When you say "start using Bitcoins", what exactly do you mean? Can I pay with Bitcoins at the supermarket, bar, movie theater, etc? Can I buy a car, or pay my mortgage or utility bills using Bitcoins?
Among other things, he's guilty of removing consumer control over their devices, and suing his competitors to stifle competition. Yeah, he did some good things for the industry in general, but he was also a bit of a dick (reference the issue with his daughter). It's no better that I focus on all of the negative aspects of what he did then it is for you to focus on only the positive.
Jobb's founded Apple which is the only hardware company from the early days of personal computing that is still making personal computers. Not even IBM is still in that market much less Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, TI, RadioShack, Heathkit, Altar, Osbourne, or any number of other companies that started around the same time.
See, this is the kind of crap that gets repeated which is blatantly false. First, the guy's name is Jobs, the possessive being Jobs'. Anyway, I can tell you don't keep up with technology companies, so let me introduce you to a company called Hewlett-Packard. This company was founded in Palo Alto in 1939 (yeah, nineteen thirty-nine), and entered the computer market in 1966, when Steve Jobs was 11 years old. HP is currently the #1 computer manufacturer in the world. Steve Wozniak designed the Apple 1 while he was employed at HP. HP was the first IT company to report revenue exceeding $100 billion. You don't care about that though, because facts don't fit into your view, you're too busy ordering your lacquered fellatio-ready replica of the Jobs Cock.
You should get to work on breeding falcons that can carry 4 people, and let us know how it goes. Since aircraft in the competition were allotted the equivalent of one gallon of fuel per passenger per 200 miles, a vehicle that carries no passengers would be allotted no fuel.
If the goal is automation and size, we need to stop with the fixed wing bullshit. If the goal is speed and flight duration, we've got larger, high-altitude craft that already fit the bill.
Not every competition is about war and spying. This contest is designed to improve fuel efficiency in passenger aircraft. Not automation, not size, not speed, not duration. Efficiency.
It's actually my browser of choice, I was glad to see at least one country with high numbers for Opera. I would have thought that Opera would do better in Norway though, but IE is still dominant there.
All users are created equal? All page views are created equal?
All other things being equal, yes they are. A page load in Chrome is 1 data point just like a page load in Firefox. There's no evidence that users of different browsers have drastically different (statistically significant) usage patterns. If you keep 20 tabs open in IE, you probably will in Chrome or Opera also. The numbers clearly show that Firefox usage is declining, while Chrome usage is climbing. The two most recent data points are close enough, with no sign that either is leveling out, that it is obvious that they are going to cross "relatively soon". That means that they're going to intersect in less time than it took them to get where they are now.
I sometimes wonder if 25% of all FF traffic is reloading my 200 active tabs every time FF or Ubuntu request a security reboot.
Considering the fact that Firefox is declining, you would only be helping it. You can reboot all you want, Firefox usage will still go the same direction worldwide. Firefox has already peaked. It's going to find itself as a niche browser like Opera, behind IE, Chrome, and Safari. I say that as a happy Opera user, but it's true. The only reason Firefox got popular in the first place is because it filled the gap of a "mainstream" IE alternative at a time when one was needed (and it did so well). Now there are several well-known alternatives, and as people get used to the fact that they can choose from multiple browsers they realize that, like IE, Firefox is not necessarily the best one for them.
Just wait until Google drops funding for Mozilla, then you'll quickly see people start to equate Firefox users with Linux users. Eventually Firefox will be every bit as quaint as Netscape is now.
That reminds me of an anecdote one of my CS professors mentioned. When fly-by-wire technology for passenger planes was starting to get rolled out, they polled some people about their willingness to fly on a plane that was controlled by a computer. The group that had one of the largest negative response was programmers. For everyone else the software is just magic.
You don't have to be a statistics major to see that Firefox and Chrome are going to intersect soon.
You'll see very different stats for individual countries. If you choose China, for example, you'll see that more people use Maxthon than Firefox, and that IE is still over 85%. If you choose Russia, on the other hand, you'll notice that more people use Opera than IE (Russians know a thing or two about avoiding malware).
The point is that, I'm not sure where your "real world website" is located, but the geography of your users is a good indicator of what the browser numbers will look like. Your "real world website" shows Safari over Chrome, so your numbers are not indicative of any country I've seen on statscounter. For all of the countries I've seen, Chrome has more users than Safari. It sounds like your "real world website" is a niche or hobbyist site, but whatever it is it looks like a statistical outlier with 7% of your users on mobile devices.
Finally, a non-AC responding to what I said about RAM/VM.
