Sometimes admins have to be the bigger dick in a situation because sometimes the admins will be right in an argument with someone who won't back down. Do you want the admin that won't allow creative design topics into the evolution page to have his house picketed by idiots who don't know better? Or the guy who manages the abortion page having his car firebombed because he won't let someone put in the pet statistics?
Uh, no. Google wants to make it possible for you to make your website's abilities available to other websites (and in return, make it possible for your website to use other website's abilities). On android, I can write a shopping app that uses the built in camera app to allow the user to take a picture of the barcode, a free photo editing app to crop the picture down to just the code, and then the default web browser to actually show them information on the product. (Obviously, there are barcode scanners that don't require all the rigamarole, it's just an example).
A dozen astronauts on the moon did more science than all the unmanned landers in NASA's history combined. That is partially because "hey, we've got to bring the fellas back anyway, may as well bring some rocks too" but is also because humans are just plain more adaptable, more flexible, and more useful when it comes to doing science.
Another big problem is the shear amount of space these mega sky scrapers make available. This single building will probably represent a 25% increase in the amount of lease-able business space in the downtown area, and it will of course come with a premium price point so that you can say you have offices in the tallest building in the world.
Take a look at what happened to the Burj Khalifa, and how many of their spaces are sitting empty today because of a slump in their economy.
The first line is "A mysterious circle on a grainy scan, this is what scientists are claiming is finally evidence that Earth has been visited by aliens." Emphasis added.
Isn't that just the broken window fallacy? I mean sure, nothing is destroyed but the effect is the same: spending money on software (or a new window) when you could use free alternatives (or keep your current window). Free software is cost efficient software, and efficiency is better for the economy than unnecessary spending.
If you use Google services enough for them to have profitable data on you, they are almost certainly able to identify you, if not by name, then by everything the advertisers care about (location, interests, age, profession, family, etc). What difference would it make to the advertisers if the blog of information has a name attached to it or not?
What should the police have done according to all you complaining people?
How about talking to the guy? I know its crazy, but here's just a thought, maybe knocking on his door, saying they have heard reports that he's doing [such and such thing], explaining that he isn't in any trouble at the moment but they will need to do [X and Y] which includes him letting regulators into his house and if dangerous materials are found they may be confiscated. He, of course, has the right to deny them entry, in which case they will have to go and request a warrant.
They have zero evidence of any malice on his part, why is the first step of the process an arrest warrant rather than reasonable discussion. I'd be willing to bet my life savings that if the cops had showed up at his door and acted reasonably the whole situation could have been resolved without arresting the guy. He almost certainly didn't realize what he was doing would be considered illegal, else he wouldn't have been posting it to his blog.
They're called Human Rights, not Citizen Rights. In the same way that many people feel it is immoral to sit by and watch another man starve, there are many people who believe it is immoral to sit by and watch other people be denied the basic Human Right of free communication and access to knowledge.
Yes, I'm well aware that many people have that opinion. I'm asking how this particular change (moving tabs into the title bar, above the main UI) hurts function as so many people on slashdot seem to feel.
So far I've gotten back that there's no place that displays the full title of the webpage and you lose real estate for mouse dragging the window. Neither of which seem like convincing arguments to me personally.
Tabs on top is generally taken to mean tabs in the title bar, sorry if that wasn't clear. The current standard Firefox UI removes the file menu, and puts tabs into the titlebar, saving two toolbars worth of vertical space. If you manually re-enable the file menu, tabs don't go into the title bar but do remain above the main UI; which probably adds to the confusion.
Popups generated from click events are generally unblocked since they are, obviously, user generated and presumably a link to something the user wants to see; however, this is not always the case. What I really want is a whitelist for popups. Not a whitelist that says "this site is allowed to create popups" but a whitelist that says "these sites are allowed to be popped up by other sites". I can't tell you how many times I've hit the facebook connect popup despite the fact that I have never once done it on purpose.
It's a question of what you get in exchange for the lost space. For the title bar, the number of times that I've needed to see the complete page title (and the title has been too long to fit in the tab header) is pretty small. As for mouse grabbing, I generally run maximized on smaller displays (my at home PC is a laptop) and at work I use Winsplit Revolution to manage my windows via keyboard so I suppose I've never noticed.
