Rocket ships make you look awesome. Talking to rocket ships makes you look like a moron. Replace rocket ships with cell phones and you get the idea. And yes, those goofy bluetooth headsets may be useful, but they still make you look like the biggest dork to ever walk this planet.
This has nothing to do with being anti-Mac (news flash: His Jobsiness did not invent language recognition) or anti-smartphone (you are on Slashdot, in case you have not noticed) or Android-faithful (I have an S2 and its voice control is about as important to me as its front-facing camera). There are certain social conventions regarding our interaction with machines in public space. And talking to them counts as weird and seriously annoying. No matter the usefulness, this will not change in the foreseeable future.
I remember reading about a study recently that identified psychopaths by their use of language and other traits. Would be interesting to run the software they used against data collected from top managers, politicians etc.
[...] the other was a disk containing the latest stable drivers for all the hardware, and any pre-installed software that I bundled with the PC, things like OpenOffice, imgburn, ect. [...]
Am I the only one who cringes at reading this? If you are dealing with someone who needs a recovery disk in the first place, do you really want them to deploy hopelessly outdated drivers and software on their machines?
[...] Walk up to the next 100 people on the street and ask them dipshit, ask them "How do you get the command line in Windows?" and you know what they'll say? "what's command line?" [...]
That is correct. But the next thing they usually say is "Hey, my internet is broken, can you, like, fix it or something?". Which usually means that the dipshit has to resort to the term from the 70s era to see which part of Microsoft's latest shiny fucked up this time. Quality work, my friend. Quality work.
Non-Americans don't even have the same business models that drive traffic to US sites. They don't even have per-story comments [...]
It would have been sufficient to RTFA to see that you are wrong. Underneath the text even the Google translation shows quite prominently "Read comments (162 posts)". Let us visit the largest German news websites that I can name off the top of my head and click on an exemplary story to see who has per-story comments:
Here in Germany it mostly is, yes. Website operators are not allowed to store any personally identifiable information without the user's prior consent. So strictly speaking even Apache's default log settings violate our data protection and privacy laws. There are very limited exceptions for information that is required to process technical operations (eg. the landline-IP mapping at ISPs required to get on the internet) or to protect systems from attacks (eg. a temporary log of recent visitors' IP addresses to watch for DDOS etc.), but in general regulations are very strict here.
Here in Germany there is a huge ongoing scandal involving the two largest Christian denominations for having covered up decades of widespread sexual abuse of minors by church personnel. The amount of cases come to light so far outnumbers any estimated dark figure by a really sizable margin. The findings strongly suggest a link between a highly repressive stance on sex as found in mainstream Christianity and an increased risk of child molestation.
croddy falsely assumes that anyone who believes the multi-window approach sucks donkeys' balls has been spoiled by Photoshop. GIMP is the only application I have ever consciously encountered and used for more than two seconds that uses this paradigm, and it annoys the bloody hell out of me. Just how Microsoft's ribbons suck for me, and how I hate GNOME 3 and Unity for breaking conventions that work extremely well for me and replacing them with something that does not reflect my way of using a computer. The multi-window approach is one out of many possible paradigms. That very few other applications (relicts from the computational stone age excluded) use it should be sufficiently strong indication that it may not be an unproblematic approach. And that insight should, in an ideal world, lead to the conclusion that offering the dominant paradigm as an option will enhance the software and improve its usefulness for a significant number of people.
Maybe he meant "Copyright registration pending". But even that would be strange, since brand names are not per se copyrightable AFAIK, they are protected as trademarks or logos, and business models or methods, as far as they can be protected at all, have to be patented, but there is no copyright on business methods. Most likely the person interviewed has no bloody clue about any of those forms of legal matters and just wanted to sound important.
[...] The copyrights have been made on the Zavilia brand name, principle, and technologies. [...]
[...] Although we cannot comment on exact figures, we can confirm the website peaked at over 100,000 unique visitors. [...]
[...] We have made contact with the authorities regarding several identifications, although we cannot disclose the exact figure due to security reasons. [...]
[...] entire documents detailing why Zavilia is “unethical” and “encourages vigilantism.” These remarks are however unfounded, and no damage has been done. [...]
[...] We do envisage much greater uses for Zavilia. However, as these are currently copyright pending, we cannot disclose any further details. [...]
Is it just me or is this interview nothing but a stream of useless PR crap? Our platform is so super-secret, 'cause it's copyrighted, y'know, and it does mighty good, but canna tell ya, 'cause it's so super-secret. Yeah, right. Colour me unimpressed.
