Public schools are funded by taxes. Those ten words of the First Ammendment are the heart of Separation of Church and State in America. The government must not make any decision which favors or discriminates against a specific religion, such as allowing a public school system to teach a Christian myth.
You're so clever and edgey with the way you consistently replace "Facebook" with "Failbook" and I would love to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you also use other witty and mature subsititions like "micro$$oft" and "Crapple"?
I know we all have our own ways of doing things, and our own needs, and we each do what works for us.
But Jesus Christ I cannot comprehend a situation that would lead to so many tabs open on a so-called "normal" browsing session! Do you folks compulsively open every link in a new tab? Is there a reason you never close a tab when you're done with it? Do your Back and Forward buttons not work properly? I ask these question out of complete curiosity, not to flame.
Seriously. Complaining about Firefox instability when running hundreds of tabs simultaneously is like eating 10 burgers a day from McDonalds every day for a month and then complaining about how McDonalds is unhealthy when you gain a bunch of weight and suffer a heart attack.
Probably a bad analogy because McD's is rather unhealthy, but I'm sure you get the point.
Except they aren't playing it like a trumpet. It's monotone and endless. A constant painful pitch. So South Africans truly find that entertaining? Or is the World Cup audience filled with trolls who are playing the vuvuzela "improperly" on purpose?
Well if we just count operating systems and browser useragents, there's actually a very small amount of combinations possible - at least, compared to the amount of people on the Internet. Next, factor in fonts installed. I'm willing to bet 80% of people on the Internet don't have any non-stock fonts, which will be determined by the operating system. That's 80% of people in each OS combination with identical fonts. Browser plugins are really the biggest factor in determining uniqueness but I'm going to make the (IMO valid) assumption that most web surfers have little or no plugins installed - even Firefox users. And then you have the large groups of people with common plugin combinations, like AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and the.NET assistant. Even if we are now into the hundreds of thousands of potential combinations, that is still very small compared to the hundreds of millions of people surfing the web, using Google, checking their e-mail, and so on.
My point is the metrics mentioned offer something hardly unique at all. More likely, this information would be used for tracking statistics and trends. I see no realisitic way this information could be used as a "fingerprint" of individual people.
But if the "first-party" adds something to the API, how long will it be until the third-party supports it? It might be one day, it might be two months, it might be never.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
Because if a large amount of developers start using Flash to develop applications with, and then Apple wants to change the development environment, add APIs and features, then Apple is dependent on Adobe updating Flash to support those changes before developers can use them.
This has actually bitten Apple before, when a huge number of Mac developers used Metrowerks Code Warrior to develop Mac apps, but Code Warrior didn't keep up with changes in the APIs.
Then the problem is Apple is trying too hard to be perfect and worrying too much what other people do. It's not Apple's fault people would develop with Flash. And it's not Apple's fault many (if not all) of those Flash apps would suffer the usual pitfalls. This is coming from somebody who really dislikes Apple. I'm not going to sit here and point fingers at them and say it's their fault Flash runs poorly on the iPhone when it runs poorly everywhere else.
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
That doesn't make any sense, because Photoshop is not used to develop Mac applications.
That's not what I meant. The parent I was replying to mentioned Apple having to wait 10 years for Adobe to release Photoshop for OS X as if Apple would have been better off not waiting and just not having Photosohp on Mac.
If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
But if a person is not savvy enough to know that, who are they going to blame for the poor performance? They are going to think their iWhatever sucks and has poor battery life, or is slow and unresponsive. They might even call Apple's tech support, or return their device because of it. They certainly aren't going to think it's Adobe's fault. How many typical users even know what Flash is?
Everybody blames Microsoft when a shitty 3rd party driver causes Windows to BSOD. Has Microsoft banned 3rd party software? No.
If they're that afraid, Apple could just display a message when a user installs any 3rd party app stating they aren't responsible for any change in performance the application causes when running.
Slashdot isn't the only place on the Internet I visit for news, and I very rarely comment. I honestly could NOT care any less about fart apps. I was making a joke. I don't think they ruin the iWhatever experience.