Removing the status bar has a much larger impact IMO. Loading status is missing and mouse hover URLs are displayed in a distractingly shape changing bubble. It was also a convenient home for any number of add-ons to put their interface, although I'm sure they will eventually migrate to the add-on bar (like add block has, in which case they have gained nothing) or the main UI bar (like no script has, in which case they have cluttered the main UI).
Honest question: Beyond "that's not the way it always has been", what is the problem with tabs on top?
I'll be the first to admit that I was very hesitant about putting tabs on the title bar, but after letting myself get used to it for a while I see a at least a couple distinct advantages. First the obvious, you gain some vertical screen space, which is always handy on modern widescreen monitors. Less obviously, you make it more clear that the UI elements at the top of the page are affecting the current tab. With tabs on top the URL bar, search bar, forward and back buttons all exist within the tab. With tabs on bottom you have a group of controls that exist at the browser level, which affect the current tab which seems more awkward to me. The effect is the impression that each tab has it's own URL bar, which is more accurate to how the browser behaves.
The Awesomebar I can kind of agree with, except to say that setting it to not use the history makes it much more usable (basically stock URL bar with the addition of searching bookmarks and tags). On removing the status bar I couldn't agree with you more though, it makes so many things so much more awkward. One of the few UI changes to Firefox that I've permanently reverted with add-ons.
When I was going up things were better! You didn't have to work hard just to pay your bills! You could poop wherever you liked and people would clean it up! And whenever you screamed someone put boobs in your face and FOOD came out of them!
Only for those who are bad at math if you ignore the fact that $100,000,000 is worth much more than 100,000,000 times $1; at least to people's mind's. That is, $1 has very nearly zero utility, while anything above a certain amount (say $10,000,000) has nearly infinite utility. Even a poor person isn't going to significantly miss $3 per week, but a large multimillion dollar payoff properly managed will leave a person set for life (or buy whatever a person could want for a limited amount of time). And it makes sense, the error is in trying to assign static value to a given value of money while the human brain (correctly) doesn't do that.
Seriously, is there any large organization that doesn't suck at security? We need to spotlight companies that do it right and show everyone else what they're doing, because it seems to me that far, far more people suck at it than are good at it.
Indeed, how hard would it be to have a one time pad setup? Most banks will give you a secureID fob for $5, similar techniques would make this kind of thing almost impossible. It's just pure laziness in my opinion.
Hmm, maybe Google will see the market for this and allow you to use multiple screen names, showing different names to different circles. Then you could be known by your WoW name to your guild circle, your full name to your family, and your obscene nickname to your friends.
The difference is that Google+ is a service, which means that Google maintains some amount of control over it (along with the associated costs that entails). An iPhone is a device, once I buy it and it's in my possession I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Me not following the terms and conditions of Google+ damages (in Google's opinion) the service for everyone else; it is much, much harder to make the same argument to installing software on a piece of hardware that is paid in full and doesn't directly affect anyone else's use of their hardware.
In all seriousness, the whole telecommunications patent system was in some ways held together by a MAD philosophy. Once one corporation thought they had an advantage and fired the first shot, the inevitable domino effect has pulled in every major company involved in the industry. Now granted, it isn't mutually assured destruction because it's a zero sum game, someone will come out ahead (though after you subtract out legal costs perhaps not), it's just not entirely clear who that is going to be.
Someone mod this up for God's sake. It shows that Google not only realized the potential for the problem but even addressed it before the beta began. Not to mention it shows exactly how Google intends to monetize Google+, by personalizing search results based on what a self-selected group of people similar to you enjoy.
My guess and it's just a guess: Bush was still, at a federal level, the legally elected president of the US. After all, what matters is how many electoral votes he received and how a state spends it's electoral votes is up to it. A state could pass a law saying that the state legislature decides who their electoral votes go for and the federal government would have to roll with it. In fact, a state could pass a law saying that their electoral votes go to whoever wins the popular vote on a national level, such a system has been suggested as a way to prevent people winning the popular vote and losing the election.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of paranoia fueled logic does it take to require fingerprints from a volunteer soccer coach?