How does it happen that RAM is higher than virtual? Outlook shows 50,540KB virtual, and 59,536KB RAM. If virtual memory includes RAM, then how are those numbers possible?
An "outdated gaming machine" is not part of the set of "gaming machines"? I never claimed it was current, but believe me, it IS a gaming machine (I know this, because I play games on it).
I think that you don't really understand what is virtual memory. Virtual memory is the TOTAL memory used (swap and ram combined).
Really? So, right now, Outlook is using 59MB of RAM, and 50MB of virtual memory. So you're saying that Outlook is actually using 50MB total (59 from RAM, and apparently -9 from virtual).
Going down the list in task manager, I see any number of programs with more RAM than virtual.
First, in 2007 8GB was not "midrange". I know that, because that's when I built my last machine (the one with 2GB) to play Crysis. Second, you CAN have 24GB, but I guess for varying definitions of "almost nothing". I see 4GB chips at about $80 each, so 24GB comes out to $480 (and 6 RAM slots).
This is like complaining that Windows XP has problems on PCs with 16MB of RAM.
Are you trying to say that Firefox was designed for machines with more than 2GB of RAM? Do you even remember the original design goals for what became Firefox? "Lightweight" and "fast" were the adjectives being thrown around. Using up 1GB of RAM is not a lightweight browser.
Spending all the time tuning it just so someone using an antique computer can run it rather than fixing security holes isn't smart.
And that's the reason why people in corporations are turning away from Firefox. Your "antique computer" is a corporation's workhorse. But I agree, if you've made the decision to spend "all the time" tweaking efficiency instead of dealing with security problems, then that's not very smart. I would think you would spend time on both instead of devoting "all the time" to one task. But, then again, considering the list of bugs currently present in Firefox, I'm not really sure what they're spending their time on. Memory bloat plus security problems. They must be spending "all the time" just reworking the interface to make it more transparent and flashy.
If it's taking up 800MB of RAM, it's probably also using 1-2GB of virtual memory. If you're using Windows, you can select the columns you want to see in task manager to verify that (peak memory usage is also interesting). My bet would be that the non-responsiveness is the OS trying to swap between RAM and virtual.
Yesterday I started Firefox 6 and had it sitting just on the regular start page for a couple hours, with no other tabs open. Just sitting there, not doing a damn thing except showing the start page, it was using 50MB of RAM. Right now I have it open to a single tab and it's using 154MB of RAM and 226MB of virtual memory, so 380MB total. For 1 tab. I've seen earlier versions using well over 1GB of RAM at times, plus virtual memory. The memory usage seems to have slowed down the leaking and growing indefinitely large, but it still seems like a lot of memory.
But, considering that I have 8 GB in my computer, who gives a shit how much memory Firefox is using?
I'm going to go with "people who don't have 8GB of RAM". My gaming machine at home has 2, my work laptop has 1.
No, the idiot is the guy trying to play a game by propping up his tablet and attaching a keyboard that is larger than the actual tablet. The guy using a PC looks like a gamer, the guy trying to dick around with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse just for the privilege of playing a game on a tablet is the guy who looks like an idiot.
What's a component retailer to do in [a] world without user-serviceable components?
In a world without user-serviceable components, a component retailer wouldn't exist. So it's a good thing for component retailers that we do not live in a world without user-serviceable components.
I want to play Rage and Skyrim with the graphic detail maxed out, am I going to buy a tablet for that or am I going to order my shiny new SSDs and video card and mobo and other components from Newegg? The last computer I built was for Crysis when it came out, so it's time for a new one. And I never even got to fill up my terabyte RAID array.
Yeah seriously, who needs customers anyway? They should also push their chosen political agendas, and screw everyone who thinks differently. Might as well make it religious also, and screw anyone with different beliefs. Everyone should just stick to their own. Business don't really need customers anyway. My local bar took the same tactic. New owners came in and kicked out all of the regulars. Granted, today it's just an empty building, but at least they stuck to their business model and didn't have to deal with those pesky customers.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "start using Bitcoins", what exactly do you mean? Can I pay with Bitcoins at the supermarket, bar, movie theater, etc? Can I buy a car, or pay my mortgage or utility bills using Bitcoins?
That's interesting, then, that the first use of "personal computer" in advertising was by HP, for their 9100A, in 1968.
So it's OK to dodge taxes as long as you pay the shareholders. Got it.
What's Jobs guilty of?
Among other things, he's guilty of removing consumer control over their devices, and suing his competitors to stifle competition. Yeah, he did some good things for the industry in general, but he was also a bit of a dick (reference the issue with his daughter). It's no better that I focus on all of the negative aspects of what he did then it is for you to focus on only the positive.
