You could be right. Personally I got more of an image of a "there's only a handful of us devs and we just want to get supported by add-on makers so we can continue making a browser that works even without Australis" vibe from Moonchild's messages on the board.
Same thing with the user agent of the browser. I always used user agent switcher so for me that was "just use UAS as needed" moment. I used firefox for a long time, so it's nothing new to me that browser I use needs to have its user agent changed to get a proper page instead of "this is an unsupported browser" placeholder. They even provided details on user agent used and user agent one needed to use to get "compatibility mode".
And reason wasn't a "moral stand" but reality that Pale Moon isn't going to implement Australis, as a result add-ons designed to work with Australis will have broken interface components. So it needs to tell add-ons to use the old UI elements, and to do so, it needs to tell add-ons that's it's not Firefox.
His point is that FF devs don't give a rat's ass about user concerns such as one you presented. They just do whatever they feel they should do, no matter how illogical or compatibility-breaking.
It's not quite as bad as you put it. There are still alternative browsers from forked FF code that kept sane UI and are trying to keep extensions more stable per release.
I use one of those forks. Pale Moon. FF has been largely unusable for me since the 3.6.28 > 4.0 transition.
There is an add-on for switching between Gecko and IE for most browsers that support firefox's addons. I use Pale Moon, and it's supported. I think SeaMonkey, which is usually considered "the developer browser of gecko family" is supported as well.
Not sure if there's one for Webkit. Never needed it.
That's okay. Some people are into hardcore BDSM. Some really like to get whipped into unconsciousness. We don't judge.
But it would be really nice if you didn't preface your masochism with "well those guys can't even take a few hits from the bull whip without whining". Just because you are a hardcore masochist who trained himself to handle the pain doesn't mean that the rest of us should follow your example.
Tail is designed to deploy in extremely thin atmosphere to stabilize the aircraft. Deploying it in much thicker atmosphere causes far more drag than deploying it in extremely thin atmosphere at much higher speed.
Except that it doesn't "slip in as Windows Update" but requires significant user interaction to install. Which means ignorant user trained to say "no" to every prompt he didn't click something to create says "no" and doesn't install it.
Probably none of them. 8's hack is key server emulation which gets all the updates, and if you pirate it, you probably have the know-how to upgrade to 8.1.
Average user who was shoved 8 down his threat because he just didn't know any better would not on the other hand, and the poor bastards have to suffer.
That is of course, if anyone was stupid enough to pirate 8 when 7 is freely available
FIFA 15 would probably qualify as popular enough of a game to warrant one of the decent teams to try their hands on cracking it. However most completely new DRM schemes usually take a while to crack. Admittedly I have no clue. Sports games were never my thing as a long time PC gamer, but whenever I see friends playing them, it's usually on a console on the couch. I imagine it would feel really weird to play it on PC. It's quite feasible that target audience for FIFA games on PC is tiny.
The reason most games come out cracked quickly is because most games reuse same already existing DRM schemes, which makes crackers' job quite a bit easier. Reported crashiness of this particular games tells a good story on why new DRM schemes are generally not often developed and implemented. Additional costs are another.
Admittedly considering the sheer amount of PC players not buying games when they come out but holding off for a sale is got to be pretty big nowadays, so value of "slow down piracy" DRM is questionable at best for non AAA titles.
And it hasn't been cracked mainly because crackers usually take a while to crack a new DRM scheme. After it's initially cracked, same scheme applied to other games has severe diminishing returns and is cracked very rapidly.
I think we can actually pin the blame on Korolev here. He died in 1966, and without him Soviet space program lost their main driver.
And without stiff and successful competition he provided, US didn't use the same resources as before on space exploration after clawing their one victory after series of losses. A very smart thing to do considering the costs of the program and the fact that people only remember your last victory, not the string of losses that came before it.
Good story on Wired that doesn't go quite as far as I think it should, but spells out some of the more important points for ignorant folks who are trying to mod this post -1 troll because they don't know any better and get shiny eyes when they hear "commercial space exploration".
So if you feel like modding parent down, read the below story first. You just may get an understanding of the angle being pursued and change your mind. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/v...
One percenters take the risks? The guy who died was a rich guy? Really?
Also, I'm a liberal Green. Good to know. Just recently, I got absolutely lambasted here on slashdot for being a conservative coal burning twat. You should have a word with people who did that. I suspect you'd enjoy their company, they are just as opinionated and ignorant as you are.
Are you suggesting there is a commercial potential for the masses in the idea of strapping a rocket engine to a small airplane so it can go higher than most airplanes and then glide down? And then compare this to usefulness of air travel?
