I don't see whats wrong in killing civilians in a game. That's what games are for. I guess people would be shocked after we drive over old ladies in Carmageddon more today than when it was released?
I'm not going to kill or drive over anyone, ever, as it would be horrible, but in the game it's plenty fun.
It"s actually a quite delicate matter that will take a long time to be resolved.
Therefore its only responsible to incite CA's to quintuple check their security measures. Web's SSL won't change overnight because some guy at Mozilla would code a super awesome alternative (although we'd still all wish that).
IMO the best option would be to have something that does away with the "must pay premium to have a cert that browsers trust". Meanwhile, DNSSEC helps as well.
That is totally irrelevant. No one said Google did something illegal for instance. Nope. But they're not following the open source spirit.
Unlike Apple, they claim to be open source, I can sharply remember that "Android is as open as git clone blah make" post from a Google exec. But that's a lie. Apple does not claim that OSX is open source. They claim for open standards but that another story.
As far as I can remember there is some kind of mod_gpg for apache that does exactly that. web of trust, but using pgp. its free, and pretty good in fact. can't seem to find the link tho, probably didn't really get many users.
Your argument is correct but not precise enough and you'll get attacked by some g-drones ^^
What is meant to be said here, is that Google _ALREADY_ released the product and did _NOT_ open-source it. That's HoneyComb and it's been out for quite a while. Basically, it's like saying ID software games are all open-source cause they open source the engine like 5 too 8 years later. Aka bullshit. (note: ID software is actually honest and very clear about their practice and I can only acclaim their behavior - Google instead uses that as marketing weapon)
Then there's the opensource "spirit". The RMS opensource. The open source that has _also_ open development behind. The open source like Mozilla does, for instance, where nearly everything is open and anyone can just come in and chime. The open source like the Linux kernel does. That's proper open-source. Call it what you want.
there is no need for any kind of source, physical separation will always be stronger than software separation. now then again I suspect you're looking for stuff such as blue pill, and zillion other talks about how one broke into virtualization system X Z or Y and that's not "wild" at all, simply put visualization is complex and there's many potential bugs and design error everywhere (like in many other areas).
also, visualization is generally not though with security in mind as number one priority, which doesn't especially help when you use it, well, for security
Yeah, theres a lot of BS going on about this hack. Reading the kernel.org news I feel like kernel.org admins are actually very average (they don't even know how they got exploited) and people seems to try to PR-fix-this.
There's several posts on the internet about how the GIT repositories could actually have been corrupted and we'll probably _never_ know, despite what GIT/kernel.org supporters might say.
wah undersea data collecting IS interesting, challenging, something worth working for.
working for Google just to, like, work at Google should be the reasonable choice here? Heck, work is where you spent the very major part of your life, so it better be something you value. I would totally do the same as he's doing. In fact, I would very much like to work for such a company that's actually doing something interesting.
Cost the same as a real heli tho. If you need 200kg of payload you can probably do that with a real plane.
Note that the focus of this mission is to bring whats necessary to those in need who cannot afford the technology.
that's why they have chosen a small uav, and usually its not large amount of medicine (maybe in the future when making big planes would be cheaper)
think of it more like, "we need urgently vaccine XXX or 10 will die"
ordering a real plane or heli to deliver costs too much and would take a week to setup.
sending a small drone (granted that you have one already setup for this kind of stuff) takes 5min and cost nothing once you paid the 1000-5000EUR setup once (well, it costs recharging batteries and maintenance but thats nearly nothing)
you're free to put your trust into a computer system and american's GPS naviguation system but i'd rather have a manual control link as backup, specially when im carrying medicine for people in need. Note that i'm talking planes, hence parachuting. Helicopters (incl. quads etc) have such shitty fuel range and power/weight ratio that they're not going to "fly" for such deliveries.
blimps have been looked at for mass delivery due to cheaper fuel (albeit slower transportation than eg planes) but it just doesn't work so far. wind pushes them too much, its still slow and unreliable. planes are the most reliable, as in fixed wing planes. that's the same for smaller UAVs
Hopefully this is the wrong picture, but indeed, such platform is very inefficient and won't fly far (both because of the power required, super tiny payload and radio range when electronics are packed like that)
A regular airplane parachuting the goods would however make a lot of sense. I've seen a few people with such projects. We've planes that can take a couple kilograms of payload and fly 50km and back on electric, 100 on fuel, with radio, video signal going just as far and the whole thing being on autopilot anyway.
