I fail to see how that makes "http://" informative. "ftp://" is shown. Anything but "http://" seems to be shown, including "file://" etc.
If there isn't anything there, it's "http://". Considering that this is the vast majority of a browser's usage, it seems like a good compromise to me - and won't make any difference on your example.
On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.
I didn't realize it until he mentioned it, but I see it now: The url field does not show the "http://" anymore. It does show "https://", but I guess someone decided that it was more useful to show more of the actual URL and remove "http://", as it's not informative in any way anymore.
A crappy browser that makes you look at crappy Flash?
Independently of how arguable the "crappy browser" part is (I haven't found a better or faster browser for a mobile device yet - maybe my needs are minimal on a minimalistic device?), no one is making you look at anything - you can disable Flash on Android 2.2 and continue your flashless experience, which I will probably do as soon as it's officially rolled out.
Once Microsoft's latest release claims it can now support patching without reboots, but literally every patch Tuesday since the first beta have still required reboots.
Really? I've also been running it since Beta, and I've noticed no such thing. I'd say about once a month or so at most.
Depends. I would have to research the average flying speed needed to enter Australian airspace undetected, possibly carrying a hollow coconut with a hard drive inside, before I decide on an specific sub-species.
And functionality problems (which I don't see myself and I've been using it since it's available - especially since the Feb 2010 release) don't preclude the fact that Adobe is working on a 64bit final release for Linux. Given that your sentence was about a release, an alpha release definitely qualifies. Other platforms don't even have the relative "luck" of having a Flash release at all.
Don't get me wrong - I've been on the Flash hate bandwagon since 1998. I have it blocked by default, and only enable it when I really want to run something. Flash on debian 64bits has worked pretty reliably for me, especially when you consider it's an alpha release. You talk about bugs - maybe you should take a shot at visiting http://bugs.adobe.com/flashplayer/ ? It's people like you that should give feedback about it, or the problems you are experiencing will never get fixed if it works for them as it works for me.
Given that their plan seems to be to release 64bits plugins for MacOS X, Windows and Linux, I'd say there is a good chance people will have proper working plugins by then. Of course, you're right that it's been a while (since Nov 2008, a full year and a half) since the first 64bit alpha, but they have been refreshing it on a regular basis.
The fact they mention ISPs and video hosting means that what is at stake here is the claim that "it's too expensive / impossible / whatever" to filter a video uploaded to youtube, or to megavideo, or generally speaking sent via your friendly ISP. By (supposedly) defeating this claim, they expect to make companies accountable for what the users share on their websites / lines / etc, as it becomes computationally trivial (or so they claim) to identify it - hence the mention to the 3Ghz single core home PC, something no company can claim not to be able to afford.
I could have responded to any other slashdotter that got it wrong, but I chose you because of your last sentence, which I would have expected people would ask themselves before blindly believing anything they read. I know, I must be new here.
P2P developers routinely receive offers to work for anti-p2p companies, developing against themselves. And not offers to help develop proper measures to control the copyright status of the shared files, but to create ways to disrupt their own networks, or other p2p networks, in clever ways. While I understand that contacting the more knowledgeable people in the field seems like the best move, this news item only proves that they can get the point after receiving a "Fuck you" answer over and over again...
You can't simply say "When steam goes down, you can't play your games" and then cover your ears and sing very, very loudly when someone tells you that your "facts" are just FUD. You're either ignorant, stubborn, or lying, so just pick one.
Seriously, saying that your facts are correct except for the cases where they're not, which are exceptions, is just mindblowing.
Slashdot Mirror
If a company that specializes in expensive, high-end computer products is doing well in a weak economy... what happens when the economy improves?
The cynic in me says they raise prices (probably by disproportionally overpricing small updates to current systems).
I fail to see how that makes "http://" informative. "ftp://" is shown. Anything but "http://" seems to be shown, including "file://" etc.
If there isn't anything there, it's "http://". Considering that this is the vast majority of a browser's usage, it seems like a good compromise to me - and won't make any difference on your example.
On a side note, I am deeply disturbed by the fact browsers would render htm[l] files when using "ftp://". It just sounds horribly wrong to me.
Indeed. That's why I said it doesn't show the "http://". If you use copy/paste it reappears as well.
It's not there on 6.0.408.1 on Mac, so I wouldn't expect it to be around in the future.
I didn't realize it until he mentioned it, but I see it now: The url field does not show the "http://" anymore. It does show "https://", but I guess someone decided that it was more useful to show more of the actual URL and remove "http://", as it's not informative in any way anymore.