Jobb's founded Apple which is the only hardware company from the early days of personal computing that is still making personal computers. Not even IBM is still in that market much less Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, TI, RadioShack, Heathkit, Altar, Osbourne, or any number of other companies that started around the same time.
See, this is the kind of crap that gets repeated which is blatantly false. First, the guy's name is Jobs, the possessive being Jobs'. Anyway, I can tell you don't keep up with technology companies, so let me introduce you to a company called Hewlett-Packard. This company was founded in Palo Alto in 1939 (yeah, nineteen thirty-nine), and entered the computer market in 1966, when Steve Jobs was 11 years old. HP is currently the #1 computer manufacturer in the world. Steve Wozniak designed the Apple 1 while he was employed at HP. HP was the first IT company to report revenue exceeding $100 billion. You don't care about that though, because facts don't fit into your view, you're too busy ordering your lacquered fellatio-ready replica of the Jobs Cock.
I think anon is referring to users who open email zip files from unknown senders and who don't bother to install an AV to start...
Maybe, but the 70% number quoted, and this study, dealt with drive-by browser installs rather than emailed zip files.
Maybe we could wait until the announcement is finished for the story to get posted.
You should get to work on breeding falcons that can carry 4 people, and let us know how it goes. Since aircraft in the competition were allotted the equivalent of one gallon of fuel per passenger per 200 miles, a vehicle that carries no passengers would be allotted no fuel.
If the goal is automation and size, we need to stop with the fixed wing bullshit.
If the goal is speed and flight duration, we've got larger, high-altitude craft that already fit the bill.
Not every competition is about war and spying. This contest is designed to improve fuel efficiency in passenger aircraft. Not automation, not size, not speed, not duration. Efficiency.
Strap an injured soldier onto a mule, tell it to return to base, and see what happens.
Or
Load up a mule with ammo and medical supplies, tell it to head to the unit 9 miles out into the desert, and see what happens.
It's actually my browser of choice, I was glad to see at least one country with high numbers for Opera. I would have thought that Opera would do better in Norway though, but IE is still dominant there.
All users are created equal? All page views are created equal?
All other things being equal, yes they are. A page load in Chrome is 1 data point just like a page load in Firefox. There's no evidence that users of different browsers have drastically different (statistically significant) usage patterns. If you keep 20 tabs open in IE, you probably will in Chrome or Opera also. The numbers clearly show that Firefox usage is declining, while Chrome usage is climbing. The two most recent data points are close enough, with no sign that either is leveling out, that it is obvious that they are going to cross "relatively soon". That means that they're going to intersect in less time than it took them to get where they are now.
I sometimes wonder if 25% of all FF traffic is reloading my 200 active tabs every time FF or Ubuntu request a security reboot.
Considering the fact that Firefox is declining, you would only be helping it. You can reboot all you want, Firefox usage will still go the same direction worldwide. Firefox has already peaked. It's going to find itself as a niche browser like Opera, behind IE, Chrome, and Safari. I say that as a happy Opera user, but it's true. The only reason Firefox got popular in the first place is because it filled the gap of a "mainstream" IE alternative at a time when one was needed (and it did so well). Now there are several well-known alternatives, and as people get used to the fact that they can choose from multiple browsers they realize that, like IE, Firefox is not necessarily the best one for them.
Just wait until Google drops funding for Mozilla, then you'll quickly see people start to equate Firefox users with Linux users. Eventually Firefox will be every bit as quaint as Netscape is now.
That reminds me of an anecdote one of my CS professors mentioned. When fly-by-wire technology for passenger planes was starting to get rolled out, they polled some people about their willingness to fly on a plane that was controlled by a computer. The group that had one of the largest negative response was programmers. For everyone else the software is just magic.
I'm not sure what the alternative to a "real world website" is supposed to be, but this is the data that shows the story, averaged worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/
You don't have to be a statistics major to see that Firefox and Chrome are going to intersect soon.
You'll see very different stats for individual countries. If you choose China, for example, you'll see that more people use Maxthon than Firefox, and that IE is still over 85%. If you choose Russia, on the other hand, you'll notice that more people use Opera than IE (Russians know a thing or two about avoiding malware).
The point is that, I'm not sure where your "real world website" is located, but the geography of your users is a good indicator of what the browser numbers will look like. Your "real world website" shows Safari over Chrome, so your numbers are not indicative of any country I've seen on statscounter. For all of the countries I've seen, Chrome has more users than Safari. It sounds like your "real world website" is a niche or hobbyist site, but whatever it is it looks like a statistical outlier with 7% of your users on mobile devices.
