Discovered that session support is silently disabled in 35 if com.indexedDB.enabled = false. And no, I did not set that to false myself--don't know what addon did it nor when. FF provides no logging about the fact either.
I've been updating FF and successfully restoring my previous session for years. Now sessions don't even work with a brand new, fresh profile. Epic FAIL.
And it's not 100% possible. There's a non-0% chance that humanity* was created by a "god" external to the universe and the stuff that makes for intelligence can't be replicated with what we have in this universe. I admit that seems a rather large stretch and extremely unlikely, but the majority of humanity seems to believe in God, gods, spirits, and the like, clearly they don't think there is a proven 0% of such things.
* and other living beings if you want.
That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.
It is not standalone. You're ignoring the referential pronoun object of the sentence, "it", which is contextual and refers directly to the topic at hand: something for which we *do* have active examples, is demonstrated and thus 100% possible.
This rebuttal is flawed. Obviously the odds of success of pursuing something impossible is always 0. You're equating the pursuit of things for which we have no model of possible existence with the pursuit of replicating something for which we have abundant, active examples of it's 100% possibility--over 7 billion intelligent, autonomous physical entities, not even counting other species which qualify.
I agree that there is no logic in attempting to predict a date for when someone will comprehend how to manufacture an entity that exhibits intelligence similar to our own. But there is likewise no logic in declaring we cannot or will not do so within any specific timespan either. However low the odds of success may be, they are still >0. The odds don't even go to 0 if not a single person is pursuing it directly--someone not in pursuit of it may have a realization that leads to it. We have historical examples of discoveries coming at us sideways.
In addition, even if multiple insights are required, that does not reduce the odds of them all occuring within X amount of time to 0 either. The fact that people are actively pursuing it still puts the odds at >0.
Prove it. For all we know, one single insight may be all that stands in the way--just because *you* haven't had it yet doesn't mean multiple are required.
There is no risk of strong AI emerging in the next few decades. Really, there is not.
Sure there is. Just because no one has had the "ah-ha!" moment yet and figured it out doesn't mean we can say no one will in the next X amount of time. It very well could happen today. The mere fact that people are actively pursuing it means the odds are >0.
No one in the mass market will buy this. So many already can hardly handle a one-piece phone/tablet/laptop/computer/device. Women will not buy it simply because it's ugly.
"Oh, but you can upgrade the camera" you say? Anyone that is so much into photography that they need a better camera will buy...... a *real camera*. You know, with interchangeable, actual high-quality, purposeful lenses.
"Oh, but you can just upgrade the screen or processor" you say? Prediction: the upgrade path for any generation chassis will be limited to only one or two steps, then you need a new chassis. Just like with motherboards (because that's what the chassis is).
Now, doing this for laptops... that's the real question--why haven't they done this *yet*. (And no, just because you can aggravatingly, pain-stakingly pry open a laptop to service it and in some cases interchange some parts does not qualify).
This seems like such a step backwards. Are they going to go through the whole 1980/90s plug-and-pray interoperability nightmare again? This is one reason Apple became so dominant--they locked down the hardware, supported a canned set of options, and made their hardware compatibility issues mostly a non-issue. Their stuff *just worked*.
Also, what about the additional avenue of security holes: counterfeit modules, hacked modules, modules swapped out when you're not looking, etc. The android security/permisisons model is already poor at best for the masses.
They are not related. ASRock may have originated from Asus, but that was over a decade ago. They have long since been their own distinct, separate brand.
If pass phrases are inherently far more secure, why do we still prompt people to create and use a *password* and then make a big stink that they did *exactly that*? Just because they do that poorly we shouldn't hold that against them since the process itself doesn't do anything to help them do so better--it's actually at odds, whereas simply indicating the different process of selecting a pass *phrase* does.
Why not simply change the labels and validation (since when should a site ever *prohibit* any specific character from a pass phrase?!!) to say "pass phrase" to urge people in a better direction?
We have bone-headed developers that have "helpfully" sent out emails to every member of a site saying "to improve security we have stripped all non alpha-numerics from your password"... Huh????? a) that means you stored my pass phrase *in plain text* in your database, then b) you *shortened it*! and c) you reduced the available combinations and d) turned my pass phrase into a password.