Gameable once, that is. It would take quite some resources to use this for one's advantage. And those who have those resources likely are avoiding getting caught right now anyway.
[...] Just because there are a few morons who abuse the privilege and put other drivers in serious danger should not prevent the rest from doing what is otherwise not that dangerous. [...]
I would wholeheartedly agree with you, were it not for one tiny problem: The vast majority of people is unable to adequately judge whether they belong to the morons or to the rest. So I rather have the law err on the side of caution and treat everyone as a moron.
As my driving school instructor always told me: There are bad drivers, and there are those who have not yet had the chance to find out that they are bad drivers.
Think applications for OS X: Why would someone write software that is targeted at 10% of the user base when they can target 90? Because those 10% are highly profitable and support issues are lower due to the limited amount of different hardware and software configurations. Looking around me I would argue that the more affluent a person, the higher the chance they own a Mac, and I do not know anyone in person who still is on a PowerPC Mac.
- https does incur overhead and higher CPU usage on both ends, so it will be slower.
Firstly, this overhead is manageable. You do not have to be Google to run all your content over HTTPS. Secondly, apparently encrypting every single connection is a necessity of the times to prevent assholes from hijacking traffic, so that overhead is simply the necessary cost of interacting safely over the Internet.
- - I will defeat most of the benefits of running local caching proxy servers (come on, this is/., surely I'm not the only one with a proxy array at home?)
I do not know a single person who runs a proxy at home.
- - Some sites serve different content on the http and https sites.
- A few even redirects the https to http (to save themselves cycles and bandwidth, while not losing the visitor).
You can disable individual rules. Over time those websites will have to stop doing those things or they will lose visitors.
Oh, ok. Expecting not to shell out ludicrous sums for the privilege of using a device one already shelled out a considerable sum for is balking and missing the point of freedom. Paying said ludicrous sums for said privilege - which is not a privilege but SOP in FLOSS - is somehow the true freedom. Yeah, I am so totally envious of your age of UNIX where freedom depended on the size of your wallet. Not.
Let me get this straight. You truly cannot fathom why FLOSS developers shun the Apple ecosystem in favour of Android when by your own admittance developing iOS apps for your own device comes with a $99 or, more realistically for the majority, $1099 premium on a $499 (for the cheapest model) price tag versus no additional cost whatoever (I do not know anyone with a tablet but no x86 compatible machine) and $300 to $500 pricetag? Wow. I thought such people existed only in soap operas and politics.
Absolutely, this outrageous device should be banned immediately. They did it with incandescent light bulbs, after all: Used by pedophiles, terrorists and tax evaders all over the globe. So they did away with it. And the world is a safer place already.
[...] increases the amount of ambiguity in the rejection process [...]
Your other points are a matter of perspective, but this one makes Baby Jesus cry. By that logic we would have less ambiguity in the legal process if court cases were decided not on the details of a case but on a broader more generalised summary of roughly what went down, written entirely by the defendant. If looking more closely at patent applications causes issues, maybe the patenting process is faulty?
This has been coming up every time Firefox is mentioned anywhere on the web lately. Do all the businesses still run Firebird because they just have not gotten round to finish that full code review on Phoenix? I personally hate that version numbers race, but what is it to corporate IT, really? Mozilla clearly announced that the jump from 3.x to 4.x was the last one to come with a large swath of ground-breaking game-changing modifications and that further on the differences between major releases would be much more overseeable. FF 5 to 6 is not IE 6 to 7 or even 8 to 9. It is "just" an update. As was going from 4.0 to 4.1. Any business still running 4.0? No? Well, what did they do? They updated. Just as they will update from 5 to 6, and from 6 to 7. Releases come in faster, yes. But every single release has a much lower risk of breaking mission-critical things because a) the big architecture changes already happened and b) due to each release's much smaller feature set testing will be easier. Moving away from those big pile-ups of fundamental changes to a more structured break-one-thing-at-a-time-and-fix-it-before-doing-anything-else approach should indeed ease Firefox deployment.
A bunch of web pages which participate in those tracking programmes, mind you. That excludes lots of websites with a narrower focus or a smaller but more highly specialised user base. And anyone even remotely interested in privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Rocket ships make you look awesome. Talking to rocket ships makes you look like a moron. Replace rocket ships with cell phones and you get the idea. And yes, those goofy bluetooth headsets may be useful, but they still make you look like the biggest dork to ever walk this planet.
