I boycott them, but I have little interest in doing that.
Besides, the more devices sold the more attractive a platform is to developers (i.e. more potential customers for their software). So this could backfire.;)
Your previous comments indicate you didn't even know what Emoji is before this article, but yet now it is "annoying" to you? And you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against those that use them? "Children to use on their phones and in forum messages to be obnoxious"?
A picture can be worth a thousand words, and emoji is handy. I use it all the time and have a couple emoji domains registered that will someday make me filthy rich;) (oh shit, does my emoticon annoy you? I suppose I should have added more sarcasm and ignored the wink to please you). Anyone who communicates with others via text frequently can appreciate the value of emoticons in trying to add emotion to a conversation. Surely you don't think all communication is verbal or read? Emoticons and Emoji are a great supplement to text based communication.
Okay, I understand that I'm old and grumpy, but . . .
Yeah, basically, and you seem to have spent a lot of time in this article complaining complaining about something "annoying" that you'd never even heard of before. Having a bad day are we?
I guess if Linux doesn't support Emoji and there is no free (libre) version of them, this is a good project. I very much appreciate the Emoji support that OSX and iOS have.
Brand name cards for reliability & speed. I've seen more than a few cheap cards fail but never a good brand name card.
Lower classed cards of a good brand are usually faster than higher classed cheap brands too. About all a cards class rating really means is that at some point it passed a very specific write throughput benchmark. Slow cards are near useless for many purposes. If you ever want to use the card outside of a shitty camera, you'll appreciate any extra speed.
Note that most benchmark ignore read and write latency too, which can get very significant if using for other purposes.
As to the security issues, the article he pointed to talks about apps being "security risks" or "malware" for requesting GPS permissions when they shouldn't (which is really FUD).
The article mentions a lot more than that - and the issues mentioned are real and potentially (depending one use scenario) very significant.
But beside that point - how is an app requesting location data when it doesn't need it NOT a significant problem? Do you review the code for all apps that request this permission or do you blindly trust them with your location data? Perhaps you just don't care if your device sends your location to others without you wanting it to? Imagine you were in charge of IS at a large enterprise (though size is really irrelevant) - do you think these types of problems are OK for your employees devices?
Perhaps the individual that modded this as "flamebait" cares to explain? (Yes, post as AC or whatever). The reality is that Microsoft has never sued end users for modifying their physical products, while Sony STILL has active lawsuits going on about this. This is reality, not flamebait folks.
Try to pull your heads out of the sony fanboy ass once in awhile.
Sony is the worst large corporation for being anti hardware-hacker.
A difference between Microsoft and Sony is that MS will not sue customers over modifying their product. Sony's lawsuits in NA and Europe over the last few years are simply evil to humankind.
Anyone that values consumer rights, or hacker rights, should seriously avoid Sony.
re-implementing printf() doesn't cost you extra bandwidth.
Minified jquery is around 92KB - not insignificant. If your web server supports gzip compressed transfers (and it should in 99% of cases), that cuts it down to ~ 35KB.
Not a totally trivial amount of data, but, keep in mind: 1) Google hosts many libraries on their servers, so 99% of users will already have these files cached if you reference the Google-hosted versions. No new transfer necessary. 2) If you must host it yourself - unless you / the web server admin is a complete idiot, this file will only be downloaded once per cache period - which can be extremely lengthy if desired.
So, in the vast majority of cases, this is no problem. And assuming you use the Google-hosted versions of these libraries, you very well may see a SPEED UP in usage - since a) the user almost certainly already has the google version cached, and b) Google's CDN is likely faster than yours.
Yes, I could spend weeks or months learning some framework only to find out 8 months later that everything that I created with it now has a huge glaring security hole because the "programmer" did not do proper bounds checking.
Since you aren't using a library for the code, you need to fix it in every single place you've implemented it? LOL. Yeah, good argument you've made... Had you been using a library, you could fix it yourself easily in one spot - or assuming you chose a well supposed library - copy the new version in?
On top of that, your code is far more likely to contain serious bugs than a well supported library of any kind.
Seriously, get back to me when the framework de jeur (sp?) is as reliable as the C standard library.
Still, you don't get it. The problem is that when developing web applications you are developing for many (hundreds, at least) different targets - each browser and OS combination. Using a library like jQuery is in fact FAR more reliable than building a custom implementation for each target platform - and re-testing constantly. This doesn't eliminate the necessity of browser testing, but it sure helps.
Here's a few reasons to use libraries and frameworks: 1) Development speed. 2) Browser support and testing. 3) Maintenance.
