same time to infer that they came from the same place, and using that inference to validate their travelspeed. Thats called circular reasoning.
If only that sort of rebuttal were how scientific theories were validated, imagine the progress we could make. "Of course my theory makes sense, I'm smarter than you!"
How can they know the length of the event? The particles were RECEIVED over a space of 2.2 seconds. The issue is that the only information we have (that i could see in the article) is based on EMS signals, and that any inferences we draw from that data will RELY on our theories on how EMS signals move and behave. If Einstein is completely wrong, and if gravity works in vastly different ways at larger scales, we have no way of validating or refuting any of those based on THIS data. What if the higher energy signals were released much later, but traveled faster, so that it appeared to be a 2.2 second event?
Your post makes sense except that "more accurate" implies that "proved wrong tomorrow" is somehow better than "proved wrong today". Either its right, and will never be proved wrong, or it is wrong, and may eventually be proved as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm... Slashdot? Google Wave? Yahoo Mail? Google Mail? Facebook?
See every other comment, and every other post on chrome, which mentions that version 4 (available now thru dev channel) has extensions already.
There are extensions in version 4. You can download SRWare Iron, which has built in adblocking, and removes all tracking.
Anything else, or is it pointless to try and convince slashdotters to stop spreading FUD
Password sync is coming in version 4, as are extensions.
Youre not allowed to label a compiled version "chrome" AFAIK, but judging by the SRWare Iron team's work, you certainly can compile a full blown chrome-clone with whatever pieces removed and whatever added you want.
For the tinfoil hat crowd, theres always SRWare Iron, which is Chrome, with updated webkit, with any google-related tracking removed. You lose site suggestion and auto-update tho, which personally i enjoy.
I can do this on windows as well with the proper drive. My Asus board has had this feature for ~2 years now. Why exactly is this reliant on the OS?
Windows 7 doesnt work with my Rage 128 graphics card, or my HP 1100 parallel printer. Clearly Windows is not ready for most users.
Am I doing it right?
6 month release cycles have their place. Ubuntu is a useful testing ground for beta software, and it evolves very rapidly. It sacrifices stability, but when you look at how far it has come in 3 years it is very impressive.
Is that why the last LTS had Firefox 3.0 beta 4 installed on it, as well as an unstable and poorly supported soundsystem? Im a fan of ubuntu too, but lets not try to claim that ANY of their releases are anything other than bleeding edge beta quality releases. Ubuntu tends to be most stable several months after the release, even moreso than other distros / OSes.
That has nothing to do with Linux. People use windows because it is preinstalled on computers, and has productivity software preinstalled (works, office trials), and browsers preinstalled, etc. It has nothing to do with windows vs Linux. If you had OEMs shipping linux and actually caring about it, and marketing it as strongly as windows is, people would use that. The vast majority of people dont care what is on their computer so long as they dont have to think.
TBQH I think linux is better at this because of its software repositories and centralized updates. Updating software on windows is generally a nightmare on windows, between Windows asking you to reboot every 10 minutes, to Java begging you to click next, to Skype complaining that you havent shown it enough love when you open it, to LogMeIn popping crap up on screen when youre trying to work....
Remind me again why its "easier" to use and install software on Windows? Oh thats right, youre confusing "easier" and "supported / marketed more strongly".
I prefer common sense. Ive started to find on client machines that i spend a several hours a year setting up and working on the antivirus solution-- between Symantec EP going out of control and eating up server drive space (30gb database FTW), having to update licenses, having to download patches to fix ridiculous bugs, having to install it onto new machines, not to mention lost productivity from the slower computer.
On the other hand, regardless of the AV solution used, I invariably spend about 15-30 minutes every 3-4 months removing a virus from one computer or another. While Im doing so, i also get to remove other crap thats accumulated in the startup list. Seems to me its cheaper and smarter to just avoid using antivirus altogether and simply run as non-admin, and be prepared to get a computer checkup every few months.
Plus you never have to worry about your antivirus deciding that all of your techie tools on your flash drive are "hack tools" and deleting them, despite you having turned the antivirus off.
I thought it was common knowledge that viruses dont need admin to do a large number of things? I could swear this comes up every time arguments about whether linux can get viruses start. Viruses dont need admin to auto run (users can have per-user settings on that), send packets, send email, launch popups, install BHOs, install firefox addons, read files, etc etc etc.
The things "non-admin" stops are the important things, like installing drivers, installing rootkits, installing LSPs, hooking system files, patching system files, etc etc etc. THOSE are all that matters. If you have a computer set up for the family to use with a non admin account (on XP), the point isnt that you think itll prevent them from getting crapware, its that the crapware wont affect other parts of the system (hopefully).
Its also a hell of a lot easier to remove viruses installed with non-admin priveleges-- the difference is night and day. Non admin viruses usually just stick a single entry (maybe 2) in the startup list, and SysInternals Autoruns or HijackThis cleans that in about 15 seconds. Admin-installed viruses tend to take on the order of 15-30 minutes of manual removal, or booting into linux, or running combofix, or some combination of the 3, and if you screw up once and miss a file the whole thing reinstalls.
FWIW Im an IT consultant (part of my job is helpdesk) and I have yet to deal with a nasty virus / rootkit on Vista. XP on the other hand, I've seen viruses that took 45 minutes to remove even with tools like SDFix, the SysInternals suite, and launching ubuntu to manually remove the infected DLLs sorting by date.
Im fairly certain businesses have every right to decide who they want to do business with so long as it doesnt run afoul of racial / sexual / other discrimination issues.
Thats not how licensing works. Isnt this the same crowd that cries about how unfair it is when some company violates the GPL? Guess what, Apple made the OS, they get to license it how they want.
Protip: the world DOESNT owe you anything.
There are several, i think some of HPs pavilions have them. Try browsing newegg.
AFAIK Full-speed is USB1.1, hi-speed is USB2.0, and i dont know what USB3.0 is.
Ludicrous speed? Or is that USB4?
RAM doesnt always mean volatile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_memory
You possibly have the most relevant post in this entire conjecture filled thread. We have no way of PROVING anything with this data, because the only things it could prove or disprove are the theories that would be used to interpret the data in the first place (speed of light, distance, etc). It can further validate things, or show the insignificance of the effects mentioned on the speed of light. Its really obnoxious to hear people claiming that because there is discrepancy in the reading, but certain effects can produce discrepancies, that necessarily these effects which caused the observed discrepancy.
No. Gravity has exactly the same effect on all photons
How do we know this is true over long distances? Seems to me a lot of this is conjecture.
Except that youre relying on the fact that they arrived at the same time to infer that they came from the same place, and using that inference to validate their travelspeed. Thats called circular reasoning.
If only that sort of rebuttal were how scientific theories were validated, imagine the progress we could make. "Of course my theory makes sense, I'm smarter than you!"
Wouldnt the theories be wrong, just on a different scale than predicted, if the more energetic signals had different travel times?
How can they know the length of the event? The particles were RECEIVED over a space of 2.2 seconds. The issue is that the only information we have (that i could see in the article) is based on EMS signals, and that any inferences we draw from that data will RELY on our theories on how EMS signals move and behave. If Einstein is completely wrong, and if gravity works in vastly different ways at larger scales, we have no way of validating or refuting any of those based on THIS data. What if the higher energy signals were released much later, but traveled faster, so that it appeared to be a 2.2 second event?
Your post makes sense except that "more accurate" implies that "proved wrong tomorrow" is somehow better than "proved wrong today". Either its right, and will never be proved wrong, or it is wrong, and may eventually be proved as such.