This has nothing to do with being anti-Mac (news flash: His Jobsiness did not invent language recognition) or anti-smartphone (you are on Slashdot, in case you have not noticed) or Android-faithful (I have an S2 and its voice control is about as important to me as its front-facing camera). There are certain social conventions regarding our interaction with machines in public space. And talking to them counts as weird and seriously annoying. No matter the usefulness, this will not change in the foreseeable future.
[...] War is a destructive force on an economy. [...]
Which is why there is no money to be made in the military sector. Tanks, guns and battleship are built by philantrophs at a loss.
I remember reading about a study recently that identified psychopaths by their use of language and other traits. Would be interesting to run the software they used against data collected from top managers, politicians etc.
[...] the other was a disk containing the latest stable drivers for all the hardware, and any pre-installed software that I bundled with the PC, things like OpenOffice, imgburn, ect. [...]
Am I the only one who cringes at reading this? If you are dealing with someone who needs a recovery disk in the first place, do you really want them to deploy hopelessly outdated drivers and software on their machines?
[...] Walk up to the next 100 people on the street and ask them dipshit, ask them "How do you get the command line in Windows?" and you know what they'll say? "what's command line?" [...]
That is correct. But the next thing they usually say is "Hey, my internet is broken, can you, like, fix it or something?". Which usually means that the dipshit has to resort to the term from the 70s era to see which part of Microsoft's latest shiny fucked up this time. Quality work, my friend. Quality work.
Non-Americans don't even have the same business models that drive traffic to US sites. They don't even have per-story comments [...]
It would have been sufficient to RTFA to see that you are wrong. Underneath the text even the Google translation shows quite prominently "Read comments (162 posts)". Let us visit the largest German news websites that I can name off the top of my head and click on an exemplary story to see who has per-story comments:
7 out of 8 have per-story comments. This business model has very much arrived here.
Should there be standards regarding when linking to illegal content is prosecuted? Certainly.
Absolutely. My recommendation would be never.
And people call Apache bloated. Right.
Here in Germany it mostly is, yes. Website operators are not allowed to store any personally identifiable information without the user's prior consent. So strictly speaking even Apache's default log settings violate our data protection and privacy laws. There are very limited exceptions for information that is required to process technical operations (eg. the landline-IP mapping at ISPs required to get on the internet) or to protect systems from attacks (eg. a temporary log of recent visitors' IP addresses to watch for DDOS etc.), but in general regulations are very strict here.
This is not for linking to Facebook but for embedding something in their websites that exposes visitors' information to Facebook.
Here in Germany there is a huge ongoing scandal involving the two largest Christian denominations for having covered up decades of widespread sexual abuse of minors by church personnel. The amount of cases come to light so far outnumbers any estimated dark figure by a really sizable margin. The findings strongly suggest a link between a highly repressive stance on sex as found in mainstream Christianity and an increased risk of child molestation.
croddy falsely assumes that anyone who believes the multi-window approach sucks donkeys' balls has been spoiled by Photoshop. GIMP is the only application I have ever consciously encountered and used for more than two seconds that uses this paradigm, and it annoys the bloody hell out of me. Just how Microsoft's ribbons suck for me, and how I hate GNOME 3 and Unity for breaking conventions that work extremely well for me and replacing them with something that does not reflect my way of using a computer. The multi-window approach is one out of many possible paradigms. That very few other applications (relicts from the computational stone age excluded) use it should be sufficiently strong indication that it may not be an unproblematic approach. And that insight should, in an ideal world, lead to the conclusion that offering the dominant paradigm as an option will enhance the software and improve its usefulness for a significant number of people.
Maybe he meant "Copyright registration pending". But even that would be strange, since brand names are not per se copyrightable AFAIK, they are protected as trademarks or logos, and business models or methods, as far as they can be protected at all, have to be patented, but there is no copyright on business methods. Most likely the person interviewed has no bloody clue about any of those forms of legal matters and just wanted to sound important.
[...] The copyrights have been made on the Zavilia brand name, principle, and technologies. [...]
[...] Although we cannot comment on exact figures, we can confirm the website peaked at over 100,000 unique visitors. [...]
[...] We have made contact with the authorities regarding several identifications, although we cannot disclose the exact figure due to security reasons. [...]
[...] entire documents detailing why Zavilia is “unethical” and “encourages vigilantism.” These remarks are however unfounded, and no damage has been done. [...]
[...] We do envisage much greater uses for Zavilia. However, as these are currently copyright pending, we cannot disclose any further details. [...]
