Whatever it is, I got a prompt saying that an extension that I want to use would be disabled if I upgraded to 8.
I don't see why it should matter so much whether the extensions are bundled or self installed, and whether there are one or two different prompts.
All that seems relevant to me is whether the next version of Firefox is worth upgrading to or not. The only reason why I still have Firefox installed is because of the extensions. If they don't work, then it's not worth it. I can always launch Google Chrome if I want a browser that is fast and can return memory to the OS without me having to close everything.
AFAIK it started giving problems on my machine soon after they renamed it Oracle VirtualBox. Hangs of VM and misc weirdness.
When I reverted to a previous version the problems went away. I haven't bothered to check recent versions since (I did try one or two but reverting was the only way).
If that's what you mean then I find your question irrelevant, and your original remark misleading- because the firefox prompt doesn't distinguish between bundled extensions and extensions you install yourself.
I switched to Firefox 7 a few weeks ago, and recently it basically said "Time to upgrade to Firefox 8 and by the way following extensions/plugins might stop working".
There's a prompt during the install (one-time, just in this release) for disabling the likely-crapware third-party extensions installed on your machine.
What you call crapware extensions are the only reasons why I'm still using Firefox instead of Chrome!
What real benefit does Firefox 8 give to the users for all these hassles? Twitter searches? WTF.
I really didn't notice many big improvements when upgrading to 7 from Firefox 3.6 (which I was running before). It was still slower than Google Chrome for many sites. Supposedly the memory management is better, but it is still far crappier than Google Chrome in _practice_, since with Chrome even if though chrome may be eakier or its extensions/plugins leak memory, if you close the offending tab/window the memory is freed up. You can reopen a new window, and even go back to the website without having to log in again. That does NOT happen with Firefox and from what I gather it is NOT going to happen any time soon.
So turns out I wasted my time upgrading from 3.6 to Firefox 7. I did it because some people here said I should upgrade before grumbling about Firefox.
Should I now waste my time upgrading to Firefox 8? And then Firefox 9 when the developers next change their underwear?
I do appreciate the work done on Firefox, but the Firefox developers need to realize that if their browser becomes a stable and robust platform (than can tolerate "crapware" extensions), then it has a higher chance of retaining or even gaining market share, all without the Firefox developers having to add features themselves - the 3rd party developers can add the features (even stuff like Twitter search;) ). If you keep breaking extensions you are no longer a stable platform.
Let me repeat for emphasis, the only reason why I'm using Firefox instead of Chrome is because of those "crapware third party extensions". I bet that is true for many Slashdotters here.
a lot of people dont remember that browsers generally cost money until that point in time.
Not really. Mosaic didn't cost money. Netscape Navigator was free for personal use.
And the real reason Netscape lost market share was because later versions (4 onwards) were actually crappier than the competing versions of IE. Netscape crashed more, had about the same number of exploits as IE if not more (go ask Georgi Guninski). Then Netscape 6 came out and was an even smellier piece of shit. Go look how long it took till Netscape/Mozilla was barely worth using. At one point of time whenever I was using Linux, I was resorting to Konqueror (which was free too).
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Nope wasn't in NZ during that time. But it's just obvious what will happen if: 1) the politicians are a bunch who mainly care about themselves and their cronies, and 2) the politicians aren't that stupid.
So far I haven't had anyone point out flaws in my reasoning, they mostly keep saying "small is always better" like it's some sort of religious mantra. Or they don't/can't even read and understand my entire post (like the AC who replied to me) and so just make stupid replies.
BTW, I think NZ should go GM-Free. Not because of religious reasons etc, but because your farms don't really need GM to compete (volcanic soil, mostly mild weather and all that). The idea is NZ maintains a "green, clean, nuke free, GM free" image and so in the future NZ can charge more for its products. Especially if there's some GM screw-up/scare;),
NZ folk who want to do GM stuff should go do it in other countries - e.g. do a "joint-venture" with Singapore or other.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
it's a federal government that outsources and contracts almost *everything* these days
Of course, that's because many voters keep stupidly asking for small government, so the people in power figure out ways to reduce headcount and pretend to have "small government" while still enriching themselves.