You don't have to wait, I'm posting this from Chrome 6.0.408.1
Of course, you're going to have to use the dev channel, and get ready for a hell of a bumpy ride...
You know, I do that too - and so does my wife. Except I go for "Offensive" and she goes for "Repetitive". Team work, you know.
A crappy browser that makes you look at crappy Flash?
Independently of how arguable the "crappy browser" part is (I haven't found a better or faster browser for a mobile device yet - maybe my needs are minimal on a minimalistic device?), no one is making you look at anything - you can disable Flash on Android 2.2 and continue your flashless experience, which I will probably do as soon as it's officially rolled out.
Once Microsoft's latest release claims it can now support patching without reboots, but literally every patch Tuesday since the first beta have still required reboots.
Really? I've also been running it since Beta, and I've noticed no such thing. I'd say about once a month or so at most.
Are you sure you know what Patch Tuesday is?
Depends. I would have to research the average flying speed needed to enter Australian airspace undetected, possibly carrying a hollow coconut with a hard drive inside, before I decide on an specific sub-species.
I really hope you mean "swallow one whole"
You can just disable that in the preferences, you know.
And functionality problems (which I don't see myself and I've been using it since it's available - especially since the Feb 2010 release) don't preclude the fact that Adobe is working on a 64bit final release for Linux. Given that your sentence was about a release, an alpha release definitely qualifies. Other platforms don't even have the relative "luck" of having a Flash release at all.
Don't get me wrong - I've been on the Flash hate bandwagon since 1998. I have it blocked by default, and only enable it when I really want to run something. Flash on debian 64bits has worked pretty reliably for me, especially when you consider it's an alpha release. You talk about bugs - maybe you should take a shot at visiting http://bugs.adobe.com/flashplayer/ ? It's people like you that should give feedback about it, or the problems you are experiencing will never get fixed if it works for them as it works for me.
Given that their plan seems to be to release 64bits plugins for MacOS X, Windows and Linux, I'd say there is a good chance people will have proper working plugins by then. Of course, you're right that it's been a while (since Nov 2008, a full year and a half) since the first 64bit alpha, but they have been refreshing it on a regular basis.
Or 64bit linux. http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html
And that's what it's supposed to do.
If you read http://www.nec.com.au/News-Media/Media-Centre/Media-Releases/NEC-Develops-Video-Content-Identification-Technology-that-Detects-Illegal-Video-Copies-on-the-Internet-in-a-Matter-of-Seconds.html , you may notice that most people got this wrong, horribly wrong. This technology is aimed at accurately (they claim a 96% detection rate) detecting copies of the same video, whether they have been re-encoded, had subtitles added, or come from an analog source (cam, etc).
The fact they mention ISPs and video hosting means that what is at stake here is the claim that "it's too expensive / impossible / whatever" to filter a video uploaded to youtube, or to megavideo, or generally speaking sent via your friendly ISP. By (supposedly) defeating this claim, they expect to make companies accountable for what the users share on their websites / lines / etc, as it becomes computationally trivial (or so they claim) to identify it - hence the mention to the 3Ghz single core home PC, something no company can claim not to be able to afford.
I could have responded to any other slashdotter that got it wrong, but I chose you because of your last sentence, which I would have expected people would ask themselves before blindly believing anything they read. I know, I must be new here.
I swear this has to be said every week because some people just can't read:
iTunes has no music DRM since forever ago . Therefore your entire rant is just pointless.
You may want to try to read the post itself instead of just answering to the subject...
I've always seen the comma there: "Your rights, online". Makes a big difference. But yeah, this is more idle-worth than anything else.
Those who have jailbroken their iPhones, however...
... can still do everything non-jailbroken iPhones can? I'm not sure what your point is.
Reeeeeeeeeeally?
I was.
P2P developers routinely receive offers to work for anti-p2p companies, developing against themselves. And not offers to help develop proper measures to control the copyright status of the shared files, but to create ways to disrupt their own networks, or other p2p networks, in clever ways. While I understand that contacting the more knowledgeable people in the field seems like the best move, this news item only proves that they can get the point after receiving a "Fuck you" answer over and over again...
You do realize that songs on iTunes are DRM-free, right?
You can't simply say "When steam goes down, you can't play your games" and then cover your ears and sing very, very loudly when someone tells you that your "facts" are just FUD. You're either ignorant, stubborn, or lying, so just pick one.
Seriously, saying that your facts are correct except for the cases where they're not, which are exceptions, is just mindblowing.
I was actually spending the time that outage took to be resolved... playing in offline mode. So, get your facts straight.