the web broke about 10 yrs ago and its been getting worse every year.
The average consumer who demanded wysiwyg, the massive growth of the internet over the last 15 years, and the utter failure of any sizeable population to use local CSS to modify web content, all disagree with you.,
Its been their major source of revenue for more than 7 years now. It stopped being scary after year 3 or 4, when nothing happened, firefox didnt die, and they didnt turn into AOL 2.0.
(1) The obvious - that Google will have undue influence over Mozilla's design decisions. Some will argue that is impossible, etc. Maybe so, but money talks.
Its been more than 7 years with Google being the biggest sponsor, and that hasnt happened yet. Its a little late to be ringing the alarm bells.
Then pony up and donate. I dont think $5 buys a lot of developer time, though, so you may want to re-think how horrible it is that google is sponsoring Mozilla.
And for the record, Google doesnt insert ads into Firefox. As it has for a very long time (at least 6 or 7 years now), Google pays mozilla for the right to be the default search provider-- oh the horrors.
Your original post also borders on insane hysteria-- Google is probably the only real strong ally in terms of providers you have against government overreach. They famously battled tooth and nail over China's policies (while Yahoo and MS famously caved, resulting in the arrest of several dissidents), they have repeatedly fought warrantless requests, and in light of the revelation that NSA was tapping their internal links, they have started encrypting network data intra-datacenter (which isnt a normal thing).
It seems youre prepared to resort to scorched earth tactics to get your own particular brand of open-source browser; have you considered that theres probably a reason that Firefox is so successful when so many others have failed? Maybe they know what theyre doing. Maybe having the developers actually being paid ISNT the worst thing ever. And maybe you need to chill out and re-evaluate what the standards are for big companies, and how exactly Google isnt at the forefront.
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google,
It has been for many, many, many years, and thats really not a big deal. The terrible thing google got in return was to be the default search provider in firefox-- which most people (statistically speaking) wanted anyways.
And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track,
Because it was an awful idea, and everyone pushing it has one of the following issues:
They dont understand how the internet works
They dont understand how ad-supported websites work
They dont understand how Do Not Track theoretically works
They dont understand (or refuse to accept) human nature
Asking a webserver, "will you please not track me? In return, Im more likely to visit your site" can work. Having every single browser ask that question means the answer will be "no", because youre effectively asking the webmasters to collectively dismantle their primary source of revenue and the main reason theyre on the internet to begin with, with no reason to believe that your "DNT" request is sincere.
Hence, if / when DNT is globally enabled, noone will respect it. It will be yet another useless, dead standard that was dead on arrival because of stupid politics.
Except in this case the 5.4 was assessed by the NHTSA themselves, from what I can gather. They just dont want that being a public number, presumably because that "raw" score is adjusted periodically as new standards become the "5 star". Doesnt change the fact that as of NOW it is apparently the highest score that has been assessed.
They said the highest rating you can advertise is 5. Tesla is saying that they were provided an internal, manufacturer-only rating that is higher than the publicly available "5 star" rating. NHTSA does not seem to contradict that.
No, thats NOT what tesla claimed, their actual claim was exactly this:
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.
Musk doesnt need a rebuttal, since (if Im reading this right) NHTSA didnt contradict his claim that the internally provided NHTSA data showed a 5.4 rating; their objection appears to be that, for advertising / marketing purposes, the "official" NHTSA numbers end at 5 and you arent supposed to quote NHTSA as assessing a higher number than that.
Maybe Im mis-reading this, but the Tesla press release from August even said as much-- that the "public" rating was 5 stars, but the "eyes only" manufacturer assessment was higher. Certainly NHTSA doesnt seem to contradict that the Tesla scored quite high, or even the claim that it was a record.
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars
I can understand the NHTSA complaint (Tesla's claims could be misleading out of context), but its not like Tesla is making any false claims.
Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?
Yes, and thats a wonderful thing, but its not going to power the world. Generally those houses are not 100% powered by solar, because solar requires huge tracts of land to generate significant power.
Epic troll fail. Anyone whose done any sort of systems admin knows that Windows update is probably the LEAST likely of system updaters to cause problems.
Windows cant power the laptop up. Something else is at work-- probably a BIOS setting to power your laptop on when power is restored (power outage / power comes back, computer will boot up).
Stop and consider basic Operating Systems 101: The OS cannot run unless it is loaded into memory, and the CPU is active. If it isnt loaded into memory and the CPU isnt active, "windows" cant do anything.
Geothermal works in some places and IIRC all of the "suitable" places are being tapped already. If we could power the world on geothermal that would be wonderful, but reality intrudes.
Solar thermal collectors are also great, except for the incredible amount of land they require, as does solar PV, which is why we dont power the world on it.
Every feasible / scalable energy source we have has some kind of "undesirable" output.
The options tend to be "output that you have to filter, scrub, and / or capture, and is completely useless" for non-nuclear sources. Nuclear has the benefit of delivering your "waste" already packaged, and its actually useable down the road.
Not really seeing the problem. What to do with it? Stick it somewhere, reprocess it, etc. What do you do with the waste from coal?
Slashdot Mirror
the web broke about 10 yrs ago and its been getting worse every year.
The average consumer who demanded wysiwyg, the massive growth of the internet over the last 15 years, and the utter failure of any sizeable population to use local CSS to modify web content, all disagree with you.,
Its been their major source of revenue for more than 7 years now. It stopped being scary after year 3 or 4, when nothing happened, firefox didnt die, and they didnt turn into AOL 2.0.
Do not track is off by default because turning it on by default would literally make it a useless standard.