As usual, benchmarks are quite broken. I can understand when you get a few FPS on a graphic card but.. lets take startup time.. 0.8s vs 1.1s and the bar is like so much bigger, while in reality this makes almost no difference.
Then again, testing stuff such as acid3 (which will never be implemented in some browsers to reach 100% because of things the acid3 did not foresee) or memory release wrongly (per process model is forced to release all the memory, threaded models keep a lot in the cache)
there's many other such cases, which basically mean, you can put any of the contenders in the top place (except safari on windows i guess!)
Once Google gets this out - knowing competitors will not pick it up - and leverage it's massive weight by paying devs and advertising everywhere - we may actually get some decent games done for it. But only Chrome will play them, the open standard is just a trick there, as, once again, no one else will implement it for a long while.
Once Chrome has captured market, Google has end-to-end web control, and that is a little bit scary.
Been using alternatives a while ago. That includes Chrome and a zillion other services Google provides. Google does evil, well duh, like everyone elses before when they become too big. And after that, they usually fall.
So far the only sensitive thing I have seen to counter that is to force the company into separate entities. It's what Samsung does, actually. It's not perfect - at all - but it's an attempt I suppose.
When I read the comments, even if its unrelated to Firefox, all the top ones are only pure trolling again Mozilla. Mozillhate is the new trend I guess. If you hate, you'll get karma and support!
tenfour firefox seems to do well with little resources i dont think a LTS needs such large resources. maybe to have the LTS process in place yes, but thats a one time change. Anyhow, that kind of should be considered with importance, such bad press for FF makes a browser go down quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see whats wrong in killing civilians in a game. That's what games are for.
I guess people would be shocked after we drive over old ladies in Carmageddon more today than when it was released?
I'm not going to kill or drive over anyone, ever, as it would be horrible, but in the game it's plenty fun.
It"s actually a quite delicate matter that will take a long time to be resolved.
Therefore its only responsible to incite CA's to quintuple check their security measures. Web's SSL won't change overnight because some guy at Mozilla would code a super awesome alternative (although we'd still all wish that).
IMO the best option would be to have something that does away with the "must pay premium to have a cert that browsers trust".
Meanwhile, DNSSEC helps as well.
That is totally irrelevant. No one said Google did something illegal for instance. Nope. But they're not following the open source spirit.
Unlike Apple, they claim to be open source, I can sharply remember that "Android is as open as git clone blah make" post from a Google exec. But that's a lie.
Apple does not claim that OSX is open source. They claim for open standards but that another story.
As far as I can remember there is some kind of mod_gpg for apache that does exactly that. web of trust, but using pgp. its free, and pretty good in fact.
can't seem to find the link tho, probably didn't really get many users.
We don't give a fuck.
Thanks for searching,
Google
What you meant to say is probably "Haha. Who cares?" - The Gmail-man.
Your argument is correct but not precise enough and you'll get attacked by some g-drones ^^
What is meant to be said here, is that Google _ALREADY_ released the product and did _NOT_ open-source it. That's HoneyComb and it's been out for quite a while.
Basically, it's like saying ID software games are all open-source cause they open source the engine like 5 too 8 years later. Aka bullshit. (note: ID software is actually honest and very clear about their practice and I can only acclaim their behavior - Google instead uses that as marketing weapon)
Then there's the opensource "spirit". The RMS opensource. The open source that has _also_ open development behind. The open source like Mozilla does, for instance, where nearly everything is open and anyone can just come in and chime. The open source like the Linux kernel does. That's proper open-source.
Call it what you want.
there is no need for any kind of source, physical separation will always be stronger than software separation.
now then again I suspect you're looking for stuff such as blue pill, and zillion other talks about how one broke into virtualization system X Z or Y and that's not "wild" at all, simply put visualization is complex and there's many potential bugs and design error everywhere (like in many other areas).
also, visualization is generally not though with security in mind as number one priority, which doesn't especially help when you use it, well, for security
that would be if virtualization was actually as good of a protection as physical phones, which it isnt
Yeah, theres a lot of BS going on about this hack. Reading the kernel.org news I feel like kernel.org admins are actually very average (they don't even know how they got exploited) and people seems to try to PR-fix-this.
