If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling.
And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
* Google says: “We are unable to issue rewards to individuals who are on sanctions lists, or who are in countries (e.g. Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) on sanctions lists.”
* Facebook says: “You must... Reside in a country not under any current U.S. Sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Libya, Cuba, etc.)”
But researchers in those countries needn't worry; the government over there has their own reward program for discovering security bugs.
The very undirected process a hypothetical Deist god would set in motion (evolution) is specifically what Intelligent Design claims does not work.
People who believe in both Intelligent Design and evolution, and also have some knowledge of the science behind evolution and natural selection, don't necessarily say that evolution on its own cannot produce the creatures that we see, but rather say that it is so statistically unlikely that it would have required the manipulation of probability by some intelligent deity to arrive at the results we have.
But all the millions/billions/whatever times the evolution did not produce intelligent creatures we were not there to observe it. You don't know how many failed evolutions you haven't observed, so unlikeliness does not imply manipulation.
I have heard from someone at Oracle that for them it is forbidden to admit any Oracle software has security bugs. All public references to something that turns out to be a security bug will be removed or replaced with some non-related issue. As in TFA: "... a number of Oracle sources for this story [...] noted that Oracle licensing agreements prevented them from commenting on any aspect of their product usage".
Infoworld delaying the story is not an example, but security through obscurity seems to be The Oracle Way.
Firefox developers have been claiming that plugins were to blame for a long time (and for some FF versions they may have even been right, judging from TFA). However, there was no way to do something about it, or even just find out which plugin was the problem. TFA finally gets this:
Although these leaks are not Mozilla’s fault, they are Mozilla’s problem. Many Firefox users have add-ons installed -- some people have 20 or 30 or more -- and Firefox gets blamed for the sins of its add-ons.
Now they are going to improve reviews and make it possible to mark add-ons as memory-hogs / -leakers.
I think they just followed the spec. They may have wondered why their customer (your company) wanted shoddy work, and didn't specify any error handling. Cultural differences and/or physical distance (timezones, difficulty of contacting eachother) causes them to handle the same situation differently than a local contractor would. Together this all leads to an undesirable outcome. That doesn't mean they are bad programmers, or that they are trying to screw you over.
Firefox doesn't use that much RAM under normal conditions. Apart from that bug when you load up a whole page of photos, the use of memory is way below any of the major competitors.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it's usually not Firefox, it usually ends up being a plug in or extension that's using up most of the memory. Under normal circumstances you're not likely to ever use more than 500mb.
Then tell me which extension it is. Just a simple task manager, then I'll know who to blame.
I agree that avoiding duplication is too difficult in CSS, but fixing that and having graceful degradation to support non-supporting browsers would be a nightmare. SASS looks pretty interesting there. Would be great if there was something like this as a language-independent Apache module.
The article has a reaction from The Document Foundation, and it looks like they are not interested in reuniting; they don't like the Apache license, but say they may change LibreOffice licensing to MPL or LGPL (now that they can thanks to the new Apache license).
In other words, IDC is reporting that Oracle raised prices. That strategy works for a quarter or two, maybe. But it's a going out of business strategy.
Where did you read this? Nothing about the price is mentioned in the article, apart from that sales of pricier servers have increased in general.
Oracle sales are more or less matching overall market growth, so neither a higher market share nor higher price is necessary for Oracle's revenue to go up.
""+" doesn't append _two numbers_, but it can append _number to string_ - which you can have in any language with operator overloading."
function foo(x,y) { return x + y; }
foo("5",6) == "56"
In every other language I've seen, the CORRECTly expected result is 11 or error. Perl, C++, etc. The point is that you can never trust your input if you are expecting numeric.
If you think Javascript is weird, try executing this in C:
"123"+1
I'll bet that lots of enterprise use of Open Source tools is due to the price tag, not the ability to fiddle with the source code.
If free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-speech were the issue, Open^H^H^H^HLibreOffice would be the corporate standard.
Open source programming tools are simply among the best available. Right now, without any further need for fiddling. They became the best because the programmers developing them are the same as the programmers using them. They can scratch their own itch. Often only a (very) limited group of FOSS-users knows how to program, and how to 'scratch their itch' if there is something they feel needs improvement in the software. For programming tools a huge part of the user base will know how to fix the bugs/annoyances, and their efforts have a much wider appeal in their own (programmer-)community, than a similar effort would have in other communities.
Slashdot Mirror
I've outsourced all my Facebooking, slashdotting and cat-video-watching, so I can spend more time programming!
No-one who identifies himself as a rockstar developer is a rockstar developer, and no good developer would call himself a rockstar.
You are not a rockstar (developer or otherwise) unless you have the groupies to prove it.
If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling. And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
He says it's a cloud on planet Earth, I think that's called "fog". So maybe Oracle Fog, or even Oracle's Fogging Service?