Do I really need to debunk this obvious absurdity?
That's okay. I'll make a point to completely ignore all those elephants stinking up the room as you focus on the fly on the wall. Elephants like the fact that several governments (US isn't entire world, shocking!) got to orbit and beyond orbit with separate independent programs already. Or the fact that this particular effort has no interest in even breaking orbit, much less doing all those things you talk about, but it completely about letting a few ultra rich experience a better view than slightly less rich folks who have to take their weightlessness flights in subsonic aircraft.
But hey, let's talk about that fly instead. Let's just put the gas masks on first so we don't have the smell the overwhelming stench of elephant shit.
In that case, you share my point of view, because this particular form of capitalism doesn't let you leave it. They can't even put you in orbit, much less break it.
Did you notice that we got to space, as in actually into orbit and beyond already? As in several nations, separately with separate independent programs? Without rich people funding it?
Explain why. Be very detailed, because I'm sure a lot of us would like to know how it is beneficial to spend so much resources just so that a few rich folks can have a better view than the rest of us when flying.
In this case, the tech support you called stands to be disciplined. However considering the consistency, I would suggest that your story does not add up. Regardless, I genuiunely don't care enough to pursue this line of questioning. I'm not in copyright or law enforcement, and I'm likely not in the same country as you are, so whatever floats your boat.
It would however serve you well to remember the things you learn here in the future, because you showed several quite dangerous misconceptions both in terms of your legal right and legal obligations, as well as lack of understanding of concept of fraud.
P.S. You don't need to be "familiar with pirate bay" to know that most of the modern pirated versions of windows have long ago solved any microsoft DRM problems. It has always been this way, and likely will be this way for foreseeable future, at least as long as the entire part from boot up of the system to getting OS to load is fully protected and controlled by microsoft. As long as cracker can insert his bootloader somewhere in between, MS has no way of protecting windows against piracy in a way that would let it distinguish between genuine and not genuine software on target machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you consider answering my question rather than answering why "developing space flight is a good thing"?
You could be right. Personally I got more of an image of a "there's only a handful of us devs and we just want to get supported by add-on makers so we can continue making a browser that works even without Australis" vibe from Moonchild's messages on the board.
Same thing with the user agent of the browser. I always used user agent switcher so for me that was "just use UAS as needed" moment. I used firefox for a long time, so it's nothing new to me that browser I use needs to have its user agent changed to get a proper page instead of "this is an unsupported browser" placeholder. They even provided details on user agent used and user agent one needed to use to get "compatibility mode".
Most of them still work afaik. They just lose some interface components.
As far as I know, key extensions have been forked by the volunteer group behind the browser here:
http://addons.palemoon.org/fir...
And reason wasn't a "moral stand" but reality that Pale Moon isn't going to implement Australis, as a result add-ons designed to work with Australis will have broken interface components.
So it needs to tell add-ons to use the old UI elements, and to do so, it needs to tell add-ons that's it's not Firefox.
Most likely end user licence agreement in which you agree to give them this right.
His point is that FF devs don't give a rat's ass about user concerns such as one you presented. They just do whatever they feel they should do, no matter how illogical or compatibility-breaking.
It's not quite as bad as you put it. There are still alternative browsers from forked FF code that kept sane UI and are trying to keep extensions more stable per release.
I use one of those forks. Pale Moon. FF has been largely unusable for me since the 3.6.28 > 4.0 transition.
There is an add-on for switching between Gecko and IE for most browsers that support firefox's addons. I use Pale Moon, and it's supported. I think SeaMonkey, which is usually considered "the developer browser of gecko family" is supported as well.
Not sure if there's one for Webkit. Never needed it.
That's okay. Some people are into hardcore BDSM. Some really like to get whipped into unconsciousness. We don't judge.
But it would be really nice if you didn't preface your masochism with "well those guys can't even take a few hits from the bull whip without whining". Just because you are a hardcore masochist who trained himself to handle the pain doesn't mean that the rest of us should follow your example.
Air pressure.
Tail is designed to deploy in extremely thin atmosphere to stabilize the aircraft. Deploying it in much thicker atmosphere causes far more drag than deploying it in extremely thin atmosphere at much higher speed.
Except that it doesn't "slip in as Windows Update" but requires significant user interaction to install. Which means ignorant user trained to say "no" to every prompt he didn't click something to create says "no" and doesn't install it.
Most likely those people who just bought the computer and were utterly clueless that they can update.
I'm surprised it's not more really. Essentially anyone with meaningful know how got 7 instead of 8.
Probably none of them. 8's hack is key server emulation which gets all the updates, and if you pirate it, you probably have the know-how to upgrade to 8.1.
