It's not the version numbering that has me dreading the update -- it's the direction of the updates that came before, along with the loss of functionality that Mozilla is saying comes with it.
Hopefully I'm not the only one, but I kind of lost faith in 'modern' browsers when they started hiding the menu and status bar by default.
"Losing faith" is a bit strong since you can put them back (in FF, anyway), but I agree that a browser is much more usable with the menu and status bar displayed.
In terms of user interface, though, the loss of the title bar of the window cuts deeper. The fact that Mozilla is saying that there's no way to replicate the functionality of things like the Classic Theme Restorer is a showstopper for me.
The trouble here is that you haven't really said what you would consider acceptable, and I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all Android devices anyway. I only know what works for me. Plus, I have to admit, I smell a trap here -- I get the impression that you're just looking for an argument for argument's sake, and that you will declare any suggestions I make as being unacceptable. That's not a game I have any interest in.
If you want an example of devices with stock android that seem acceptable, I'll just to the easy thing and point to the ones Google sells directly. If you're really interested, then I encourage you to do your own research. You're the only one who knows what you find acceptable, after all.
This is all complicated, too, by the apples-and-oranges nature of comparing iPhones with Android: an iPhone is a specific hardware range. Android is an operating system, and by itself implies nothing about the hardware.
All I know is that I've used devices that were roughly equivalent in terms of hardware, running both iOS and Android, and I prefer Android. That's my original assertion, and remains my assertion.
The problem with whole number versioning schemes is that there's a fair amount of information lost. With the dotted schemes, you can tell if a new version is bug fixes, minor improvements, feature changes, etc. With a whole number scheme, all you know is the order in which versions are released.
But, as much as I dislike whole number versioning, I'll take them over using code names any day of the week.
You're ignoring my qualification excluding degenerate cases. Your examples are degenerate cases.
It's true that knowing the median all by itself doesn't tell you much. Additional information is needed, as you correctly point out. That additional information does not have to be the average, though. The number of data points and total range of data is plenty enough.
The median and average are measuring different things, but those different things are themselves related. So, with most real-world datasets, knowing one gives you a ballpark estimate of the other. Take, for example, having a dataset that is perfectly uniform (there are an equal number of data points at every point in the range): the median and the average will be the same.
Or, take the income figures citing earlier -- if you know the median income is, say, 47k, then you can be pretty confident (but not certain) that the average income is not 10k or 100k.
I usually choose to not see it, and write to the act that "Sorry I missed you, but the only way to attend was via Ticketmaster, and I won't deal with them."
Be sure you write to the venue as well. The acts aren't the ones deciding to use Ticketmaster, the venues are.
Median and average are telling you two different things. You don't have to know one in order for the other to be meaningful. Indeed, except in degenerate cases, knowing one gives you a general idea of what the other is likely to be.
but there's also the usual "muh privacy" concerns.
For these sorts of cameras, it's useful to be specific about exactly why the privacy concerns are there: because these systems expose innocent citizens to the whims of law enforcement and government. It's less a pure "privacy" thing and more a self-protection thing.
Your link cites the median wage (which is a much better measure -- I just failed to find it). Mine cited average. Both of our figures can be correct at the same times.
Indeed. You'll get no argument from me. I'm not sure why that observation is relevant, though, unless you're saying that because there are existing security issues in some subsystems we shouldn't be worried about security issues in new subsystems.
Look, you clearly prefer iPhones over Android. That's fair enough, and I'll never say you're wrong. But you seem to be trying to assert that your preference represents some sort of objective truth rather than a preference, and everyone should share in it. That's clearly incorrect. Different people value different things.
All I stated was my preference. It is no more or less valid than yours.
Giving away government money directly to citizens is just such a situation and why Welfare is usually a bad thing for those who receive it for extended periods.
By that logic, it is just as bad to give welfare to corporations. Especially corporations who aren't down on their luck.
Slashdot Mirror
it uploads the result to screenshots.firefox.com.
It does??? Why in the world would they require that? That's a dealbreaker. I hope the screen shot button is removable, at least.
I don't see how he's baffled. Just look at it. It's Chrome.
What OS doesn't come with a screenshot tool?
It's not the version numbering that has me dreading the update -- it's the direction of the updates that came before, along with the loss of functionality that Mozilla is saying comes with it.
Hopefully I'm not the only one, but I kind of lost faith in 'modern' browsers when they started hiding the menu and status bar by default.
"Losing faith" is a bit strong since you can put them back (in FF, anyway), but I agree that a browser is much more usable with the menu and status bar displayed.