* Google says: “We are unable to issue rewards to individuals who are on sanctions lists, or who are in countries (e.g. Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) on sanctions lists.”
* Facebook says: “You must... Reside in a country not under any current U.S. Sanctions (e.g., North Korea, Libya, Cuba, etc.)”
But researchers in those countries needn't worry; the government over there has their own reward program for discovering security bugs.
The very undirected process a hypothetical Deist god would set in motion (evolution) is specifically what Intelligent Design claims does not work.
People who believe in both Intelligent Design and evolution, and also have some knowledge of the science behind evolution and natural selection, don't necessarily say that evolution on its own cannot produce the creatures that we see, but rather say that it is so statistically unlikely that it would have required the manipulation of probability by some intelligent deity to arrive at the results we have.
But all the millions/billions/whatever times the evolution did not produce intelligent creatures we were not there to observe it. You don't know how many failed evolutions you haven't observed, so unlikeliness does not imply manipulation.
Guess that sarcasm tag is not as superfluous as I expected...
+1. This is exactly why Java failed.
I have heard from someone at Oracle that for them it is forbidden to admit any Oracle software has security bugs. All public references to something that turns out to be a security bug will be removed or replaced with some non-related issue. As in TFA: "... a number of Oracle sources for this story [...] noted that Oracle licensing agreements prevented them from commenting on any aspect of their product usage". Infoworld delaying the story is not an example, but security through obscurity seems to be The Oracle Way.
Although these leaks are not Mozilla’s fault, they are Mozilla’s problem. Many Firefox users have add-ons installed -- some people have 20 or 30 or more -- and Firefox gets blamed for the sins of its add-ons.
Now they are going to improve reviews and make it possible to mark add-ons as memory-hogs / -leakers.
As I used to say "it was damn difficult to write, it should be bloody difficult to understand".
used to say when you still had a job?
I think they just followed the spec. They may have wondered why their customer (your company) wanted shoddy work, and didn't specify any error handling. Cultural differences and/or physical distance (timezones, difficulty of contacting eachother) causes them to handle the same situation differently than a local contractor would. Together this all leads to an undesirable outcome. That doesn't mean they are bad programmers, or that they are trying to screw you over.
I tried running this, and it seems to just increase the load and never actually finish!
(not until something gets killed anyway)
; Magic quotes are a tool of the devil! You know, a torture tool. That the
; devil uses to torture programmers. Like me. I don't like that.
I wonder how this post could be moderated informative. It is simply not true.
Hi, welcome to Slashdot!
- Oracle
- Patents
- Oracle's patents
No flamewar necessary. Oracle is the new evil overlord.
Having backing from Microsoft just makes it irrelevant.
Yes. But they'll also sue you if you don't install it.
A policy first implemented by the Windows 95 development team
Firefox doesn't use that much RAM under normal conditions. Apart from that bug when you load up a whole page of photos, the use of memory is way below any of the major competitors.
Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it's usually not Firefox, it usually ends up being a plug in or extension that's using up most of the memory. Under normal circumstances you're not likely to ever use more than 500mb.
Then tell me which extension it is. Just a simple task manager, then I'll know who to blame.
I agree that avoiding duplication is too difficult in CSS, but fixing that and having graceful degradation to support non-supporting browsers would be a nightmare. SASS looks pretty interesting there. Would be great if there was something like this as a language-independent Apache module.
The article has a reaction from The Document Foundation, and it looks like they are not interested in reuniting; they don't like the Apache license, but say they may change LibreOffice licensing to MPL or LGPL (now that they can thanks to the new Apache license).
In other words, IDC is reporting that Oracle raised prices. That strategy works for a quarter or two, maybe. But it's a going out of business strategy.
Where did you read this? Nothing about the price is mentioned in the article, apart from that sales of pricier servers have increased in general. Oracle sales are more or less matching overall market growth, so neither a higher market share nor higher price is necessary for Oracle's revenue to go up.
""+" doesn't append _two numbers_, but it can append _number to string_ - which you can have in any language with operator overloading."
function foo(x,y) { return x + y; }
foo("5",6) == "56"
In every other language I've seen, the CORRECTly expected result is 11 or error. Perl, C++, etc. The point is that you can never trust your input if you are expecting numeric.
If you think Javascript is weird, try executing this in C:
"123"+1
I'll bet that lots of enterprise use of Open Source tools is due to the price tag, not the ability to fiddle with the source code.
If free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-speech were the issue, Open^H^H^H^HLibreOffice would be the corporate standard. Open source programming tools are simply among the best available. Right now, without any further need for fiddling. They became the best because the programmers developing them are the same as the programmers using them. They can scratch their own itch. Often only a (very) limited group of FOSS-users knows how to program, and how to 'scratch their itch' if there is something they feel needs improvement in the software. For programming tools a huge part of the user base will know how to fix the bugs/annoyances, and their efforts have a much wider appeal in their own (programmer-)community, than a similar effort would have in other communities.