Sometimes admins have to be the bigger dick in a situation because sometimes the admins will be right in an argument with someone who won't back down. Do you want the admin that won't allow creative design topics into the evolution page to have his house picketed by idiots who don't know better? Or the guy who manages the abortion page having his car firebombed because he won't let someone put in the pet statistics?
Uh, no. Google wants to make it possible for you to make your website's abilities available to other websites (and in return, make it possible for your website to use other website's abilities). On android, I can write a shopping app that uses the built in camera app to allow the user to take a picture of the barcode, a free photo editing app to crop the picture down to just the code, and then the default web browser to actually show them information on the product. (Obviously, there are barcode scanners that don't require all the rigamarole, it's just an example).
A dozen astronauts on the moon did more science than all the unmanned landers in NASA's history combined. That is partially because "hey, we've got to bring the fellas back anyway, may as well bring some rocks too" but is also because humans are just plain more adaptable, more flexible, and more useful when it comes to doing science.
You know that it's going to need one hell of a foundation, regardless of what the finials on the tippy top look like.
Another big problem is the shear amount of space these mega sky scrapers make available. This single building will probably represent a 25% increase in the amount of lease-able business space in the downtown area, and it will of course come with a premium price point so that you can say you have offices in the tallest building in the world.
Take a look at what happened to the Burj Khalifa, and how many of their spaces are sitting empty today because of a slump in their economy.
Did you read the article?
The first line is "A mysterious circle on a grainy scan, this is what scientists are claiming is finally evidence that Earth has been visited by aliens." Emphasis added.
Isn't that just the broken window fallacy? I mean sure, nothing is destroyed but the effect is the same: spending money on software (or a new window) when you could use free alternatives (or keep your current window). Free software is cost efficient software, and efficiency is better for the economy than unnecessary spending.
If you use Google services enough for them to have profitable data on you, they are almost certainly able to identify you, if not by name, then by everything the advertisers care about (location, interests, age, profession, family, etc). What difference would it make to the advertisers if the blog of information has a name attached to it or not?
What should the police have done according to all you complaining people?
How about talking to the guy? I know its crazy, but here's just a thought, maybe knocking on his door, saying they have heard reports that he's doing [such and such thing], explaining that he isn't in any trouble at the moment but they will need to do [X and Y] which includes him letting regulators into his house and if dangerous materials are found they may be confiscated. He, of course, has the right to deny them entry, in which case they will have to go and request a warrant.
They have zero evidence of any malice on his part, why is the first step of the process an arrest warrant rather than reasonable discussion. I'd be willing to bet my life savings that if the cops had showed up at his door and acted reasonably the whole situation could have been resolved without arresting the guy. He almost certainly didn't realize what he was doing would be considered illegal, else he wouldn't have been posting it to his blog.
They're called Human Rights, not Citizen Rights. In the same way that many people feel it is immoral to sit by and watch another man starve, there are many people who believe it is immoral to sit by and watch other people be denied the basic Human Right of free communication and access to knowledge.
Yes, I'm well aware that many people have that opinion. I'm asking how this particular change (moving tabs into the title bar, above the main UI) hurts function as so many people on slashdot seem to feel.
So far I've gotten back that there's no place that displays the full title of the webpage and you lose real estate for mouse dragging the window. Neither of which seem like convincing arguments to me personally.
Tabs on top is generally taken to mean tabs in the title bar, sorry if that wasn't clear. The current standard Firefox UI removes the file menu, and puts tabs into the titlebar, saving two toolbars worth of vertical space. If you manually re-enable the file menu, tabs don't go into the title bar but do remain above the main UI; which probably adds to the confusion.
Popups generated from click events are generally unblocked since they are, obviously, user generated and presumably a link to something the user wants to see; however, this is not always the case. What I really want is a whitelist for popups. Not a whitelist that says "this site is allowed to create popups" but a whitelist that says "these sites are allowed to be popped up by other sites". I can't tell you how many times I've hit the facebook connect popup despite the fact that I have never once done it on purpose.
It's a question of what you get in exchange for the lost space. For the title bar, the number of times that I've needed to see the complete page title (and the title has been too long to fit in the tab header) is pretty small. As for mouse grabbing, I generally run maximized on smaller displays (my at home PC is a laptop) and at work I use Winsplit Revolution to manage my windows via keyboard so I suppose I've never noticed.