I wouldn't blame a short battery life due to Flash on Apple, because it wouldn't be their fault.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
Adobe should be held responsible for making Flash not suck. Until then, any negative impact Flash would have on an iDevice wouldn't be Apple's fault. Flash game drains the battery? Not Apple's fault. Flash app bogs down the CPU to unusability? Not Apple's fault. I know Apple is paranoid about dirty peasant software contaminating their high-class appliance (unless it's a fart app, those are OK) but wouldn't everybody win if they were allowed the freedom and treated like adults?
Apple apologists like to talk down about Flash and complain about its performance and say how thankful they are that Flash isn't allowed on their phone, but if it were, who would be forcing them to download and use those Flash apps? If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
Is there something about all of this that I'm missing?/p?
TFA states "everyone who was seriously involved in the fight". I highly doubt people would be able to get credit simply by running in, getting a few hits, and leaving. I trust ArenaNet to take what you've suggested into consideration and come up with a good algorithm (for lack of better term) for determining just who deserves XP/loot. And even if it isn't perfect at first, it's the kind of thing that can be iteratively patched and fine-tuned over time.
Because the higher command wants to hide the fact that its military makes mistakes. It's called propoganda, all countries do it, especially during war.
Simply put, they were embarassed. That doesn't change how or why the events took place.
They had reason to believe there were a number of hostiles in that group, with weapons. If you're in a helicopter and have spent the past 5 years with the threat of sudden sneak attacks and rockets flying at you and hearing reports of insurgent ambushes and choppers going down and your fellow soldiers being killed because they hesitated, it is your survival instinct that makes you pull that trigger.
In addition, they followed proper SOP and got permission from higher command before opening fire. They did everything they were trained to do, and they did it properly. The only mistake was the target. Better intel could have prevented this tragedy, but at the moment this happened, the people in the sky were justified in their actions.
Was the use of such a high-caliber weapon necessary? Was it necessary to fire on the van and the people trying to rescue the one dude? These things are debatable. But that's it. This video isn't the full story.
...the expierment involves removing the gene which prohibits the regeneration.
Interesting how that works. I would think the existence of a gene would grant the existence of a trait, not the absence of it. Then again, I'm no biologist. So mammals evolved this gene which prevents tissue regeneration. I wonder why?
I'm pretty sure Raimi went so far as to call Venom a terrible character, and that's why he didn't want Venom in his movies. In the same way Nolan has already been adamant about how there will never be Robin in his Batman films, Raimi wanted to never include Venom, but too many fans kept requesting him (which lead to the executive order). I've even heard that a lot of the more die-hard Spidey fans agree with his sentiments towards Venom, but the majority of people seem to instantly think of Venom as "the" Spiderman villian, moreso than GG or Octy.
For me:
Spiderman 1: Well-done, Willem Defoe is excellent in everything, Kirsten Dunst is hot with red hair
Spiderman 2: My favorite - Octavius was awesomely cast and awesomely portrayed, though I hate that he died. Kirsten Dunst is still hot.
Spiderman 3: The whole emo-Parker thing was lame, as was the introduction of Brock and Stacy. Harry should NOT have regained his memory, Sandman's story SUCKED and was a bad villian choice in the first place. Kirsten Dunst is still hot.
I agree, but this is Slashdot, and the subject is Winbl0w$$$$ (or however the cool kids are typing it these days). You should know that logic flies out the window if it means there's an opportunity to bash anything Microsoft related and circle-jerk about how horrible Windows supposedly is.
Slashdot Mirror
Because that would make too much sense. That's why not.
Public schools are funded by taxes. Those ten words of the First Ammendment are the heart of Separation of Church and State in America. The government must not make any decision which favors or discriminates against a specific religion, such as allowing a public school system to teach a Christian myth.
You're so clever and edgey with the way you consistently replace "Facebook" with "Failbook" and I would love to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you also use other witty and mature subsititions like "micro$$oft" and "Crapple"?
