Google is a company which makes its money through advertising, which it sells by making free services (this bit costs money) that people find useful and putting ads in them, in an unobtrusive way and generally useful way.
OP seems to have a problem with this business model, and the fact that Google is a business not a charity. This makes them a complete and utter retard.
I don't understand how paid commercial ads could ever be "useful" to those exposed to them. Thankfully there are things like Adblock Plus.
The main target in marketing and advertisements of fast food is children. Happy Meals, toys, clowns, cartoons, McDonald's PlayPlace, etc. - the list goes on.
Marlboro can't market their harmful product to children anymore with Joe Camel, so why should McDonald's and others be able to?
These "charges" seem to be that Assange had a one-night stand with some girl. If you were one of the millions of other guys having one-night stands that night, it's a nonissue. If you're associated with Wikileaks, you're a rapist or molestor.
Assange was charged with rape in a highly public manner. It was all over the news everywhere that Assange was a suspected rapist. The next day, it was withdrawn, because there was nothing to the case. Now they're going to do it again. Soon I'm sure he'll be a child molestor, a Satan-worshipper, a terrorist, etc. This is all politics.
And it's also nothing other than a huge distraction. Even if Assange truly were a rapist, it doesn't somehow invalidate the thousands of incriminating documents that were leaked or any of the other good work the organization does.
can't a more informative tab tree be visible on the left but auto hide when you mouse off?
Sure. For example, this is basically "the" vertical tab addon for Firefox, and it can autohide.
It seems it would be harder to make tabs at the top autohide though, just because there are several things at the top, like the address bar, menu bar, etc. - where would you need to position the mouse for it to unhide? Would you have to aim the mouse for a specific point? With vertical tabs you only have to flick your mouse to the side of the screen. It's a big target you can't overshoot.
What exactly do you think is low level about C? I think that you are confusing a lack-of-features like OO, Generics, Reflection, etc.. with 'low level'..do you think its low level because it can reference memory directly? Really? Is that your metric?
I'm not confusing lack of features (abstractions) with low level - abstractions are exactly what makes a language high level. Yes, C making you reference memory directly makes it low level. High level languages take you far, far away from such interactions.
These days most screens are wider than they are taller.
Most screens have been wider than tall since well before the first web browsers.
That's for sure. But there's an excess of pixels in the increasingly high resolution of widescreen monitors now, and so it makes sense to find ways to use it. (I'm not implying you would disagree with such a general statement - I'm just putting it out there.)
Tabs take up more room on the side than on the top
Eh... kind of. Once you have about 12+ horizontal tabs open, Firefox starts scrolling the tab bar, meaning all your tabs can no longer be visible at the same time. And at this point, tab titles are cut significantly short as well, so the ones you can see have less informative title bars. Horizontal tabs are limited in that way. (And I think Chrome just keeps scrunching the size of the tabs until they're little indistinguishable blobs with close buttons, which is even worse.) Vertical tabs take up more room overall, but more can be display at once, and their titlebars never have to be shrunk. This is improved usability in my eyes. And the space they do take up is wasted space that would've never been utilized to begin with.
and do more on the side to hurt the ability to have more usable windows on the screen.
I don't understand what you're saying here. You mean having your browser unmaximized so you can have other physical windows open beside it? If you do that, then yeah you probably don't want vertical tabs.
No it doesn't make sense. Where is my mouse usually position when reading a page? On the right, at the scroll-bar. Now I have to go all the way across the screen just to get any tab? Sheesh.
Assuming this post is serious:
What does your mouse being on the right-hand side of your screen have to do with anything? We're talking about tabs. Tabs aren't on the right-hand side of the screen next to the scrollbar, so I fail to see your point. You either go "all the way across the screen" to the top or to the left. The left is even easier because you don't have to worry about overshooting into a window title bar.
These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically.
So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste.
My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.
The more vertical space the better.
Exactly. The only time you don't want vertical tabs is on e.g. a netbook if it'll reduce the browser's horizontal viewing area to below 1024 pixels.
Firefox users should check this out if interested.
AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it.
Not true anymore. Although there's apparently some limitation in Chrome itself that isn't allowing full functionality of this yet even though it exists in Webkit.
Which "lower level languages" are you talking about?
Lower level languages are platform specific, and the only one people are using is assembler. I know that you didnt mean asembler.
I suppose you meant C. Its abstract machine has a generic concept of memory as a linear pool. Good enough to write operating system features that manage linear pools of memory, but decidedly not at all low level.
We can't even coerce a C compiler to emit x86 instructions like BT, BTR, and BTS.. instructions which test and manipulate individual bits (in registers or in memory) and are extremely useful (efficient!) for implementing things like a Bloom Hash, or just implementing bit arrays. In C the best we can do is use clunky full-word operations that can not get optimized down to BT, BTR, or BTS for multiple technical reasons.