We have *banks* adding "site lock" security--reducing the security of their websites and *lying* to their users telling them that a) it increases their security and b) *trust the site lock image to indicate that it's really the correct site* rather than educating them to check the *SSL cert*!
Perhaps we need an article similar to "what every developer needs to know about character encoding" but for "handling user credentials". It's obvious that it's not just users that don't get it--but many developers and businesses also.
When I know what I want, I don't need (or want) a salesman in the way. They aren't actually providing a service at that point--they're just like little kids watching as the cookie jar is brought out waiting to get their hand in it.
It's silly to me that manufacturers cannot sell their products directly to consumers. I'd love it if the "build-your-own" features on all their websites were actually useful--with a "buy now" button at the end rather than a "check local inventory" that never has exactly what you just spent 10 minutes configuring.
I haven't used RH in over a decade--but do remember years ago they had a decent installer that would even pull up a tetris game to occupy you while it copied files. Sad to hear it's gone downhill. (Or am I recalling Caldera's installer?)
There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.
Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.
This is also only a problem if you insist on using 64 bit Linux, which means you can't use Flash, Skype, or anything else that's 32 bit only, and your Linux ends up less compatible with all the content on the Internet than it usually is.
I dunno what distros have this limitation. At least gentoo installs as multilib by default allowing 32bit apps to run just fine. There are also 32bit library wrappers allowing 64bit browsers to use 32bit plugins. This has been true for years.
Even if the car had a fault, accedents usually come from stupid drivers.
While I agree with this conclusion, the problem here, is that drivers don't get trained and routinely tested in a simulator for their ability to handle failure conditions, unlike airline pilots that both learn and *train* what to do for all sorts of contingencies. Furthermore airline pilots are given psych evaluations to ensure they have a reasonable ability to not panic and freeeze in an emergency situation. A stuck accelerator pedal will likely cause a majority of average drivers to panic and just hang on for the ride feeling out of control.
There's a reason flying an aircraft requires more training and more frequent recertification (check rides)--more can go wrong, and anything going wrong that is not handled in an aircraft is much more likely to be fatal. Whereas just about any idiot can manage to get a license to drive a car.
I would not be opposed to more stringent qualifications for driver licensing. I think people take for granted how serious operating a vehicle really is--it's a 2 ton missile, and the laws of physics yield for no one.
Rather than try to formulate some arbitrary yet scientifically measurable number specifically for just one more possible cause of impairment, which may result in different actual effects in different people, why not just directly test cognitive and motor skills like they used to for alcohol before the breathalyzers were widely available? Seems that testing someone's awareness and motor function directly would address the immediate concern--and handle *any* possible cause: alcohol, THC, prescription meds, OTC meds, and outright drowsiness (your own melatonin) all with one test.
Franchise law is not relevant to being able to customize your purchase.
Yes, it is. Because it means they don't really have to compete. If the nearest dealer is the only one for 1000 miles and they won't place a factory order for you below MSRP, guess what you have to pay for a custom order? Or... go find another dealer much farther away that will place the order for you at invoice and have to pay shipping (or fly out and drive it back).
Without these laws, you could order just what you wanted, pay invoice, and have it delivered to your door. So, true, while they don't preclude you from placing a custom order and getting exactly what you want, they most certainly are relevant because they affect the manner in which you have to go about doing so and the price you may have to pay to get it.
Removing these laws won't make franchises disappear and all their employees become jobless. It will make them have to be honest, compete, and actually *add value* rather be a protected middleman guaranteed business.
Just imagine if franchises had to win sales based on their *knowledge* of the products they sell, convenience of having ready-to-take, *desirable* inventory, and *honest, capable* service departments?
Instead we get the horrible current situation--you want a new car? You *must* go to a dealer--even though half the sales staff know less than you about the car you want to buy. You want *warranty* service? You *must* go to a dealer--whether they are competent or not.