So be careful for what you ask for. You might get it. Quality matters more than Quantity.
The next "obvious" step is the voters saying "No it's not just about headcount" and want to reduce Government spending and taxes as well. If forced to, they'd do stuff like give/sell off the profitable bits and have their Crony Corporations now charge fees, tolls, rent instead (of taxes).
Then you'd have small government, low taxes, low government spending, low regulation. The dreams of the voters and some people in power will come true.
But the voters would be even more screwed, since the voters would find it even harder to "vote out" Corporations they don't want.
When that happens don't expect voters to succeed voting with their wallets when: a) they clearly did a stupid job voting with the ballot b) the votes of the rich and powerful count for more c) you have even fewer "candidates" and good luck having independents for "Tolled Highways" or "Defense Management Corporation".
As for voting with bullets, sure you can try to get rid of everything, but you may then have to wait for the Supreme Dictator's great-grandchild to take over and decide that Democracy might be a cool thing to try.
Geckos get the dirt off much the same way you get dirt off your skin. Flexibly controlled by muscles causing constant minuscule reshaping of the surface causes loose particles to fall off.
Some of us slashdotters actually prefer to shower regularly instead of waiting for "loose particles to fall off".
Uh. Downloading RSAT is usually just one of the first in very very many steps. Maybe in your case it "just worked", but from my experience and others online it doesn't "just work" all the time. Plus even when it works, you often can't browse the server's local filesystem to select stuff.
With vmware you hardly ever need to "remote desktop" to the host server to manage your guest VMs. Many multiple users can concurrently manage their own VMs on the host server without much interference with each other. It works so easily (and has been working easily since vmware GSX version 1.x) that I was amazed how crappy and flaky Hyper V was in this area.
A lot of it is carcinogenic, even more in cooked meat.
A lot of plants we eat have poisons to stop stuff from eating them. Chocolate, coffee, onions, garlic, various beans and many others. Even potatoes can be toxic.
Just because stuff is listed under GRAS (generally recognized as safe) doesn't mean they're actually as safe as other foods and drugs that have to pass the tests. They can be listed just because of: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/aprqtr/21cfr170.30.htm
(c)(1) General recognition of safety through experience based on common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, may be determined without the quantity or quality of scientific procedures required for approval of a food additive regulation. General recognition of safety through experience based on common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, shall be based solely on food use of the substance prior to January 1, 1958, and shall ordinarily be based upon generally available data and information. An ingredient not in common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, may achieve general recognition of safety only through scientific procedures.
There's usually little profit in finding out that common popular foods are actually not that safe (I mean in actual proper live studies - not in-vitro studies which seem to be able to show almost anything you want;) ).
As for vegetarian diets, there's plenty of scientific evidence that show that humans do better on diets that contain fish. Just too bad many fish are getting endangered and more toxic (mercury, pcbs etc).
After all that don't be surprised if remote management still doesn't always work, or some little change somewhere could break it.
In contrast, with VMware it mostly just works (I'm not too fond of the recent remote consoles but it's still better than HyperV).
If you've figured out an easy reliable way to get Hyper V remote management to work do let me know. Some people at work are complaining that it stopped working for them.
But so far I don't see a big difference compared to the other search engines, what has happened is they've made it harder for me to search for stuff.
Used to be when I put in search terms the search results would usually have all my search terms (not always tho- coz googlebombing worked).
Then they changed that so that I would have to prefix the search terms with +, only then would the search results have all my search terms (or at least be googlebombed by/related to all my search terms - e.g. a page with all my search terms pointed to the search result).
Now they've changed things so I have to put a double quote around each and every one of my search terms! I guess they don't like or care about users like me.
It's harder to search for technical stuff when they keep including what they think are synonyms or leave stuff out because there are fewer results or some other stupid reason.
