I believe that Classic Theme Restorer has already proclaimed that they won't.
Both the CTR folks and Mozilla have stated a number of times that it will not be possible to create an extension that does what CTR does -- so it's toast.
Which is, in the end, the deciding factor in my not staying with FF after 56. CTR is the only thing that makes the FF UI tolerable.
Konqueror is, in my opinion, one of the worst browsers available. Unless it has a major revamp (mostly to get rid of the numerous serious bugs and problems rendering HTML), it's not even in the running.
I don't think that we're disagreeing as much as you imply.
For small to medium size businesses? It's not as easy as you imply.
It depends on how many 9s you need. For most small and medium businesses, 4 or 5 nines (plus adequate backups) are more than sufficient. You can achieve that with a couple of high-quality RAIDs that are geographically separated (particularly if you park them in a third party server farm that provides things like UPS).
It's virtually impossible to do cost effectively.
I disagree with the "virtually impossible" part. But, ignoring that, here is where we aren't really disagreeing that much: doing this yourself (on a small scale, anyway) is clearly more expensive than farming it out. "Cost effective" is a relative term, though, which is why I mentioned "cost/benefit calculations". What's not cost effective for one business may be cost effective for another, even if the businesses are the same size.
screwed because you tried to roll your own solution that failed because you lacked the expertise and/or financial capability to build something with the necessary durability.
Agreed. I was not recommending that anyone do this themselves if they don't have, or can't afford, the expertise.
I did IT support for small businesses for several years (decades ago), and the frequency in which businesses lost critical data because the secretary never changed the tape in the tape drive but they didn't know that until the 1 hard drive in the cobbled together server stashed in the coat closet went kaput is... horrifying.
But this is not an argument against what I was saying. You are talking about businesses running their IT with a high degree of incompetency. Nothing protects against incompetency.
And I was hardly suggesting that everyone should roll their own (I really thought I'd put enough qualifiers in to make that clear, but I guess not). What I was saying is that the notion that you can't do this yourself in a competent fashion is nonsense.
Whether or not it's worth it to you to do this yourself is a different issue. In some cases, it is. In others, it's not. It all depends on your particular situation.
Steve Jobs and Wozniak are praised as gods having created the computer!
Umm, no, nobody says that.
Give the guy a little credit for creating a working email _system_ in an era where email hadn't proliferated very far.
I have no problem with that -- what the guy actually did was good. That's not the problem. The problem is that he insists that he invented email -- to the point of even taking things to court -- when that's a laughable thing to insist on.
Hmmm, it's as if there is a subset of people who think that it's impossible to have down time or lose data if you use your own hardware and backup strategy...
Of course it's not impossible. However, it's also not that hard to meet the same uptime targets as the cloud providers. Also, if it's all on your hardware, then it can be easier to recover from the problem.
It sucks when a major host goes down, because it affects many at once.
No. It sucks because when it happens, the users are 100% powerless to do anything about it.
For many organizations, it's virtually guaranteed that Google or other hosts will do a better job than a roll your own solution.
I would argue that this isn't true for any organization. A cloud host's advantage is not that they can do a better job than you, it's that they'll save you time and money. A big part of what you sacrifice for that convenience is control and the ability to correct the inevitable problems.
Whether or not that's worth it depends on your (or your business') particular cost/benefit formula.
In this day and age of Big Data analytics, there is no longer any such thing as data that is not sensitive. Even the most trivial of information, combined with other trivial information, can add up to a serious intrusion.
If you really must keep data in the cloud, it should all be encrypted (by you, not the cloud), no matter how insignificant that data may seem.
FYI you can easily disable Cortana and excess data collection metrics upon installation of Windows 10 creators edition.
You seem to be defining "excess data collection" differently than I do. I define it as "any data collection that I don't want to happen." The creator's update does not allow me to eliminate excess data collection.
There really is a point where all you care about are the quality of life aspects of a job than direct and indirect compensation.
A million times this. I think I discovered this in my 30s: it's better to make less money doing something that you're genuinely interested in at a workplace that you enjoy, than to make more money in a setting that you dislike.
I used to say I could work anywhere if the pay was right. Experience taught me how wrong this sentiment really is.
Best to say Yes I worked with it and I studied this and consider myself an entry level in that area but I can learn.
I'll take this a step further. I've been on the hiring side of this equation a lot, and it's quite common to ask about various skills, waiting for the applicant to say something like "I don't have a great deal of experience with that, but I'm a quick study" or "I've never done that, but I have done this other thing that's a bit similar" or somesuch.
The idea is to measure the amount of bullshit -- nobody is an expert in everything, and if an applicant never admits to an incompetency, that's a huge red flag.
Plus, I can't tell you how many times that the technically less experience candidate got the job over the more experienced one because the less experienced one would fit into the team better, and can learn.
Honesty really is the way to go. Yes, phrase things in the most flattering way you can, but never say or imply something that is just not true.
Almost every company that bitches about their product being stolen by the Chinese never bothered to patent it IN CHINA.
Probably because it isn't necessary to patent it in China. China is a signatory on the Patent Law Treaty and Patent Cooperation Treaty, and is bound to recognize the patents of the other signatories of those treaties.