In the ideal world in my head, a license to perform warranty service should be independent from a license to sell new or used vehicles. Any mechanic that can pass the manufacturer's certifications can qualify for a license to perform warranty service. You could place a custom order directly on the manufacturer's website and have it delivered to your home--or opt to go to a dealer and inspect existing inventory-where they have to *work* to earn a sale from you--by being knowledgable, and being good at choosing inventory that people want--not forcing their random selection on people because there are no other alternatives.
The car dealer franchise laws began in California w/Reagan helping a buddy's business. Soon Bush did similar in TX, then lobbyists picked up the ball and rolled it to the other states. I can think of no other industry where it's in fact *illegal* for a manufacturer to sell their own product directly to consumers. It makes it so that it is no longer a free market. Who knows what options and colors people actually want--dealers order speculatively what they think they can sell, then sell them--people wind up choosing between the existing inventory, usually none having exactly what they want. You'd think on big ticket purchases people would be more picky about getting exactly what they want--but we wind up with millions of same-colored cars on the road anyways.
Strike down these laws and it should be possible to actually order a vehicle that you customized on a manufacturer's "build-your-own" website--rather than it directing you to a bunch of local dealers that have their heads up their asses and don't actually have one in stock like you just spent 20 minutes configuring.
Furthermore, right now, if you want to place a custom order, you *have* to do it through a dealer--who is now an unwelcome middleman that *hasn't* made a sale yet thinks they still deserve MSRP markup for merely printing out the paperwork even though you beat a path to their door with no other option.
Slashdot Mirror
Discovered that session support is silently disabled in 35 if com.indexedDB.enabled = false.
And no, I did not set that to false myself--don't know what addon did it nor when.
FF provides no logging about the fact either.
I've been updating FF and successfully restoring my previous session for years.
Now sessions don't even work with a brand new, fresh profile.
Epic FAIL.
And it's not 100% possible. There's a non-0% chance that humanity* was created by a "god" external to the universe and the stuff that makes for intelligence can't be replicated with what we have in this universe. I admit that seems a rather large stretch and extremely unlikely, but the majority of humanity seems to believe in God, gods, spirits, and the like, clearly they don't think there is a proven 0% of such things.
* and other living beings if you want.
That is a very good point I hadn't considered. There could be a directional connection from a "higher" order of existence to ours that is responsible for intelligence. In that light, then yes, the odds may in fact be 0. Including this possiblity simply means that we cannot actually calculate a singular odds at all--it's two-fold now: either >0 or 0--a dependent outcome which is really unknowable.
It is not standalone. You're ignoring the referential pronoun object of the sentence, "it", which is contextual and refers directly to the topic at hand: something for which we *do* have active examples, is demonstrated and thus 100% possible.
This rebuttal is flawed. Obviously the odds of success of pursuing something impossible is always 0. You're equating the pursuit of things for which we have no model of possible existence with the pursuit of replicating something for which we have abundant, active examples of it's 100% possibility--over 7 billion intelligent, autonomous physical entities, not even counting other species which qualify.
I agree that there is no logic in attempting to predict a date for when someone will comprehend how to manufacture an entity that exhibits intelligence similar to our own. But there is likewise no logic in declaring we cannot or will not do so within any specific timespan either. However low the odds of success may be, they are still >0. The odds don't even go to 0 if not a single person is pursuing it directly--someone not in pursuit of it may have a realization that leads to it. We have historical examples of discoveries coming at us sideways.
In addition, even if multiple insights are required, that does not reduce the odds of them all occuring within X amount of time to 0 either. The fact that people are actively pursuing it still puts the odds at >0.
Prove it. For all we know, one single insight may be all that stands in the way--just because *you* haven't had it yet doesn't mean multiple are required.
There is no risk of strong AI emerging in the next few decades. Really, there is not.
Sure there is. Just because no one has had the "ah-ha!" moment yet and figured it out doesn't mean we can say no one will in the next X amount of time. It very well could happen today. The mere fact that people are actively pursuing it means the odds are >0.
No one in the mass market will buy this. So many already can hardly handle a one-piece phone/tablet/laptop/computer/device. Women will not buy it simply because it's ugly.