I'll let you figure out how they help in those situations - and there are many other reasons, on top of those.
developers need to stop using "frameworks" and "libraries" to do simple things.
Seriously, this is a really fucking stupid thing to say. Imagine telling a C developer to re-implement printf() for every application (and every platform it will run on) that needs to print a line of output.
197 replies on an Apple.com thread in 6+ months is indicative of an extremely small problem, I'd say, given the sample size of users running mountain lion. Personally, I've had my fair share of issues with my rMBP, but not this one, yet (knocking on wood...). Safari is my primary browser, too.
Also, users on the thread you link to clearly indicate the problem happens to them on prev-gen macbooks (i.e. non-retina) too.
I had Mountain Dew instead of coffee today, since the available coffee was not good. This is "light" Mountain Dew Fuel though, 10 calories in a can but probably a ton of aspartame. I don't think I'd want anything with more sugar.
I believe you misread the article. Taking Linux out of the equation still caused the problem.
Uh, testing under this distro and version of linux WOULD have caught the bug, right? It's not unexpectable that a samsung laptop would have ubuntu installed.
Just because the bug was reproduced under Windows doesn't mean it would have ever occurred accidentally there. I'm guessing you have never been involved in any kind of testing - software or otherwise.
Cheers to the fanboi who modded me down. I had a bet going that I would be modded down within 15 minutes for posting something critical of Google. Without your help, I could have never won.
Regarding your confusion: The majority of mid-day slashdot readers tend to be huge Google apologists, and in their eyes Google can do no wrong. There are actually plenty examples on here where one company does something and it's evil, Google does it, and it's great.
The discussions tend to be a little less Google biased after the North American 9-5 crowd is off work.
Slashdot Mirror
I boycott them, but I have little interest in doing that.
Besides, the more devices sold the more attractive a platform is to developers (i.e. more potential customers for their software). So this could backfire. ;)
What a skewed and fucked up view you have of the history of OSX.
I am also surprised that there are no libre emoji images available. But there is nothing wrong with paying towards this.
Sure it *can* be crowdsourced, but what can't? Paying for things is okay sometimes too...
Your previous comments indicate you didn't even know what Emoji is before this article, but yet now it is "annoying" to you? And you've resorted to ad hominem attacks against those that use them? "Children to use on their phones and in forum messages to be obnoxious"?
A picture can be worth a thousand words, and emoji is handy. I use it all the time and have a couple emoji domains registered that will someday make me filthy rich ;) (oh shit, does my emoticon annoy you? I suppose I should have added more sarcasm and ignored the wink to please you). Anyone who communicates with others via text frequently can appreciate the value of emoticons in trying to add emotion to a conversation. Surely you don't think all communication is verbal or read? Emoticons and Emoji are a great supplement to text based communication.
Okay, I understand that I'm old and grumpy, but . . .
Yeah, basically, and you seem to have spent a lot of time in this article complaining complaining about something "annoying" that you'd never even heard of before. Having a bad day are we?
I guess if Linux doesn't support Emoji and there is no free (libre) version of them, this is a good project. I very much appreciate the Emoji support that OSX and iOS have.
Brand name cards for reliability & speed. I've seen more than a few cheap cards fail but never a good brand name card.
Lower classed cards of a good brand are usually faster than higher classed cheap brands too. About all a cards class rating really means is that at some point it passed a very specific write throughput benchmark. Slow cards are near useless for many purposes. If you ever want to use the card outside of a shitty camera, you'll appreciate any extra speed.
Note that most benchmark ignore read and write latency too, which can get very significant if using for other purposes.
As to the security issues, the article he pointed to talks about apps being "security risks" or "malware" for requesting GPS permissions when they shouldn't (which is really FUD).
The article mentions a lot more than that - and the issues mentioned are real and potentially (depending one use scenario) very significant.
But beside that point - how is an app requesting location data when it doesn't need it NOT a significant problem? Do you review the code for all apps that request this permission or do you blindly trust them with your location data? Perhaps you just don't care if your device sends your location to others without you wanting it to? Imagine you were in charge of IS at a large enterprise (though size is really irrelevant) - do you think these types of problems are OK for your employees devices?
From a security perspective, it's unacceptable.
Perhaps the individual that modded this as "flamebait" cares to explain? (Yes, post as AC or whatever). The reality is that Microsoft has never sued end users for modifying their physical products, while Sony STILL has active lawsuits going on about this. This is reality, not flamebait folks.
Try to pull your heads out of the sony fanboy ass once in awhile.