Chinese take-out is an American invention.
Yeah, and as we all know, the Chinese never copy anything from America.
Finally, a non-AC responding to what I said about RAM/VM.
How does it happen that RAM is higher than virtual? Outlook shows 50,540KB virtual, and 59,536KB RAM. If virtual memory includes RAM, then how are those numbers possible?
An "outdated gaming machine" is not part of the set of "gaming machines"? I never claimed it was current, but believe me, it IS a gaming machine (I know this, because I play games on it).
I think that you don't really understand what is virtual memory. Virtual memory is the TOTAL memory used (swap and ram combined).
Really? So, right now, Outlook is using 59MB of RAM, and 50MB of virtual memory. So you're saying that Outlook is actually using 50MB total (59 from RAM, and apparently -9 from virtual).
Going down the list in task manager, I see any number of programs with more RAM than virtual.
Granted, it should clean it after a while.
I know it *should*, that's not the problem.
First, in 2007 8GB was not "midrange". I know that, because that's when I built my last machine (the one with 2GB) to play Crysis. Second, you CAN have 24GB, but I guess for varying definitions of "almost nothing". I see 4GB chips at about $80 each, so 24GB comes out to $480 (and 6 RAM slots).
This is like complaining that Windows XP has problems on PCs with 16MB of RAM.
Are you trying to say that Firefox was designed for machines with more than 2GB of RAM? Do you even remember the original design goals for what became Firefox? "Lightweight" and "fast" were the adjectives being thrown around. Using up 1GB of RAM is not a lightweight browser.
Spending all the time tuning it just so someone using an antique computer can run it rather than fixing security holes isn't smart.
And that's the reason why people in corporations are turning away from Firefox. Your "antique computer" is a corporation's workhorse. But I agree, if you've made the decision to spend "all the time" tweaking efficiency instead of dealing with security problems, then that's not very smart. I would think you would spend time on both instead of devoting "all the time" to one task. But, then again, considering the list of bugs currently present in Firefox, I'm not really sure what they're spending their time on. Memory bloat plus security problems. They must be spending "all the time" just reworking the interface to make it more transparent and flashy.
If it's taking up 800MB of RAM, it's probably also using 1-2GB of virtual memory. If you're using Windows, you can select the columns you want to see in task manager to verify that (peak memory usage is also interesting). My bet would be that the non-responsiveness is the OS trying to swap between RAM and virtual.
Yesterday I started Firefox 6 and had it sitting just on the regular start page for a couple hours, with no other tabs open. Just sitting there, not doing a damn thing except showing the start page, it was using 50MB of RAM. Right now I have it open to a single tab and it's using 154MB of RAM and 226MB of virtual memory, so 380MB total. For 1 tab. I've seen earlier versions using well over 1GB of RAM at times, plus virtual memory. The memory usage seems to have slowed down the leaking and growing indefinitely large, but it still seems like a lot of memory.
But, considering that I have 8 GB in my computer, who gives a shit how much memory Firefox is using?
I'm going to go with "people who don't have 8GB of RAM". My gaming machine at home has 2, my work laptop has 1.
I have that option now, the only reason I would buy a console is if it wasn't possible for me to play games on a PC.
Yeah? Find a business willing to swap out all of their desktops for 1GHz Celeron machines, and see if anyone notices.
No, the idiot is the guy trying to play a game by propping up his tablet and attaching a keyboard that is larger than the actual tablet. The guy using a PC looks like a gamer, the guy trying to dick around with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse just for the privilege of playing a game on a tablet is the guy who looks like an idiot.
OK, let's get this started.
What's a component retailer to do in [a] world without user-serviceable components?
In a world without user-serviceable components, a component retailer wouldn't exist. So it's a good thing for component retailers that we do not live in a world without user-serviceable components.
I want to play Rage and Skyrim with the graphic detail maxed out, am I going to buy a tablet for that or am I going to order my shiny new SSDs and video card and mobo and other components from Newegg? The last computer I built was for Crysis when it came out, so it's time for a new one. And I never even got to fill up my terabyte RAID array.
Yeah seriously, who needs customers anyway? They should also push their chosen political agendas, and screw everyone who thinks differently. Might as well make it religious also, and screw anyone with different beliefs. Everyone should just stick to their own. Business don't really need customers anyway. My local bar took the same tactic. New owners came in and kicked out all of the regulars. Granted, today it's just an empty building, but at least they stuck to their business model and didn't have to deal with those pesky customers.