Removing the status bar has a much larger impact IMO. Loading status is missing and mouse hover URLs are displayed in a distractingly shape changing bubble. It was also a convenient home for any number of add-ons to put their interface, although I'm sure they will eventually migrate to the add-on bar (like add block has, in which case they have gained nothing) or the main UI bar (like no script has, in which case they have cluttered the main UI).
Honest question: Beyond "that's not the way it always has been", what is the problem with tabs on top?
I'll be the first to admit that I was very hesitant about putting tabs on the title bar, but after letting myself get used to it for a while I see a at least a couple distinct advantages. First the obvious, you gain some vertical screen space, which is always handy on modern widescreen monitors. Less obviously, you make it more clear that the UI elements at the top of the page are affecting the current tab. With tabs on top the URL bar, search bar, forward and back buttons all exist within the tab. With tabs on bottom you have a group of controls that exist at the browser level, which affect the current tab which seems more awkward to me. The effect is the impression that each tab has it's own URL bar, which is more accurate to how the browser behaves.
The Awesomebar I can kind of agree with, except to say that setting it to not use the history makes it much more usable (basically stock URL bar with the addition of searching bookmarks and tags). On removing the status bar I couldn't agree with you more though, it makes so many things so much more awkward. One of the few UI changes to Firefox that I've permanently reverted with add-ons.
Obligatory:
When I was going up things were better! You didn't have to work hard just to pay your bills! You could poop wherever you liked and people would clean it up! And whenever you screamed someone put boobs in your face and FOOD came out of them!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2323#comic
Only for those who are bad at math if you ignore the fact that $100,000,000 is worth much more than 100,000,000 times $1; at least to people's mind's. That is, $1 has very nearly zero utility, while anything above a certain amount (say $10,000,000) has nearly infinite utility. Even a poor person isn't going to significantly miss $3 per week, but a large multimillion dollar payoff properly managed will leave a person set for life (or buy whatever a person could want for a limited amount of time). And it makes sense, the error is in trying to assign static value to a given value of money while the human brain (correctly) doesn't do that.
Seriously, is there any large organization that doesn't suck at security? We need to spotlight companies that do it right and show everyone else what they're doing, because it seems to me that far, far more people suck at it than are good at it.
Indeed, how hard would it be to have a one time pad setup? Most banks will give you a secureID fob for $5, similar techniques would make this kind of thing almost impossible. It's just pure laziness in my opinion.
Hmm, maybe Google will see the market for this and allow you to use multiple screen names, showing different names to different circles. Then you could be known by your WoW name to your guild circle, your full name to your family, and your obscene nickname to your friends.
The difference is that Google+ is a service, which means that Google maintains some amount of control over it (along with the associated costs that entails). An iPhone is a device, once I buy it and it's in my possession I should be able to do whatever I want with it. Me not following the terms and conditions of Google+ damages (in Google's opinion) the service for everyone else; it is much, much harder to make the same argument to installing software on a piece of hardware that is paid in full and doesn't directly affect anyone else's use of their hardware.
Not chess, it's Global Thermonuclear War.
Care to play a game?
In all seriousness, the whole telecommunications patent system was in some ways held together by a MAD philosophy. Once one corporation thought they had an advantage and fired the first shot, the inevitable domino effect has pulled in every major company involved in the industry. Now granted, it isn't mutually assured destruction because it's a zero sum game, someone will come out ahead (though after you subtract out legal costs perhaps not), it's just not entirely clear who that is going to be.
Someone mod this up for God's sake. It shows that Google not only realized the potential for the problem but even addressed it before the beta began. Not to mention it shows exactly how Google intends to monetize Google+, by personalizing search results based on what a self-selected group of people similar to you enjoy.
My guess and it's just a guess: Bush was still, at a federal level, the legally elected president of the US. After all, what matters is how many electoral votes he received and how a state spends it's electoral votes is up to it. A state could pass a law saying that the state legislature decides who their electoral votes go for and the federal government would have to roll with it. In fact, a state could pass a law saying that their electoral votes go to whoever wins the popular vote on a national level, such a system has been suggested as a way to prevent people winning the popular vote and losing the election.