Is this a joke? Anything that isn't assembly is a high level language? News to me.
C is very obviously a low level language. It's not exactly controversial.
When an independent competitor sues a large corporation for patent violation, the large corporation wins.
Except that's not how it usually goes. What happens in reality is that the small "competitor," who has never actually produced anything in his life, sues the large corporation in a particular court district in East Bumblefuck, Texas. There, it's apparently easy to convince the local hayseeds on the jury that the most trivial standard techniques are "innovative," and that the Big Evil Megacorp is exploiting the innocent, naive Little Guy.
At some point you'd think the big evil corporations would realize that software patents are a much greater black-swan liability than they could ever be worth as legitimate assets, and buy a Congressman or two to get rid of the problem for everybody. But it never seems to work that way.
You're talking about patent trolls. The person you quoted is talking about actual competitors.
1. It failed because it had bad user interface design. There's nothing radical about that. In fact, it's all too common in projects run by most hackers and code monkeys aiming to make a "cool engineering project." The difference between those projects and Google Wave is there are people crammed up Google's bum, willing to call Google developers visionary geniuses whose efforts are beyond what mere mortals can comprehend instead of lambasting them as they would anyone else for lacking usability in their software.
2. More importantly, it failed because Google intentionally made it fail. It was axed in less than three months of being public. Something very weird happened there, but who knows if we'll ever really know why.
3. The best, most successful advancements in computing were done in leaps and bounds, not the safe, incremental nonsense brought on by the commercialization of computing in the 80's.
It's hard to believe so many people have nothing more to say than that. This is clearly dishonest, inaccurate advertisement, yet it could say "Up to 10000000000000000000 Mbps" and dozens of dorkos will still chyme in with "but it says up to! Hur hur hur hur!"
I figured someone should point out how messed up the world is that a family's house not being foreclosed rests on some extremely bored rich guy with way too much money flushing $250,000+ down the toilet on trite, stupid shit like a comic book. I think this whole capitalism thing is being filmed. It's like The Truman Show. Except it's a very black comedy.
Re:Lines of code isn't the only thing that counts
on
First GNOME Census Results
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
None of them would ever consider investigating bugs, talking to people upstream, downloading the code, submitting patches.
They're users. Most simply don't have the know-how to do these things, and it's unreasonable to expect them to, especially in the "downloading code and submitting patches" department. You make it sound like a trivial thing for even hobbyist programmers to do, especially with the bloated, ad hoc codebases they'd probably be dealing with. And if you're hearing from them, they are talking to upstream. Upstream to Ubuntu users is the Ubuntu forums or Canonical.
That’s exactly the point... it’s too close to the hardware. Yes, it gives you really fine-grained control over what happens, and you can tweak it to make it as fast as possible. With the speed of today’s computers, though, you shouldn’t (usually) need that amount of optimization. Plus, the compiler should be robust enough to optimize the program nearly as well as you could anyway.
The more I learn, the more I realize C/C++ isn't that much faster (if at all) than languages that are orders of magnitude more productive and high level, like Common Lisp or most available Scheme implementations. There's no reason to write so much painful, low-level, boiler-plate-riddled code, especially in common everyday practice.
The British and Roman empires were waging at least as many as we are, and were just as ruthless.
No, they were far more ruthless than we are. The Romans would have conquered Afghanistan a long time ago -- it's much easier to pacify a population when you are willing to kill anyone capable of offering resistance and sell the survivors into slavery.
We aren't even as ruthless as we were just sixty years ago. Read up on how we conducted ourselves in the Pacific War against Japan. They refused to abide by the laws of war and we responded in kind.
This is honestly bullshit. Our weaponry and style of war is far more ruthless today than the Romans could've ever dreamed of. And how are you going to sit there and comment about how we're less ruthless today than 60 years ago? How would you know? And how is it the fault of the Japanese that we acted ruthless? At what age do we turn back into children with this "mommy, he started it" stuff? I like how you qualify our ruthlessness as a "response." It's always a "response." The US is just out "responding" and "defending" itself, all over the world.
Clearly, we must set up a cabinet-level Department of Intellectual Property so that the War on Pirates can be fought at public expense, with the same efficiency and success as the scourges of drugs and poverty....
As does most of the music everywhere else. Let's not pretend there's anything special about Jamendo in that regard. It's a very good site that I've found a fair amount of good stuff on.
Slashdot Mirror
Came here to post this.
...
I think everyone did.
Google is a company which makes its money through advertising, which it sells by making free services (this bit costs money) that people find useful and putting ads in them, in an unobtrusive way and generally useful way.
OP seems to have a problem with this business model, and the fact that Google is a business not a charity. This makes them a complete and utter retard.
I don't understand how paid commercial ads could ever be "useful" to those exposed to them. Thankfully there are things like Adblock Plus.