I don't care if there are fewer results, there could be only one result or even zero results. That way I can tell whether the entire indexed web has an answer to my problem or not (which is unfortunately often). If there are really no answers then I can spend the time trying to figure it out myself rather than wasting time wrestling with Google.
Nowadays Google is doing something analogous to including the answers to 2+2 when I just want the answer to 2.123 + 2.12. So what if there's only one correct answer on the web, I don't care. Same if nobody else in the world has worked out the answer.
One fresh East German immigrant was a real wizard, he e-mailed in a perfect answer, when we interviewed him on-site I asked him to do it again, but with 5 cycles in polar coordinates, he finished in 15 minutes with great looking code - we made him an offer and he accepted, but 3 hours later phoned back and sheepishly declined, it seems he hadn't discussed the possibility of moving with his girlfriend.
If he's not that expensive why not have him work for you without emigrating?
Speaking from experience once you start using those a lot the mosquitoes actually do appear to evolve in response. Subsequent generations were smaller, flew faster, withdrew their probes faster, had quicker reflexes and way too many seemed to be able to figure out the difference between me lying in bed holding the racket, pretending to sleep while waiting to swat them; and me lying in bed actually asleep! This was in contrast to slow mosquitoes in another place which I could even prod with my finger while they were flying...
Anyway resorting to mosquito netting everywhere (windows, doors, gaps under doors etc) worked better. For a while it did give me some satisfaction to have a fan blow air out my room via a netting while having a fly zapper at the other side of the netting. Zapped very many mosquitoes that way. Perhaps if I kept it up for years they might have evolved to not like the scent of my room or whatever it is they're flying to which would be fine by me:). The problem was two or so geckos decided to get zapped too in their pursuit of the mosquitoes. So in the end I left the "mosquito removal" to the geckos waiting at the netting.
As for this light barrier, I don't think it would work very well, just a slight breeze and they might be blown across it. And if enough manage to ignore it, make it across and reproduce, subsequent generations would be more likely to ignore the light barrier.
Ignoring mosquito netting is a bit harder - they have to physically become smaller - which is actually is possible. So you have to kill any mosquitoes that make it through:).
Someone I know actually ordered octenol, bought a bug zapper and tried to build his own mosquito killer, but somehow the mosquitoes still preferred humans to his mosquito killer:).
If you reduce the size of government to near zero but retain all the functions on a contractual basis, you haven't actually reduced the size of government.
OK fine, assume you all insist that they reduce the size and not have any Government control. It seems obvious to me they'd just sell/give away the profitable bits to their friends. Then those bits wouldn't be part of Government at all.
Give me good reasons why that wouldn't happen given their track record? This story already shows they're willing to cut head count to give you what you asked for and presumably make some people rich.
That's assuming the same person doesn't later on get cancer again or something just as expensive. And what are the odds that a person who got cancer would get cancer again?
People eventually die. So just because someone dies earlier expensively doesn't mean that the person who didn't die sooner would be cheaper in the long run, especially if it's all paid by socialized healthcare/welfare.
Lastly it's quality AND length of life that matters. You want to live longer not merely survive longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever it is, I got a prompt saying that an extension that I want to use would be disabled if I upgraded to 8.
I don't see why it should matter so much whether the extensions are bundled or self installed, and whether there are one or two different prompts.
All that seems relevant to me is whether the next version of Firefox is worth upgrading to or not. The only reason why I still have Firefox installed is because of the extensions. If they don't work, then it's not worth it. I can always launch Google Chrome if I want a browser that is fast and can return memory to the OS without me having to close everything.
If you get such idiocy you might as well use Linux.
AFAIK it started giving problems on my machine soon after they renamed it Oracle VirtualBox. Hangs of VM and misc weirdness.
When I reverted to a previous version the problems went away. I haven't bothered to check recent versions since (I did try one or two but reverting was the only way).
If that's what you mean then I find your question irrelevant, and your original remark misleading- because the firefox prompt doesn't distinguish between bundled extensions and extensions you install yourself.