Average user who was shoved 8 down his threat because he just didn't know any better would not on the other hand, and the poor bastards have to suffer.
That is of course, if anyone was stupid enough to pirate 8 when 7 is freely available
FIFA 15 would probably qualify as popular enough of a game to warrant one of the decent teams to try their hands on cracking it. However most completely new DRM schemes usually take a while to crack.
Admittedly I have no clue. Sports games were never my thing as a long time PC gamer, but whenever I see friends playing them, it's usually on a console on the couch. I imagine it would feel really weird to play it on PC. It's quite feasible that target audience for FIFA games on PC is tiny.
The reason most games come out cracked quickly is because most games reuse same already existing DRM schemes, which makes crackers' job quite a bit easier. Reported crashiness of this particular games tells a good story on why new DRM schemes are generally not often developed and implemented. Additional costs are another.
Admittedly considering the sheer amount of PC players not buying games when they come out but holding off for a sale is got to be pretty big nowadays, so value of "slow down piracy" DRM is questionable at best for non AAA titles.
Solutions like PS3 take a long time to crack because boot loader is locked tight. You can't easily bypass it.
On a PC machine with no protected bootloader, there's no way for software to know if machine wants to tamper with it or not when it loads.
And it hasn't been cracked mainly because crackers usually take a while to crack a new DRM scheme. After it's initially cracked, same scheme applied to other games has severe diminishing returns and is cracked very rapidly.
I think we can actually pin the blame on Korolev here. He died in 1966, and without him Soviet space program lost their main driver.
And without stiff and successful competition he provided, US didn't use the same resources as before on space exploration after clawing their one victory after series of losses. A very smart thing to do considering the costs of the program and the fact that people only remember your last victory, not the string of losses that came before it.
Good story on Wired that doesn't go quite as far as I think it should, but spells out some of the more important points for ignorant folks who are trying to mod this post -1 troll because they don't know any better and get shiny eyes when they hear "commercial space exploration".
So if you feel like modding parent down, read the below story first. You just may get an understanding of the angle being pursued and change your mind.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/v...
One percenters take the risks? The guy who died was a rich guy? Really?
Also, I'm a liberal Green. Good to know. Just recently, I got absolutely lambasted here on slashdot for being a conservative coal burning twat. You should have a word with people who did that. I suspect you'd enjoy their company, they are just as opinionated and ignorant as you are.
Are you suggesting there is a commercial potential for the masses in the idea of strapping a rocket engine to a small airplane so it can go higher than most airplanes and then glide down? And then compare this to usefulness of air travel?
Do I really need to debunk this obvious absurdity?
That's okay. I'll make a point to completely ignore all those elephants stinking up the room as you focus on the fly on the wall. Elephants like the fact that several governments (US isn't entire world, shocking!) got to orbit and beyond orbit with separate independent programs already. Or the fact that this particular effort has no interest in even breaking orbit, much less doing all those things you talk about, but it completely about letting a few ultra rich experience a better view than slightly less rich folks who have to take their weightlessness flights in subsonic aircraft.
But hey, let's talk about that fly instead. Let's just put the gas masks on first so we don't have the smell the overwhelming stench of elephant shit.
In that case, you share my point of view, because this particular form of capitalism doesn't let you leave it. They can't even put you in orbit, much less break it.
Seems like a whole lot of governments already have taken off, independent of each other.
Did you notice that we got to space, as in actually into orbit and beyond already? As in several nations, separately with separate independent programs? Without rich people funding it?
Mindblowing, I know.
Commercializing space flight is a good thing?
Explain why. Be very detailed, because I'm sure a lot of us would like to know how it is beneficial to spend so much resources just so that a few rich folks can have a better view than the rest of us when flying.
In this case, the tech support you called stands to be disciplined. However considering the consistency, I would suggest that your story does not add up. Regardless, I genuiunely don't care enough to pursue this line of questioning. I'm not in copyright or law enforcement, and I'm likely not in the same country as you are, so whatever floats your boat.
It would however serve you well to remember the things you learn here in the future, because you showed several quite dangerous misconceptions both in terms of your legal right and legal obligations, as well as lack of understanding of concept of fraud.
P.S. You don't need to be "familiar with pirate bay" to know that most of the modern pirated versions of windows have long ago solved any microsoft DRM problems. It has always been this way, and likely will be this way for foreseeable future, at least as long as the entire part from boot up of the system to getting OS to load is fully protected and controlled by microsoft. As long as cracker can insert his bootloader somewhere in between, MS has no way of protecting windows against piracy in a way that would let it distinguish between genuine and not genuine software on target machine.