I know we all have our own ways of doing things, and our own needs, and we each do what works for us.
But Jesus Christ I cannot comprehend a situation that would lead to so many tabs open on a so-called "normal" browsing session! Do you folks compulsively open every link in a new tab? Is there a reason you never close a tab when you're done with it? Do your Back and Forward buttons not work properly? I ask these question out of complete curiosity, not to flame.
Sounds like you just need to stop visiting TV Tropes.
Seriously. Complaining about Firefox instability when running hundreds of tabs simultaneously is like eating 10 burgers a day from McDonalds every day for a month and then complaining about how McDonalds is unhealthy when you gain a bunch of weight and suffer a heart attack.
Probably a bad analogy because McD's is rather unhealthy, but I'm sure you get the point.
Except they aren't playing it like a trumpet. It's monotone and endless. A constant painful pitch. So South Africans truly find that entertaining? Or is the World Cup audience filled with trolls who are playing the vuvuzela "improperly" on purpose?
they might be reading my email
You're not as important as you think you are.
Well if we just count operating systems and browser useragents, there's actually a very small amount of combinations possible - at least, compared to the amount of people on the Internet. Next, factor in fonts installed. I'm willing to bet 80% of people on the Internet don't have any non-stock fonts, which will be determined by the operating system. That's 80% of people in each OS combination with identical fonts. Browser plugins are really the biggest factor in determining uniqueness but I'm going to make the (IMO valid) assumption that most web surfers have little or no plugins installed - even Firefox users. And then you have the large groups of people with common plugin combinations, like AdBlock Plus, NoScript, and the .NET assistant. Even if we are now into the hundreds of thousands of potential combinations, that is still very small compared to the hundreds of millions of people surfing the web, using Google, checking their e-mail, and so on.
My point is the metrics mentioned offer something hardly unique at all. More likely, this information would be used for tracking statistics and trends. I see no realisitic way this information could be used as a "fingerprint" of individual people.
data on the type of browser, operating system, plugins, and even fonts installed
Should I be worried about websites knowing these things?
But if the "first-party" adds something to the API, how long will it be until the third-party supports it? It might be one day, it might be two months, it might be never.
And that's not the first-party's responsibility.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
Because if a large amount of developers start using Flash to develop applications with, and then Apple wants to change the development environment, add APIs and features, then Apple is dependent on Adobe updating Flash to support those changes before developers can use them.
This has actually bitten Apple before, when a huge number of Mac developers used Metrowerks Code Warrior to develop Mac apps, but Code Warrior didn't keep up with changes in the APIs.
Then the problem is Apple is trying too hard to be perfect and worrying too much what other people do. It's not Apple's fault people would develop with Flash. And it's not Apple's fault many (if not all) of those Flash apps would suffer the usual pitfalls. This is coming from somebody who really dislikes Apple. I'm not going to sit here and point fingers at them and say it's their fault Flash runs poorly on the iPhone when it runs poorly everywhere else.
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
That doesn't make any sense, because Photoshop is not used to develop Mac applications.
That's not what I meant. The parent I was replying to mentioned Apple having to wait 10 years for Adobe to release Photoshop for OS X as if Apple would have been better off not waiting and just not having Photosohp on Mac.
If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
But if a person is not savvy enough to know that, who are they going to blame for the poor performance? They are going to think their iWhatever sucks and has poor battery life, or is slow and unresponsive. They might even call Apple's tech support, or return their device because of it. They certainly aren't going to think it's Adobe's fault. How many typical users even know what Flash is?
Everybody blames Microsoft when a shitty 3rd party driver causes Windows to BSOD. Has Microsoft banned 3rd party software? No.
If they're that afraid, Apple could just display a message when a user installs any 3rd party app stating they aren't responsible for any change in performance the application causes when running.
Slashdot isn't the only place on the Internet I visit for news, and I very rarely comment. I honestly could NOT care any less about fart apps. I was making a joke. I don't think they ruin the iWhatever experience. I wouldn't blame a short battery life due to Flash on Apple, because it wouldn't be their fault.