How about Ryanair elimate their CEO position? That'll save some money too.
Significantly more, I assume.
The main target in marketing and advertisements of fast food is children. Happy Meals, toys, clowns, cartoons, McDonald's PlayPlace, etc. - the list goes on.
Marlboro can't market their harmful product to children anymore with Joe Camel, so why should McDonald's and others be able to?
These "charges" seem to be that Assange had a one-night stand with some girl. If you were one of the millions of other guys having one-night stands that night, it's a nonissue. If you're associated with Wikileaks, you're a rapist or molestor.
Assange was charged with rape in a highly public manner. It was all over the news everywhere that Assange was a suspected rapist. The next day, it was withdrawn, because there was nothing to the case. Now they're going to do it again. Soon I'm sure he'll be a child molestor, a Satan-worshipper, a terrorist, etc. This is all politics.
And it's also nothing other than a huge distraction. Even if Assange truly were a rapist, it doesn't somehow invalidate the thousands of incriminating documents that were leaked or any of the other good work the organization does.
can't a more informative tab tree be visible on the left but auto hide when you mouse off?
Sure. For example, this is basically "the" vertical tab addon for Firefox, and it can autohide.
It seems it would be harder to make tabs at the top autohide though, just because there are several things at the top, like the address bar, menu bar, etc. - where would you need to position the mouse for it to unhide? Would you have to aim the mouse for a specific point? With vertical tabs you only have to flick your mouse to the side of the screen. It's a big target you can't overshoot.
C is very obviously a low level language.
What exactly do you think is low level about C? I think that you are confusing a lack-of-features like OO, Generics, Reflection, etc.. with 'low level' ..do you think its low level because it can reference memory directly? Really? Is that your metric?
I'm not confusing lack of features (abstractions) with low level - abstractions are exactly what makes a language high level. Yes, C making you reference memory directly makes it low level. High level languages take you far, far away from such interactions.
Most screens have been wider than tall since well before the first web browsers.
That's for sure. But there's an excess of pixels in the increasingly high resolution of widescreen monitors now, and so it makes sense to find ways to use it. (I'm not implying you would disagree with such a general statement - I'm just putting it out there.)
Tabs take up more room on the side than on the top
Eh... kind of. Once you have about 12+ horizontal tabs open, Firefox starts scrolling the tab bar, meaning all your tabs can no longer be visible at the same time. And at this point, tab titles are cut significantly short as well, so the ones you can see have less informative title bars. Horizontal tabs are limited in that way. (And I think Chrome just keeps scrunching the size of the tabs until they're little indistinguishable blobs with close buttons, which is even worse.) Vertical tabs take up more room overall, but more can be display at once, and their titlebars never have to be shrunk. This is improved usability in my eyes. And the space they do take up is wasted space that would've never been utilized to begin with.
and do more on the side to hurt the ability to have more usable windows on the screen.
I don't understand what you're saying here. You mean having your browser unmaximized so you can have other physical windows open beside it? If you do that, then yeah you probably don't want vertical tabs.
No it doesn't make sense. Where is my mouse usually position when reading a page? On the right, at the scroll-bar. Now I have to go all the way across the screen just to get any tab? Sheesh.
Assuming this post is serious:
What does your mouse being on the right-hand side of your screen have to do with anything? We're talking about tabs. Tabs aren't on the right-hand side of the screen next to the scrollbar, so I fail to see your point. You either go "all the way across the screen" to the top or to the left. The left is even easier because you don't have to worry about overshooting into a window title bar.
These days most screens are wider than they are taller. And text still reads better vertically. So the height is valuable real-estate while there is side space to waste. My desktop has the application bars hide on the left/right.
The more vertical space the better.
Exactly. The only time you don't want vertical tabs is on e.g. a netbook if it'll reduce the browser's horizontal viewing area to below 1024 pixels.
Firefox users should check this out if interested.
AdBlock isn't enough; it still loads the data, but doesn't display it.
Not true anymore. Although there's apparently some limitation in Chrome itself that isn't allowing full functionality of this yet even though it exists in Webkit.
Which "lower level languages" are you talking about? Lower level languages are platform specific, and the only one people are using is assembler. I know that you didnt mean asembler. I suppose you meant C. Its abstract machine has a generic concept of memory as a linear pool. Good enough to write operating system features that manage linear pools of memory, but decidedly not at all low level. We can't even coerce a C compiler to emit x86 instructions like BT, BTR, and BTS.. instructions which test and manipulate individual bits (in registers or in memory) and are extremely useful (efficient!) for implementing things like a Bloom Hash, or just implementing bit arrays. In C the best we can do is use clunky full-word operations that can not get optimized down to BT, BTR, or BTS for multiple technical reasons.
Is this a joke? Anything that isn't assembly is a high level language? News to me.
C is very obviously a low level language. It's not exactly controversial.