Sony is the worst large corporation for being anti hardware-hacker.
But they'll be sure to make it extremely convenient for individual games to block this ability.
It can't really be said enough. This company is an enemy of consumers and hackers everywhere.
If you value your consumer rights, or your right to modify things that you own, do not support Sony.
Sony controllers are some of the best
I'm not much of a gamer these days, but I always found their controllers awful. Bad design, and very uncomfortable for adult sized hands.
A difference between Microsoft and Sony is that MS will not sue customers over modifying their product. Sony's lawsuits in NA and Europe over the last few years are simply evil to humankind.
Anyone that values consumer rights, or hacker rights, should seriously avoid Sony.
re-implementing printf() doesn't cost you extra bandwidth.
Minified jquery is around 92KB - not insignificant. If your web server supports gzip compressed transfers (and it should in 99% of cases), that cuts it down to ~ 35KB.
Not a totally trivial amount of data, but, keep in mind:
1) Google hosts many libraries on their servers, so 99% of users will already have these files cached if you reference the Google-hosted versions. No new transfer necessary.
2) If you must host it yourself - unless you / the web server admin is a complete idiot, this file will only be downloaded once per cache period - which can be extremely lengthy if desired.
So, in the vast majority of cases, this is no problem. And assuming you use the Google-hosted versions of these libraries, you very well may see a SPEED UP in usage - since a) the user almost certainly already has the google version cached, and b) Google's CDN is likely faster than yours.
Yes, I could spend weeks or months learning some framework only to find out 8 months later that everything that I created with it now has a huge glaring security hole because the "programmer" did not do proper bounds checking.
Since you aren't using a library for the code, you need to fix it in every single place you've implemented it? LOL. Yeah, good argument you've made... Had you been using a library, you could fix it yourself easily in one spot - or assuming you chose a well supposed library - copy the new version in?
On top of that, your code is far more likely to contain serious bugs than a well supported library of any kind.
Seriously, get back to me when the framework de jeur (sp?) is as reliable as the C standard library.
Still, you don't get it. The problem is that when developing web applications you are developing for many (hundreds, at least) different targets - each browser and OS combination. Using a library like jQuery is in fact FAR more reliable than building a custom implementation for each target platform - and re-testing constantly. This doesn't eliminate the necessity of browser testing, but it sure helps.
Disliking the taste doesn't really equate to "feeling terrible", which is what thus purportedly would do.
Here's a few reasons to use libraries and frameworks:
1) Development speed.
2) Browser support and testing.
3) Maintenance.
I'll let you figure out how they help in those situations - and there are many other reasons, on top of those.
developers need to stop using "frameworks" and "libraries" to do simple things.
Seriously, this is a really fucking stupid thing to say. Imagine telling a C developer to re-implement printf() for every application (and every platform it will run on) that needs to print a line of output.
197 replies on an Apple.com thread in 6+ months is indicative of an extremely small problem, I'd say, given the sample size of users running mountain lion. Personally, I've had my fair share of issues with my rMBP, but not this one, yet (knocking on wood...). Safari is my primary browser, too.
Also, users on the thread you link to clearly indicate the problem happens to them on prev-gen macbooks (i.e. non-retina) too.
WTF? You clearly do not understand the purpose of using frameworks.
awesome...
That pretty much sums it up.
I had Mountain Dew instead of coffee today, since the available coffee was not good. This is "light" Mountain Dew Fuel though, 10 calories in a can but probably a ton of aspartame. I don't think I'd want anything with more sugar.
I guess if your replacing one SPOF with another, it better be more reliable. ;)
Wow, what kind of UPS's were you using? I don't recall ever having a failure caused by a UPS.
I believe you misread the article. Taking Linux out of the equation still caused the problem.
Uh, testing under this distro and version of linux WOULD have caught the bug, right? It's not unexpectable that a samsung laptop would have ubuntu installed.
Just because the bug was reproduced under Windows doesn't mean it would have ever occurred accidentally there. I'm guessing you have never been involved in any kind of testing - software or otherwise.
Did you get paid for that advertisement? Either way, it's still spam.
Including two iPhone 4S.
Cheers to the fanboi who modded me down. I had a bet going that I would be modded down within 15 minutes for posting something critical of Google. Without your help, I could have never won.
Regarding your confusion: The majority of mid-day slashdot readers tend to be huge Google apologists, and in their eyes Google can do no wrong. There are actually plenty examples on here where one company does something and it's evil, Google does it, and it's great.
The discussions tend to be a little less Google biased after the North American 9-5 crowd is off work.