How would that make the iPlatform dependent on Adobe?
You make it sound like MacOS X would have benefited by not allowing Photoshop, rather than waiting 10 years for it.
Adobe should be held responsible for making Flash not suck. Until then, any negative impact Flash would have on an iDevice wouldn't be Apple's fault. Flash game drains the battery? Not Apple's fault. Flash app bogs down the CPU to unusability? Not Apple's fault. I know Apple is paranoid about dirty peasant software contaminating their high-class appliance (unless it's a fart app, those are OK) but wouldn't everybody win if they were allowed the freedom and treated like adults?
Apple apologists like to talk down about Flash and complain about its performance and say how thankful they are that Flash isn't allowed on their phone, but if it were, who would be forcing them to download and use those Flash apps? If a person is savvy enough to know that an app written in Flash is going to suck, they don't have to us it. Right?
Is there something about all of this that I'm missing?/p?
So don't play it. I am excited to know that Guild Wars 2 won't be polluted by obnoxious e-gangsta neanderthals like yourself.
TFA states "everyone who was seriously involved in the fight". I highly doubt people would be able to get credit simply by running in, getting a few hits, and leaving. I trust ArenaNet to take what you've suggested into consideration and come up with a good algorithm (for lack of better term) for determining just who deserves XP/loot. And even if it isn't perfect at first, it's the kind of thing that can be iteratively patched and fine-tuned over time.
Because the higher command wants to hide the fact that its military makes mistakes. It's called propoganda, all countries do it, especially during war. Simply put, they were embarassed. That doesn't change how or why the events took place.
They had reason to believe there were a number of hostiles in that group, with weapons. If you're in a helicopter and have spent the past 5 years with the threat of sudden sneak attacks and rockets flying at you and hearing reports of insurgent ambushes and choppers going down and your fellow soldiers being killed because they hesitated, it is your survival instinct that makes you pull that trigger. In addition, they followed proper SOP and got permission from higher command before opening fire. They did everything they were trained to do, and they did it properly. The only mistake was the target. Better intel could have prevented this tragedy, but at the moment this happened, the people in the sky were justified in their actions. Was the use of such a high-caliber weapon necessary? Was it necessary to fire on the van and the people trying to rescue the one dude? These things are debatable. But that's it. This video isn't the full story.
Cool story, bro.
...the expierment involves removing the gene which prohibits the regeneration.
Interesting how that works. I would think the existence of a gene would grant the existence of a trait, not the absence of it. Then again, I'm no biologist. So mammals evolved this gene which prevents tissue regeneration. I wonder why?
Anyway, this is really cool.
I'm pretty sure Raimi went so far as to call Venom a terrible character, and that's why he didn't want Venom in his movies. In the same way Nolan has already been adamant about how there will never be Robin in his Batman films, Raimi wanted to never include Venom, but too many fans kept requesting him (which lead to the executive order). I've even heard that a lot of the more die-hard Spidey fans agree with his sentiments towards Venom, but the majority of people seem to instantly think of Venom as "the" Spiderman villian, moreso than GG or Octy.
For me:
Spiderman 1: Well-done, Willem Defoe is excellent in everything, Kirsten Dunst is hot with red hair
Spiderman 2: My favorite - Octavius was awesomely cast and awesomely portrayed, though I hate that he died. Kirsten Dunst is still hot.
Spiderman 3: The whole emo-Parker thing was lame, as was the introduction of Brock and Stacy. Harry should NOT have regained his memory, Sandman's story SUCKED and was a bad villian choice in the first place. Kirsten Dunst is still hot.
What CEO has 650 GB of data on his machine?
I agree, but this is Slashdot, and the subject is Winbl0w$$$$ (or however the cool kids are typing it these days). You should know that logic flies out the window if it means there's an opportunity to bash anything Microsoft related and circle-jerk about how horrible Windows supposedly is.
I've been gaming on Windows 7 for months. No problems at all.