"Oh, but you can upgrade the camera" you say? Anyone that is so much into photography that they need a better camera will buy...... a *real camera*. You know, with interchangeable, actual high-quality, purposeful lenses.
"Oh, but you can just upgrade the screen or processor" you say? Prediction: the upgrade path for any generation chassis will be limited to only one or two steps, then you need a new chassis. Just like with motherboards (because that's what the chassis is).
Now, doing this for laptops... that's the real question--why haven't they done this *yet*. (And no, just because you can aggravatingly, pain-stakingly pry open a laptop to service it and in some cases interchange some parts does not qualify).
This seems like such a step backwards. Are they going to go through the whole 1980/90s plug-and-pray interoperability nightmare again? This is one reason Apple became so dominant--they locked down the hardware, supported a canned set of options, and made their hardware compatibility issues mostly a non-issue. Their stuff *just worked*.
Also, what about the additional avenue of security holes: counterfeit modules, hacked modules, modules swapped out when you're not looking, etc. The android security/permisisons model is already poor at best for the masses.
They are not related. ASRock may have originated from Asus, but that was over a decade ago. They have long since been their own distinct, separate brand.
They should put the funds to decommission a nuclear plant in escrow before it's even built and turned on.
If pass phrases are inherently far more secure, why do we still prompt people to create and use a *password* and then make a big stink that they did *exactly that*? Just because they do that poorly we shouldn't hold that against them since the process itself doesn't do anything to help them do so better--it's actually at odds, whereas simply indicating the different process of selecting a pass *phrase* does.
Why not simply change the labels and validation (since when should a site ever *prohibit* any specific character from a pass phrase?!!) to say "pass phrase" to urge people in a better direction?
We have bone-headed developers that have "helpfully" sent out emails to every member of a site saying "to improve security we have stripped all non alpha-numerics from your password"... Huh????? a) that means you stored my pass phrase *in plain text* in your database, then b) you *shortened it*! and c) you reduced the available combinations and d) turned my pass phrase into a password.
We have *banks* adding "site lock" security--reducing the security of their websites and *lying* to their users telling them that a) it increases their security and b) *trust the site lock image to indicate that it's really the correct site* rather than educating them to check the *SSL cert*!
Perhaps we need an article similar to "what every developer needs to know about character encoding" but for "handling user credentials". It's obvious that it's not just users that don't get it--but many developers and businesses also.
No chrome for Android 4.0, which is still nearly 40% of the current Androids in use.
That read <4.0 when I wrote it.
No chrome for Android 4.0, which is still nearly 40% of the current Androids in use.
When I know what I want, I don't need (or want) a salesman in the way. They aren't actually providing a service at that point--they're just like little kids watching as the cookie jar is brought out waiting to get their hand in it.
It's silly to me that manufacturers cannot sell their products directly to consumers. I'd love it if the "build-your-own" features on all their websites were actually useful--with a "buy now" button at the end rather than a "check local inventory" that never has exactly what you just spent 10 minutes configuring.
I haven't used RH in over a decade--but do remember years ago they had a decent installer that would even pull up a tetris game to occupy you while it copied files. Sad to hear it's gone downhill. (Or am I recalling Caldera's installer?)
There is *no privacy* in a *public* place. By definition. For any party, anywhere. How you act in public, witnesses around or not, is open to public knowledge--be it praiseworthy or ridicule-worthy.
Furthermore, if they first claim it was being taken in as evidence, then later they *deleted* the file--doesn't that constitute destruction of evidence (the source recording) on the police department's part? (unless they used full chain-of-custody and a data-forensics lab to copy the file?) Not to mention the obvious violation of his private information as well--I highly doubt they bothered to get a search warrant before perusing his phone's contents.
This is also only a problem if you insist on using 64 bit Linux, which means you can't use Flash, Skype, or anything else that's 32 bit only, and your Linux ends up less compatible with all the content on the Internet than it usually is.
I dunno what distros have this limitation. At least gentoo installs as multilib by default allowing 32bit apps to run just fine. There are also 32bit library wrappers allowing 64bit browsers to use 32bit plugins. This has been true for years.