Is it just me or is this interview nothing but a stream of useless PR crap? Our platform is so super-secret, 'cause it's copyrighted, y'know, and it does mighty good, but canna tell ya, 'cause it's so super-secret. Yeah, right. Colour me unimpressed.
Gameable once, that is. It would take quite some resources to use this for one's advantage. And those who have those resources likely are avoiding getting caught right now anyway.
[...] Just because there are a few morons who abuse the privilege and put other drivers in serious danger should not prevent the rest from doing what is otherwise not that dangerous. [...]
I would wholeheartedly agree with you, were it not for one tiny problem: The vast majority of people is unable to adequately judge whether they belong to the morons or to the rest. So I rather have the law err on the side of caution and treat everyone as a moron.
As my driving school instructor always told me: There are bad drivers, and there are those who have not yet had the chance to find out that they are bad drivers.
At least here in Germany we already have mandatory inspections every two years. Reading the odometer could be done there.
Think applications for OS X: Why would someone write software that is targeted at 10% of the user base when they can target 90? Because those 10% are highly profitable and support issues are lower due to the limited amount of different hardware and software configurations. Looking around me I would argue that the more affluent a person, the higher the chance they own a Mac, and I do not know anyone in person who still is on a PowerPC Mac.
- https does incur overhead and higher CPU usage on both ends, so it will be slower.
Firstly, this overhead is manageable. You do not have to be Google to run all your content over HTTPS. Secondly, apparently encrypting every single connection is a necessity of the times to prevent assholes from hijacking traffic, so that overhead is simply the necessary cost of interacting safely over the Internet.
- - I will defeat most of the benefits of running local caching proxy servers (come on, this is /., surely I'm not the only one with a proxy array at home?)
I do not know a single person who runs a proxy at home.
- - Some sites serve different content on the http and https sites. - A few even redirects the https to http (to save themselves cycles and bandwidth, while not losing the visitor).
You can disable individual rules. Over time those websites will have to stop doing those things or they will lose visitors.
Oh, ok. Expecting not to shell out ludicrous sums for the privilege of using a device one already shelled out a considerable sum for is balking and missing the point of freedom. Paying said ludicrous sums for said privilege - which is not a privilege but SOP in FLOSS - is somehow the true freedom. Yeah, I am so totally envious of your age of UNIX where freedom depended on the size of your wallet. Not.
Let me get this straight. You truly cannot fathom why FLOSS developers shun the Apple ecosystem in favour of Android when by your own admittance developing iOS apps for your own device comes with a $99 or, more realistically for the majority, $1099 premium on a $499 (for the cheapest model) price tag versus no additional cost whatoever (I do not know anyone with a tablet but no x86 compatible machine) and $300 to $500 pricetag? Wow. I thought such people existed only in soap operas and politics.
Absolutely, this outrageous device should be banned immediately. They did it with incandescent light bulbs, after all: Used by pedophiles, terrorists and tax evaders all over the globe. So they did away with it. And the world is a safer place already.
[...] increases the amount of ambiguity in the rejection process [...]
Your other points are a matter of perspective, but this one makes Baby Jesus cry. By that logic we would have less ambiguity in the legal process if court cases were decided not on the details of a case but on a broader more generalised summary of roughly what went down, written entirely by the defendant. If looking more closely at patent applications causes issues, maybe the patenting process is faulty?
This has been coming up every time Firefox is mentioned anywhere on the web lately. Do all the businesses still run Firebird because they just have not gotten round to finish that full code review on Phoenix? I personally hate that version numbers race, but what is it to corporate IT, really? Mozilla clearly announced that the jump from 3.x to 4.x was the last one to come with a large swath of ground-breaking game-changing modifications and that further on the differences between major releases would be much more overseeable. FF 5 to 6 is not IE 6 to 7 or even 8 to 9. It is "just" an update. As was going from 4.0 to 4.1. Any business still running 4.0? No? Well, what did they do? They updated. Just as they will update from 5 to 6, and from 6 to 7. Releases come in faster, yes. But every single release has a much lower risk of breaking mission-critical things because a) the big architecture changes already happened and b) due to each release's much smaller feature set testing will be easier. Moving away from those big pile-ups of fundamental changes to a more structured break-one-thing-at-a-time-and-fix-it-before-doing-anything-else approach should indeed ease Firefox deployment.
A bunch of web pages which participate in those tracking programmes, mind you. That excludes lots of websites with a narrower focus or a smaller but more highly specialised user base. And anyone even remotely interested in privacy.