I switched to Firefox 7 a few weeks ago, and recently it basically said "Time to upgrade to Firefox 8 and by the way following extensions/plugins might stop working".
There's a prompt during the install (one-time, just in this release) for disabling the likely-crapware third-party extensions installed on your machine.
What you call crapware extensions are the only reasons why I'm still using Firefox instead of Chrome!
What real benefit does Firefox 8 give to the users for all these hassles? Twitter searches? WTF.
I really didn't notice many big improvements when upgrading to 7 from Firefox 3.6 (which I was running before). It was still slower than Google Chrome for many sites. Supposedly the memory management is better, but it is still far crappier than Google Chrome in _practice_, since with Chrome even if though chrome may be eakier or its extensions/plugins leak memory, if you close the offending tab/window the memory is freed up. You can reopen a new window, and even go back to the website without having to log in again. That does NOT happen with Firefox and from what I gather it is NOT going to happen any time soon.
So turns out I wasted my time upgrading from 3.6 to Firefox 7. I did it because some people here said I should upgrade before grumbling about Firefox.
Should I now waste my time upgrading to Firefox 8? And then Firefox 9 when the developers next change their underwear?
I do appreciate the work done on Firefox, but the Firefox developers need to realize that if their browser becomes a stable and robust platform (than can tolerate "crapware" extensions), then it has a higher chance of retaining or even gaining market share, all without the Firefox developers having to add features themselves - the 3rd party developers can add the features (even stuff like Twitter search ;) ). If you keep breaking extensions you are no longer a stable platform.
Let me repeat for emphasis, the only reason why I'm using Firefox instead of Chrome is because of those "crapware third party extensions". I bet that is true for many Slashdotters here.
It's probably taking longer to learn "everything" there is to know in your chosen field before you can actually start "breaking new ground".
a lot of people dont remember that browsers generally cost money until that point in time.
Not really. Mosaic didn't cost money. Netscape Navigator was free for personal use.
And the real reason Netscape lost market share was because later versions (4 onwards) were actually crappier than the competing versions of IE. Netscape crashed more, had about the same number of exploits as IE if not more (go ask Georgi Guninski). Then Netscape 6 came out and was an even smellier piece of shit. Go look how long it took till Netscape/Mozilla was barely worth using. At one point of time whenever I was using Linux, I was resorting to Konqueror (which was free too).
Nope wasn't in NZ during that time. But it's just obvious what will happen if:
;),
1) the politicians are a bunch who mainly care about themselves and their cronies, and
2) the politicians aren't that stupid.
So far I haven't had anyone point out flaws in my reasoning, they mostly keep saying "small is always better" like it's some sort of religious mantra. Or they don't/can't even read and understand my entire post (like the AC who replied to me) and so just make stupid replies.
BTW, I think NZ should go GM-Free. Not because of religious reasons etc, but because your farms don't really need GM to compete (volcanic soil, mostly mild weather and all that). The idea is NZ maintains a "green, clean, nuke free, GM free" image and so in the future NZ can charge more for its products. Especially if there's some GM screw-up/scare
NZ folk who want to do GM stuff should go do it in other countries - e.g. do a "joint-venture" with Singapore or other.
it's a federal government that outsources and contracts almost *everything* these days
Of course, that's because many voters keep stupidly asking for small government, so the people in power figure out ways to reduce headcount and pretend to have "small government" while still enriching themselves.
So be careful for what you ask for. You might get it. Quality matters more than Quantity.
The next "obvious" step is the voters saying "No it's not just about headcount" and want to reduce Government spending and taxes as well. If forced to, they'd do stuff like give/sell off the profitable bits and have their Crony Corporations now charge fees, tolls, rent instead (of taxes).
Then you'd have small government, low taxes, low government spending, low regulation. The dreams of the voters and some people in power will come true.
But the voters would be even more screwed, since the voters would find it even harder to "vote out" Corporations they don't want.