Even if the car had a fault, accedents usually come from stupid drivers.
While I agree with this conclusion, the problem here, is that drivers don't get trained and routinely tested in a simulator for their ability to handle failure conditions, unlike airline pilots that both learn and *train* what to do for all sorts of contingencies. Furthermore airline pilots are given psych evaluations to ensure they have a reasonable ability to not panic and freeeze in an emergency situation. A stuck accelerator pedal will likely cause a majority of average drivers to panic and just hang on for the ride feeling out of control.
There's a reason flying an aircraft requires more training and more frequent recertification (check rides)--more can go wrong, and anything going wrong that is not handled in an aircraft is much more likely to be fatal. Whereas just about any idiot can manage to get a license to drive a car.
I would not be opposed to more stringent qualifications for driver licensing. I think people take for granted how serious operating a vehicle really is--it's a 2 ton missile, and the laws of physics yield for no one.
Limited Liability Car!
Rather than try to formulate some arbitrary yet scientifically measurable number specifically for just one more possible cause of impairment, which may result in different actual effects in different people, why not just directly test cognitive and motor skills like they used to for alcohol before the breathalyzers were widely available?
Seems that testing someone's awareness and motor function directly would address the immediate concern--and handle *any* possible cause: alcohol, THC, prescription meds, OTC meds, and outright drowsiness (your own melatonin) all with one test.
Franchise law is not relevant to being able to customize your purchase.
Yes, it is. Because it means they don't really have to compete. If the nearest dealer is the only one for 1000 miles and they won't place a factory order for you below MSRP, guess what you have to pay for a custom order? Or... go find another dealer much farther away that will place the order for you at invoice and have to pay shipping (or fly out and drive it back).
Without these laws, you could order just what you wanted, pay invoice, and have it delivered to your door.
So, true, while they don't preclude you from placing a custom order and getting exactly what you want, they most certainly are relevant because they affect the manner in which you have to go about doing so and the price you may have to pay to get it.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/why-you-cant-buy-new-car-online
Removing these laws won't make franchises disappear and all their employees become jobless.
It will make them have to be honest, compete, and actually *add value* rather be a protected middleman guaranteed business.
Just imagine if franchises had to win sales based on their *knowledge* of the products they sell, convenience of having ready-to-take, *desirable* inventory, and *honest, capable* service departments?
Instead we get the horrible current situation--you want a new car? You *must* go to a dealer--even though half the sales staff know less than you about the car you want to buy. You want *warranty* service? You *must* go to a dealer--whether they are competent or not.
In the ideal world in my head, a license to perform warranty service should be independent from a license to sell new or used vehicles. Any mechanic that can pass the manufacturer's certifications can qualify for a license to perform warranty service. You could place a custom order directly on the manufacturer's website and have it delivered to your home--or opt to go to a dealer and inspect existing inventory-where they have to *work* to earn a sale from you--by being knowledgable, and being good at choosing inventory that people want--not forcing their random selection on people because there are no other alternatives.
The car dealer franchise laws began in California w/Reagan helping a buddy's business. Soon Bush did similar in TX, then lobbyists picked up the ball and rolled it to the other states.
I can think of no other industry where it's in fact *illegal* for a manufacturer to sell their own product directly to consumers.
It makes it so that it is no longer a free market. Who knows what options and colors people actually want--dealers order speculatively what they think they can sell, then sell them--people wind up choosing between the existing inventory, usually none having exactly what they want. You'd think on big ticket purchases people would be more picky about getting exactly what they want--but we wind up with millions of same-colored cars on the road anyways.
Strike down these laws and it should be possible to actually order a vehicle that you customized on a manufacturer's "build-your-own" website--rather than it directing you to a bunch of local dealers that have their heads up their asses and don't actually have one in stock like you just spent 20 minutes configuring.
Furthermore, right now, if you want to place a custom order, you *have* to do it through a dealer--who is now an unwelcome middleman that *hasn't* made a sale yet thinks they still deserve MSRP markup for merely printing out the paperwork even though you beat a path to their door with no other option.
I truly hope Tesla wins.