(1) The obvious - that Google will have undue influence over Mozilla's design decisions. Some will argue that is impossible, etc. Maybe so, but money talks.
Its been more than 7 years with Google being the biggest sponsor, and that hasnt happened yet. Its a little late to be ringing the alarm bells.
They DO sell merchandise, and I imagine they get donations.
Its called Lightbeam.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/
Yes, its free, for certain definitions of free.
Paid for by Google Ads. Yeah, it's a problem.
Then pony up and donate. I dont think $5 buys a lot of developer time, though, so you may want to re-think how horrible it is that google is sponsoring Mozilla.
And for the record, Google doesnt insert ads into Firefox. As it has for a very long time (at least 6 or 7 years now), Google pays mozilla for the right to be the default search provider-- oh the horrors.
Your original post also borders on insane hysteria-- Google is probably the only real strong ally in terms of providers you have against government overreach. They famously battled tooth and nail over China's policies (while Yahoo and MS famously caved, resulting in the arrest of several dissidents), they have repeatedly fought warrantless requests, and in light of the revelation that NSA was tapping their internal links, they have started encrypting network data intra-datacenter (which isnt a normal thing).
It seems youre prepared to resort to scorched earth tactics to get your own particular brand of open-source browser; have you considered that theres probably a reason that Firefox is so successful when so many others have failed? Maybe they know what theyre doing. Maybe having the developers actually being paid ISNT the worst thing ever. And maybe you need to chill out and re-evaluate what the standards are for big companies, and how exactly Google isnt at the forefront.
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google,
It has been for many, many, many years, and thats really not a big deal. The terrible thing google got in return was to be the default search provider in firefox-- which most people (statistically speaking) wanted anyways.
And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track,
Because it was an awful idea, and everyone pushing it has one of the following issues:
Asking a webserver, "will you please not track me? In return, Im more likely to visit your site" can work. Having every single browser ask that question means the answer will be "no", because youre effectively asking the webmasters to collectively dismantle their primary source of revenue and the main reason theyre on the internet to begin with, with no reason to believe that your "DNT" request is sincere.
Hence, if / when DNT is globally enabled, noone will respect it. It will be yet another useless, dead standard that was dead on arrival because of stupid politics.
Except in this case the 5.4 was assessed by the NHTSA themselves, from what I can gather. They just dont want that being a public number, presumably because that "raw" score is adjusted periodically as new standards become the "5 star". Doesnt change the fact that as of NOW it is apparently the highest score that has been assessed.
Thats possible, but Tesla indicates that 5.4 is a new record, and it does seem that 5-star ratings in every category is unusual.
They also provide this handy graphic, but being a complete failure at statistics I cant confirm that it supports their claim.
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/model-s-five-star-safety-rating.jpg
They said the highest rating you can advertise is 5. Tesla is saying that they were provided an internal, manufacturer-only rating that is higher than the publicly available "5 star" rating. NHTSA does not seem to contradict that.
No, thats NOT what tesla claimed, their actual claim was exactly this:
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.
Actually, parent was quoting Musk.
Its hillarious how few people have actually read the article.
.... several times.
How many successful multi-billion-dollar businesses has Musk been behind again?
Musk doesnt need a rebuttal, since (if Im reading this right) NHTSA didnt contradict his claim that the internally provided NHTSA data showed a 5.4 rating; their objection appears to be that, for advertising / marketing purposes, the "official" NHTSA numbers end at 5 and you arent supposed to quote NHTSA as assessing a higher number than that.
Maybe Im mis-reading this, but the Tesla press release from August even said as much-- that the "public" rating was 5 stars, but the "eyes only" manufacturer assessment was higher. Certainly NHTSA doesnt seem to contradict that the Tesla scored quite high, or even the claim that it was a record.
From Tesla's website, the actual claim:
NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5, however safety levels better than 5 stars are captured in the overall Vehicle Safety Score (VSS) provided to manufacturers, where the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars
--Source
I can understand the NHTSA complaint (Tesla's claims could be misleading out of context), but its not like Tesla is making any false claims.
Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?
Yes, and thats a wonderful thing, but its not going to power the world. Generally those houses are not 100% powered by solar, because solar requires huge tracts of land to generate significant power.
Its a pretty clear violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment, and its a little saddening that people are trying to pretend that it isnt.
Start justifying means with ends, and you get all sorts of nasty fun. Be real careful where that leads you.
Next time, on "Troll vs Troll"...
Epic troll fail. Anyone whose done any sort of systems admin knows that Windows update is probably the LEAST likely of system updaters to cause problems.
Windows cant power the laptop up. Something else is at work-- probably a BIOS setting to power your laptop on when power is restored (power outage / power comes back, computer will boot up).
Stop and consider basic Operating Systems 101: The OS cannot run unless it is loaded into memory, and the CPU is active. If it isnt loaded into memory and the CPU isnt active, "windows" cant do anything.
Geothermal works in some places and IIRC all of the "suitable" places are being tapped already. If we could power the world on geothermal that would be wonderful, but reality intrudes.
Solar thermal collectors are also great, except for the incredible amount of land they require, as does solar PV, which is why we dont power the world on it.
Every feasible / scalable energy source we have has some kind of "undesirable" output.
The options tend to be "output that you have to filter, scrub, and / or capture, and is completely useless" for non-nuclear sources. Nuclear has the benefit of delivering your "waste" already packaged, and its actually useable down the road.
Not really seeing the problem. What to do with it? Stick it somewhere, reprocess it, etc. What do you do with the waste from coal?