When that happens don't expect voters to succeed voting with their wallets when:
a) they clearly did a stupid job voting with the ballot
b) the votes of the rich and powerful count for more
c) you have even fewer "candidates" and good luck having independents for "Tolled Highways" or "Defense Management Corporation".
As for voting with bullets, sure you can try to get rid of everything, but you may then have to wait for the Supreme Dictator's great-grandchild to take over and decide that Democracy might be a cool thing to try.
Geckos get the dirt off much the same way you get dirt off your skin. Flexibly controlled by muscles causing constant minuscule reshaping of the surface causes loose particles to fall off.
Some of us slashdotters actually prefer to shower regularly instead of waiting for "loose particles to fall off".
It's like GNU screen, but for GUIs :).
If you disconnect for whatever reason, you can still resume your session.
I think you're supposed to create an account then watch the videos and do the exercises, "level up" etc.
Uh. Downloading RSAT is usually just one of the first in very very many steps. Maybe in your case it "just worked", but from my experience and others online it doesn't "just work" all the time. Plus even when it works, you often can't browse the server's local filesystem to select stuff.
With vmware you hardly ever need to "remote desktop" to the host server to manage your guest VMs. Many multiple users can concurrently manage their own VMs on the host server without much interference with each other. It works so easily (and has been working easily since vmware GSX version 1.x) that I was amazed how crappy and flaky Hyper V was in this area.
Yes, if you actually want many users.
A lot of it is carcinogenic, even more in cooked meat.
A lot of plants we eat have poisons to stop stuff from eating them. Chocolate, coffee, onions, garlic, various beans and many others. Even potatoes can be toxic.
Just because stuff is listed under GRAS (generally recognized as safe) doesn't mean they're actually as safe as other foods and drugs that have to pass the tests. They can be listed just because of:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/aprqtr/21cfr170.30.htm
(c)(1) General recognition of safety through experience based on
common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, may be determined without
the quantity or quality of scientific procedures required for approval
of a food additive regulation. General recognition of safety through
experience based on common use in food prior to January 1, 1958, shall
be based solely on food use of the substance prior to January 1, 1958,
and shall ordinarily be based upon generally available data and
information. An ingredient not in common use in food prior to January 1,
1958, may achieve general recognition of safety only through scientific
procedures.
There's usually little profit in finding out that common popular foods are actually not that safe (I mean in actual proper live studies - not in-vitro studies which seem to be able to show almost anything you want ;) ).
As for vegetarian diets, there's plenty of scientific evidence that show that humans do better on diets that contain fish. Just too bad many fish are getting endangered and more toxic (mercury, pcbs etc).
Hyper V is the virtualization software where enabling remote management requires you to either
a) use an unsupported utility to enable remote management: http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/HVRemote
or
b) Go through a multipage web article: http://blogs.technet.com/b/jhoward/archive/2008/03/28/part-1-hyper-v-remote-management-you-do-not-have-the-requested-permission-to-complete-this-task-contact-the-administrator-of-the-authorization-policy-for-the-computer-computername.aspx
or
c) spend way too much time mucking around.
After all that don't be surprised if remote management still doesn't always work, or some little change somewhere could break it.
In contrast, with VMware it mostly just works (I'm not too fond of the recent remote consoles but it's still better than HyperV).
If you've figured out an easy reliable way to get Hyper V remote management to work do let me know. Some people at work are complaining that it stopped working for them.
But so far I don't see a big difference compared to the other search engines, what has happened is they've made it harder for me to search for stuff.
Used to be when I put in search terms the search results would usually have all my search terms (not always tho- coz googlebombing worked).
Then they changed that so that I would have to prefix the search terms with +, only then would the search results have all my search terms (or at least be googlebombed by/related to all my search terms - e.g. a page with all my search terms pointed to the search result).
Now they've changed things so I have to put a double quote around each and every one of my search terms! I guess they don't like or care about users like me.
It's harder to search for technical stuff when they keep including what they think are synonyms or leave stuff out because there are fewer results or some other stupid reason.