I have no citation, only personal experience (which I can't go into detail about because NDAs).
However, I've been a part of several teams where we met with representatives of both the US and Russian governments in order to walk them through source code. They don't get to take the code with them, but they do get pretty much as much supervised time to look it over, on our premises, as they wish.
If you CAN do your job, it is unlikely they will fire you because of a "lie" on your resume.
Don't bet on it. I've seen very capable engineers get fired because they lied about something on their resume and it wasn't discovered until later.
Companies like people who can do their jobs, but not if those people aren't trustworthy. And nothing indicates "not trustworthy" faster than lying on your resume.
I'll explain why I, as an applicant, use a recruiter...
My recruiter is a high-quality one that I've worked with for years. They know me, know my skills, and know the sort of company that I will perform well in and be happy with. When I'm looking for work (sometimes contract, sometimes permanent), my recruiter comes up with better matches for me than I've been able to do on my own. It's awfully hard to tell if a match is right without knowing the company, and my recruiter know the companies they are representing as well as they know me.
Using them gets as close to guaranteeing that I land in a good company as is possible, and saves my a ton of time. I end up happy and the company ends up happy. It's a no-brainer.
That said -- if I had to change recruiters for some reason, I would be extremely wary. Good ones exist, but they're rare.
In my experience (looking for candidates to fill positions), recruiters are not efficient at telling whether a candidate is bull-shitting them in the phone screening.
This completely depends on the recruiter. Most recruiters (the ones that troll trough LinkedIn and the like) are bottom-feeders and are just what you say: terrible at screening candidates.
However, there are recruiters that do a very good job at screening candidates and matching them to positions. The thing is that those recruiters aren't cheap.
Also, there are job markets where companies almost exclusively hire through recruiters. This is particularly true outside of urban areas and with small companies, where it's rather hard for companies to attract good candidates.
It would not be treason unless the information revealed was defense secrets of the country.
Under the Constitution, it wouldn't be treason even then. The US has an extremely narrow definition of "treason" (that narrow definition is a feature, not a bug).
A big part of the definition is it has to involve an entity that the US has declared an "enemy". China is not categorized as such.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll still have NoScript after 56. So that's something.
Maybe FF will get their sh*t together in the meantime.
Don't bet on it.
I believe that Classic Theme Restorer has already proclaimed that they won't.
Both the CTR folks and Mozilla have stated a number of times that it will not be possible to create an extension that does what CTR does -- so it's toast.
Which is, in the end, the deciding factor in my not staying with FF after 56. CTR is the only thing that makes the FF UI tolerable.
Konqueror is, in my opinion, one of the worst browsers available. Unless it has a major revamp (mostly to get rid of the numerous serious bugs and problems rendering HTML), it's not even in the running.
But right now, it's looking like I'll be switching to Pale Moon.
Well, if you're going with that expansive definition of "invent", then Gore was correct when he said that.
I don't think that we're disagreeing as much as you imply.
For small to medium size businesses? It's not as easy as you imply.
It depends on how many 9s you need. For most small and medium businesses, 4 or 5 nines (plus adequate backups) are more than sufficient. You can achieve that with a couple of high-quality RAIDs that are geographically separated (particularly if you park them in a third party server farm that provides things like UPS).
It's virtually impossible to do cost effectively.
I disagree with the "virtually impossible" part. But, ignoring that, here is where we aren't really disagreeing that much: doing this yourself (on a small scale, anyway) is clearly more expensive than farming it out. "Cost effective" is a relative term, though, which is why I mentioned "cost/benefit calculations". What's not cost effective for one business may be cost effective for another, even if the businesses are the same size.
screwed because you tried to roll your own solution that failed because you lacked the expertise and/or financial capability to build something with the necessary durability.
Agreed. I was not recommending that anyone do this themselves if they don't have, or can't afford, the expertise.
I did IT support for small businesses for several years (decades ago), and the frequency in which businesses lost critical data because the secretary never changed the tape in the tape drive but they didn't know that until the 1 hard drive in the cobbled together server stashed in the coat closet went kaput is... horrifying.
But this is not an argument against what I was saying. You are talking about businesses running their IT with a high degree of incompetency. Nothing protects against incompetency.
And I was hardly suggesting that everyone should roll their own (I really thought I'd put enough qualifiers in to make that clear, but I guess not). What I was saying is that the notion that you can't do this yourself in a competent fashion is nonsense.
Whether or not it's worth it to you to do this yourself is a different issue. In some cases, it is. In others, it's not. It all depends on your particular situation.
Steve Jobs and Wozniak are praised as gods having created the computer!
Umm, no, nobody says that.
Give the guy a little credit for creating a working email _system_ in an era where email hadn't proliferated very far.
I have no problem with that -- what the guy actually did was good. That's not the problem. The problem is that he insists that he invented email -- to the point of even taking things to court -- when that's a laughable thing to insist on.
Hmmm, it's as if there is a subset of people who think that it's impossible to have down time or lose data if you use your own hardware and backup strategy...