When an independent competitor sues a large corporation for patent violation, the large corporation wins.
Except that's not how it usually goes. What happens in reality is that the small "competitor," who has never actually produced anything in his life, sues the large corporation in a particular court district in East Bumblefuck, Texas. There, it's apparently easy to convince the local hayseeds on the jury that the most trivial standard techniques are "innovative," and that the Big Evil Megacorp is exploiting the innocent, naive Little Guy.
At some point you'd think the big evil corporations would realize that software patents are a much greater black-swan liability than they could ever be worth as legitimate assets, and buy a Congressman or two to get rid of the problem for everybody. But it never seems to work that way.
You're talking about patent trolls. The person you quoted is talking about actual competitors.
Make your girl happy with your long and huge meat machine.
*link to .ru website*
1. It failed because it had bad user interface design. There's nothing radical about that. In fact, it's all too common in projects run by most hackers and code monkeys aiming to make a "cool engineering project." The difference between those projects and Google Wave is there are people crammed up Google's bum, willing to call Google developers visionary geniuses whose efforts are beyond what mere mortals can comprehend instead of lambasting them as they would anyone else for lacking usability in their software.
2. More importantly, it failed because Google intentionally made it fail. It was axed in less than three months of being public. Something very weird happened there, but who knows if we'll ever really know why.
3. The best, most successful advancements in computing were done in leaps and bounds, not the safe, incremental nonsense brought on by the commercialization of computing in the 80's.
The loop hole here is "up to"... "up to" != "is"
No shit.
It's hard to believe so many people have nothing more to say than that. This is clearly dishonest, inaccurate advertisement, yet it could say "Up to 10000000000000000000 Mbps" and dozens of dorkos will still chyme in with "but it says up to! Hur hur hur hur!"
If you would like to see a detailed case study of an experiment into this effect, please look up "America"
Or, you know, you could maybe try traveling to America.
Who'd want to do that?
I guess that means you're not REALLY really hardcore.
Neither are you.
They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.
You know what else risks the lives of our soldiers? War!
Fixed.
I figured someone should point out how messed up the world is that a family's house not being foreclosed rests on some extremely bored rich guy with way too much money flushing $250,000+ down the toilet on trite, stupid shit like a comic book. I think this whole capitalism thing is being filmed. It's like The Truman Show. Except it's a very black comedy.
None of them would ever consider investigating bugs, talking to people upstream, downloading the code, submitting patches.
They're users. Most simply don't have the know-how to do these things, and it's unreasonable to expect them to, especially in the "downloading code and submitting patches" department. You make it sound like a trivial thing for even hobbyist programmers to do, especially with the bloated, ad hoc codebases they'd probably be dealing with. And if you're hearing from them, they are talking to upstream. Upstream to Ubuntu users is the Ubuntu forums or Canonical.
I use KDE 4 almost exclusively on a two year old machine with the desktop effects enabled and my machine does not crawl.
A two year old machine isn't even close to old, if that's what you were trying to imply.
That’s exactly the point... it’s too close to the hardware. Yes, it gives you really fine-grained control over what happens, and you can tweak it to make it as fast as possible. With the speed of today’s computers, though, you shouldn’t (usually) need that amount of optimization. Plus, the compiler should be robust enough to optimize the program nearly as well as you could anyway.
The more I learn, the more I realize C/C++ isn't that much faster (if at all) than languages that are orders of magnitude more productive and high level, like Common Lisp or most available Scheme implementations. There's no reason to write so much painful, low-level, boiler-plate-riddled code, especially in common everyday practice.
The British and Roman empires were waging at least as many as we are, and were just as ruthless.
No, they were far more ruthless than we are. The Romans would have conquered Afghanistan a long time ago -- it's much easier to pacify a population when you are willing to kill anyone capable of offering resistance and sell the survivors into slavery.
We aren't even as ruthless as we were just sixty years ago. Read up on how we conducted ourselves in the Pacific War against Japan. They refused to abide by the laws of war and we responded in kind.
This is honestly bullshit. Our weaponry and style of war is far more ruthless today than the Romans could've ever dreamed of. And how are you going to sit there and comment about how we're less ruthless today than 60 years ago? How would you know? And how is it the fault of the Japanese that we acted ruthless? At what age do we turn back into children with this "mommy, he started it" stuff? I like how you qualify our ruthlessness as a "response." It's always a "response." The US is just out "responding" and "defending" itself, all over the world.
Clearly, we must set up a cabinet-level Department of Intellectual Property so that the War on Pirates can be fought at public expense, with the same efficiency and success as the scourges of drugs and poverty....
...and terrorism.
Except that most of the music on the site sucks :(
As does most of the music everywhere else. Let's not pretend there's anything special about Jamendo in that regard. It's a very good site that I've found a fair amount of good stuff on.