I don't care if there are fewer results, there could be only one result or even zero results. That way I can tell whether the entire indexed web has an answer to my problem or not (which is unfortunately often). If there are really no answers then I can spend the time trying to figure it out myself rather than wasting time wrestling with Google.
Nowadays Google is doing something analogous to including the answers to 2+2 when I just want the answer to 2.123 + 2.12. So what if there's only one correct answer on the web, I don't care. Same if nobody else in the world has worked out the answer.
One fresh East German immigrant was a real wizard, he e-mailed in a perfect answer, when we interviewed him on-site I asked him to do it again, but with 5 cycles in polar coordinates, he finished in 15 minutes with great looking code - we made him an offer and he accepted, but 3 hours later phoned back and sheepishly declined, it seems he hadn't discussed the possibility of moving with his girlfriend.
If he's not that expensive why not have him work for you without emigrating?
Speaking from experience once you start using those a lot the mosquitoes actually do appear to evolve in response. Subsequent generations were smaller, flew faster, withdrew their probes faster, had quicker reflexes and way too many seemed to be able to figure out the difference between me lying in bed holding the racket, pretending to sleep while waiting to swat them; and me lying in bed actually asleep! This was in contrast to slow mosquitoes in another place which I could even prod with my finger while they were flying...
:). The problem was two or so geckos decided to get zapped too in their pursuit of the mosquitoes. So in the end I left the "mosquito removal" to the geckos waiting at the netting.
:).
:).
Anyway resorting to mosquito netting everywhere (windows, doors, gaps under doors etc) worked better. For a while it did give me some satisfaction to have a fan blow air out my room via a netting while having a fly zapper at the other side of the netting. Zapped very many mosquitoes that way. Perhaps if I kept it up for years they might have evolved to not like the scent of my room or whatever it is they're flying to which would be fine by me
As for this light barrier, I don't think it would work very well, just a slight breeze and they might be blown across it. And if enough manage to ignore it, make it across and reproduce, subsequent generations would be more likely to ignore the light barrier.
Ignoring mosquito netting is a bit harder - they have to physically become smaller - which is actually is possible. So you have to kill any mosquitoes that make it through
Someone I know actually ordered octenol, bought a bug zapper and tried to build his own mosquito killer, but somehow the mosquitoes still preferred humans to his mosquito killer
FWIW in some languages a "tail of deer" actually makes sense, e.g. Indonesian, Malay:
http://bahasakita.com/about/grammar/the-classifiers-buah-orang-and-ekor/
In English, it'll probably be a herd, a parcel or X head of deer. ;).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifier_(linguistics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collective_nouns
If head of deer is fine, why not tails of deer
Anyway I don't know linguistics and I've no idea what the difference is between classifiers and collective nouns.
I wonder if this is due to the politicians no longer being required to actually talk for ages in order to filibuster.
And the increased number of props means better redundancy so more engines can fail without it dropping out of the sky.
Electric motors don't fail that often, but it does help against the blade failure problem.
After that you'd have to worry about battery/power failure :).
You say that like it's a law of physics or something.
So using your logic, the quantity of country is inversely related to the quality of the country?
And the quantity of your brain cells is inversely related to your quality of your brain? So if you had zero brain cells you'd be at your smartest?
If you reduce the size of government to near zero but retain all the functions on a contractual basis, you haven't actually reduced the size of government.
OK fine, assume you all insist that they reduce the size and not have any Government control. It seems obvious to me they'd just sell/give away the profitable bits to their friends. Then those bits wouldn't be part of Government at all.
Give me good reasons why that wouldn't happen given their track record? This story already shows they're willing to cut head count to give you what you asked for and presumably make some people rich.
See also: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2502128&cid=37897388
That's assuming the same person doesn't later on get cancer again or something just as expensive. And what are the odds that a person who got cancer would get cancer again?
People eventually die. So just because someone dies earlier expensively doesn't mean that the person who didn't die sooner would be cheaper in the long run, especially if it's all paid by socialized healthcare/welfare.
Lastly it's quality AND length of life that matters. You want to live longer not merely survive longer.