There's several posts on the internet about how the GIT repositories could actually have been corrupted and we'll probably _never_ know, despite what GIT/kernel.org supporters might say.
wah
undersea data collecting IS interesting, challenging, something worth working for.
working for Google just to, like, work at Google should be the reasonable choice here? Heck, work is where you spent the very major part of your life, so it better be something you value. I would totally do the same as he's doing. In fact, I would very much like to work for such a company that's actually doing something interesting.
Cost the same as a real heli tho. If you need 200kg of payload you can probably do that with a real plane.
Note that the focus of this mission is to bring whats necessary to those in need who cannot afford the technology.
that's why they have chosen a small uav, and usually its not large amount of medicine (maybe in the future when making big planes would be cheaper)
think of it more like, "we need urgently vaccine XXX or 10 will die"
ordering a real plane or heli to deliver costs too much and would take a week to setup.
sending a small drone (granted that you have one already setup for this kind of stuff) takes 5min and cost nothing once you paid the 1000-5000EUR setup once (well, it costs recharging batteries and maintenance but thats nearly nothing)
you're free to put your trust into a computer system and american's GPS naviguation system but i'd rather have a manual control link as backup, specially when im carrying medicine for people in need.
Note that i'm talking planes, hence parachuting. Helicopters (incl. quads etc) have such shitty fuel range and power/weight ratio that they're not going to "fly" for such deliveries.
blimps have been looked at for mass delivery due to cheaper fuel (albeit slower transportation than eg planes) but it just doesn't work so far.
wind pushes them too much, its still slow and unreliable.
planes are the most reliable, as in fixed wing planes. that's the same for smaller UAVs
Hopefully this is the wrong picture, but indeed, such platform is very inefficient and won't fly far (both because of the power required, super tiny payload and radio range when electronics are packed like that)
A regular airplane parachuting the goods would however make a lot of sense. I've seen a few people with such projects.
We've planes that can take a couple kilograms of payload and fly 50km and back on electric, 100 on fuel, with radio, video signal going just as far and the whole thing being on autopilot anyway.
As usual, benchmarks are quite broken.
I can understand when you get a few FPS on a graphic card but.. lets take startup time..
0.8s vs 1.1s and the bar is like so much bigger, while in reality this makes almost no difference.
Then again, testing stuff such as acid3 (which will never be implemented in some browsers to reach 100% because of things the acid3 did not foresee) or memory release wrongly (per process model is forced to release all the memory, threaded models keep a lot in the cache)
there's many other such cases, which basically mean, you can put any of the contenders in the top place (except safari on windows i guess!)
Its "interesting" to see that browsers are struggling to be as fast as windows on osx.
of course, linux on all tests is missing which is a shame
Once Google gets this out - knowing competitors will not pick it up - and leverage it's massive weight by paying devs and advertising everywhere - we may actually get some decent games done for it.
But only Chrome will play them, the open standard is just a trick there, as, once again, no one else will implement it for a long while.
Once Chrome has captured market, Google has end-to-end web control, and that is a little bit scary.
Been using alternatives a while ago. That includes Chrome and a zillion other services Google provides.
Google does evil, well duh, like everyone elses before when they become too big. And after that, they usually fall.
So far the only sensitive thing I have seen to counter that is to force the company into separate entities. It's what Samsung does, actually. It's not perfect - at all - but it's an attempt I suppose.
Im just pointing out its the current hate trend.
I don't think Chrome or G+ have been bashed a lot.
When I read the comments, even if its unrelated to Firefox, all the top ones are only pure trolling again Mozilla.
Mozillhate is the new trend I guess. If you hate, you'll get karma and support!
Mod parent up. ;-)
And what will you use, Chrome? Because Chrome's no different.
Actually, we do report Chrome versions ;-)
then again its testing chrome 12 too (hint: its very old) and IE10 is around the corner. you were saying?
tenfour firefox seems to do well with little resources
i dont think a LTS needs such large resources. maybe to have the LTS process in place yes, but thats a one time change.
Anyhow, that kind of should be considered with importance, such bad press for FF makes a browser go down quickly.