Of course it's not impossible. However, it's also not that hard to meet the same uptime targets as the cloud providers. Also, if it's all on your hardware, then it can be easier to recover from the problem.
It sucks when a major host goes down, because it affects many at once.
No. It sucks because when it happens, the users are 100% powerless to do anything about it.
For many organizations, it's virtually guaranteed that Google or other hosts will do a better job than a roll your own solution.
I would argue that this isn't true for any organization. A cloud host's advantage is not that they can do a better job than you, it's that they'll save you time and money. A big part of what you sacrifice for that convenience is control and the ability to correct the inevitable problems.
Whether or not that's worth it depends on your (or your business') particular cost/benefit formula.
In this day and age of Big Data analytics, there is no longer any such thing as data that is not sensitive. Even the most trivial of information, combined with other trivial information, can add up to a serious intrusion.
If you really must keep data in the cloud, it should all be encrypted (by you, not the cloud), no matter how insignificant that data may seem.
And a search tool that actually works.
FYI you can easily disable Cortana and excess data collection metrics upon installation of Windows 10 creators edition.
You seem to be defining "excess data collection" differently than I do. I define it as "any data collection that I don't want to happen." The creator's update does not allow me to eliminate excess data collection.
except enforcing security, whether you want it or not.
If "security" is being enforced against my wishes, it is an attack.
this might seem like a good idea at first
No. No, it doesn't.
There really is a point where all you care about are the quality of life aspects of a job than direct and indirect compensation.
A million times this. I think I discovered this in my 30s: it's better to make less money doing something that you're genuinely interested in at a workplace that you enjoy, than to make more money in a setting that you dislike.
I used to say I could work anywhere if the pay was right. Experience taught me how wrong this sentiment really is.
Best to say Yes I worked with it and I studied this and consider myself an entry level in that area but I can learn.
I'll take this a step further. I've been on the hiring side of this equation a lot, and it's quite common to ask about various skills, waiting for the applicant to say something like "I don't have a great deal of experience with that, but I'm a quick study" or "I've never done that, but I have done this other thing that's a bit similar" or somesuch.
The idea is to measure the amount of bullshit -- nobody is an expert in everything, and if an applicant never admits to an incompetency, that's a huge red flag.
Plus, I can't tell you how many times that the technically less experience candidate got the job over the more experienced one because the less experienced one would fit into the team better, and can learn.
Honesty really is the way to go. Yes, phrase things in the most flattering way you can, but never say or imply something that is just not true.
But do you know who owns more US debt than anyone else in the world?
Americans.
Almost every company that bitches about their product being stolen by the Chinese never bothered to patent it IN CHINA.
Probably because it isn't necessary to patent it in China. China is a signatory on the Patent Law Treaty and Patent Cooperation Treaty, and is bound to recognize the patents of the other signatories of those treaties.
I have no citation, only personal experience (which I can't go into detail about because NDAs).
However, I've been a part of several teams where we met with representatives of both the US and Russian governments in order to walk them through source code. They don't get to take the code with them, but they do get pretty much as much supervised time to look it over, on our premises, as they wish.
If you CAN do your job, it is unlikely they will fire you because of a "lie" on your resume.
Don't bet on it. I've seen very capable engineers get fired because they lied about something on their resume and it wasn't discovered until later.
Companies like people who can do their jobs, but not if those people aren't trustworthy. And nothing indicates "not trustworthy" faster than lying on your resume.
I am baffled why anyone continues to use them.
I'll explain why I, as an applicant, use a recruiter...
My recruiter is a high-quality one that I've worked with for years. They know me, know my skills, and know the sort of company that I will perform well in and be happy with. When I'm looking for work (sometimes contract, sometimes permanent), my recruiter comes up with better matches for me than I've been able to do on my own. It's awfully hard to tell if a match is right without knowing the company, and my recruiter know the companies they are representing as well as they know me.
Using them gets as close to guaranteeing that I land in a good company as is possible, and saves my a ton of time. I end up happy and the company ends up happy. It's a no-brainer.
That said -- if I had to change recruiters for some reason, I would be extremely wary. Good ones exist, but they're rare.
In my experience (looking for candidates to fill positions), recruiters are not efficient at telling whether a candidate is bull-shitting them in the phone screening.
This completely depends on the recruiter. Most recruiters (the ones that troll trough LinkedIn and the like) are bottom-feeders and are just what you say: terrible at screening candidates.
However, there are recruiters that do a very good job at screening candidates and matching them to positions. The thing is that those recruiters aren't cheap.
Also, there are job markets where companies almost exclusively hire through recruiters. This is particularly true outside of urban areas and with small companies, where it's rather hard for companies to attract good candidates.
It would not be treason unless the information revealed was defense secrets of the country.
Under the Constitution, it wouldn't be treason even then. The US has an extremely narrow definition of "treason" (that narrow definition is a feature, not a bug).
A big part of the definition is it has to involve an entity that the US has declared an "enemy". China is not categorized as such.
Russia and the US have had requirements like that for years now. China's a late-comer to this game.
Are they envisioning a future where you have to be connected to a wireless infrastructure to walk down the street?
Man, that got dystopian really quick.