In terms of user interface, though, the loss of the title bar of the window cuts deeper. The fact that Mozilla is saying that there's no way to replicate the functionality of things like the Classic Theme Restorer is a showstopper for me.
I'm not dodging anything.
The trouble here is that you haven't really said what you would consider acceptable, and I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all Android devices anyway. I only know what works for me. Plus, I have to admit, I smell a trap here -- I get the impression that you're just looking for an argument for argument's sake, and that you will declare any suggestions I make as being unacceptable. That's not a game I have any interest in.
If you want an example of devices with stock android that seem acceptable, I'll just to the easy thing and point to the ones Google sells directly. If you're really interested, then I encourage you to do your own research. You're the only one who knows what you find acceptable, after all.
This is all complicated, too, by the apples-and-oranges nature of comparing iPhones with Android: an iPhone is a specific hardware range. Android is an operating system, and by itself implies nothing about the hardware.
All I know is that I've used devices that were roughly equivalent in terms of hardware, running both iOS and Android, and I prefer Android. That's my original assertion, and remains my assertion.
Oddly enough, the "under the hood" version number for Windows 10 (and server 2016) is currently 10.0.
Since I work on software that has to interoperate with Oracle Database, I actually am forced to care.
I hope Oracle dies.
You and me both.
The problem with whole number versioning schemes is that there's a fair amount of information lost. With the dotted schemes, you can tell if a new version is bug fixes, minor improvements, feature changes, etc. With a whole number scheme, all you know is the order in which versions are released.
But, as much as I dislike whole number versioning, I'll take them over using code names any day of the week.
You're ignoring my qualification excluding degenerate cases. Your examples are degenerate cases.
It's true that knowing the median all by itself doesn't tell you much. Additional information is needed, as you correctly point out. That additional information does not have to be the average, though. The number of data points and total range of data is plenty enough.
The median and average are measuring different things, but those different things are themselves related. So, with most real-world datasets, knowing one gives you a ballpark estimate of the other. Take, for example, having a dataset that is perfectly uniform (there are an equal number of data points at every point in the range): the median and the average will be the same.
Or, take the income figures citing earlier -- if you know the median income is, say, 47k, then you can be pretty confident (but not certain) that the average income is not 10k or 100k.
I noticed a shipping & handling fee of $10 - per ticket
That's nothing. The last time I used them, I got charged shipping and handling for the electronic tickets that I downloaded immediately.
I usually choose to not see it, and write to the act that "Sorry I missed you, but the only way to attend was via Ticketmaster, and I won't deal with them."
Be sure you write to the venue as well. The acts aren't the ones deciding to use Ticketmaster, the venues are.
That's not even remotely close to being true.
Median and average are telling you two different things. You don't have to know one in order for the other to be meaningful. Indeed, except in degenerate cases, knowing one gives you a general idea of what the other is likely to be.
So Chinese corporations have the same degree of autonomy as US corporations? Even in the US, corporations are often proxies for the government.
I'm far from convinced that's a positive.
Again, the difference is that you don't have to use Facebook.
If you want privacy, go home, lock the door and pull down the blinds.
Even that is insufficient.
but there's also the usual "muh privacy" concerns.
For these sorts of cameras, it's useful to be specific about exactly why the privacy concerns are there: because these systems expose innocent citizens to the whims of law enforcement and government. It's less a pure "privacy" thing and more a self-protection thing.
I have to agree with this.
Now we'll start seeing that deployed in the US.
Dumping good money after bad for years on people who could work but refuse to is a bad idea
I literally have never heard anyone who disagrees with this. The argument is how large that group is.
Your link cites the median wage (which is a much better measure -- I just failed to find it). Mine cited average. Both of our figures can be correct at the same times.
Indeed. You'll get no argument from me. I'm not sure why that observation is relevant, though, unless you're saying that because there are existing security issues in some subsystems we shouldn't be worried about security issues in new subsystems.
It depends on what you consider worth owning.
Look, you clearly prefer iPhones over Android. That's fair enough, and I'll never say you're wrong. But you seem to be trying to assert that your preference represents some sort of objective truth rather than a preference, and everyone should share in it. That's clearly incorrect. Different people value different things.
All I stated was my preference. It is no more or less valid than yours.
Giving away government money directly to citizens is just such a situation and why Welfare is usually a bad thing for those who receive it for extended periods.
By that logic, it is just as bad to give welfare to corporations. Especially corporations who aren't down on their luck.