What about those using it for mathematics, physics, and many other subjects that have nothing to do with programming? Does being good at programming give you a free pass to cheat those as well?
Which is why I'm not upgrading to 4.x until there is a reliable way to get it to come back. And since I don't really care about investigating this issue, as 3.6.x satisfies my browsing needs, it's pretty unlikely that I will ever upgrade.
It really makes me wonder - on one hand we have a whole boat of bloatware a la personas shoved down our throats. On the other hand, things we actually need like status bar are getting the axe. Does mozilla actually want IE to rebound on its share because it will remain the only proper PC browser instead of "full experience of mobile piece of shit browser on your desktop PC"?
Really bad idea, because I like to see where I am, for phishing reasons if nothing else. Realistically it also kills a lot of efficiency when having multiple tabs open.
Same reason for status bar at least in mozilla - I like being able to see where the link leads immediately, not to mention various status add-ons like ghostery feeding me information at a glance. If I ever want to go for minimalist look, all I need to do is hit F11. I don't need a forced full screen mode shoved down my throat, thank you very much, and that's where this is going.
A lot of this apparent minimalist mania seems to be about making PC (note: talking about personal computers in general here, including macs and others) browsers just as bad as mobile ones, since we can't make mobile ones be as good as desktop ones due to lack of screen space. With google and android, it only makes sense that they are pushing for it.
What makes much less sense is others actually following them.
Google makes most of their money off giving their users as little privacy as possible so their targeted ads become even more valuable to advertisers.
Microsoft makes most of their money by making people and organisations pay for using their software. They could care less about digging clients private information. Bing is a bit of a different story, but bing is just a small division inside microsoft that has very little connection with windows division, which is what we're talking about here.
Aforementioned difference in income models makes for all the difference in the world when it comes to being a threat to privacy.
Actually scratch that. Tell that to ANY modern pilot, be he military or civilian. For added bonus, tell that to greens all over the world and be lynched on the spot, as unstable aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient and can only be flown with fly-by-wire. Trying to fly it manually will result in very spectacular and fiery ending.
Privacy laws like these have some of the same issues, in that it's impossible to perfectly follow them to the letter while still conducting business. The difference is the consequences are much higher. Since it's China and India I assume that bribing your way out is still possible, but the price is much higher and if you offer too low, you could end up dead (particularly in China).
False. Essentially everyone here in EU follows them to the letter, and has done so for years. In some countries, well over a decade.
The only people who cannot follow them, are either not in EU and do not want to follow EU laws, or are literally too stupid to follow them. They're actually very easy when you get an IT-admin's version of them, and very easy to follow. You do not need to be schooled in law to understand them, one hour review is enough for most people. As a comparison, when I was getting my security guard card for a summer job, legal rights and obligations took several days to teach and were a major part of the course.
I'm saying this from experience, I spent several years maintaining local university's campus network as a local admin, and one of the things we got a wiki page on was privacy laws, what we're allowed to do, what we're not allowed to do, what users are allowed to do, and what users are not allowed to do. Interestingly, most of the stuff that opponents of privacy laws scream about as "this hinders my ability to maintain proper network management", as an admin you're actually exempt, by law. It's not a stupid piece of legislation by any means, and most certainly allows for maintaining very complex networks. You just have to actually want or feel obligated to follow the law.
While true, many omnivorous mammals such as apes can consume cooked food without major problems. We on the other hand cannot consume raw meat or unwashed vegetarian menu because our digestive system isn't designed for it and will get hit by major diseases and various problems. A good comparison here is any large predator such as wolf. It can consume raw meat, in state of significant decay. It's stomach will destroy most of the bacteria and small parasites and intestines will be able to absorb nutrients from such a diet. We would not.
Our intestinal tract is MUCH simpler in this regard then almost any omnivorous mammal of similar size, in addition to being smaller.
Notably, carcinogenic effect of the smoke is not negated by our digestive system to a degree so significant that would clearly differ from other similar mammals such as apes. Note that much of the cooking does NOT involve smoke - there is significant proof that much of diet was in fact in form of various stews rather then smoked meat, as stews offer a significantly better nutritional value due to better absorption. Finally, carcinogenic effects are very long-term, and average life span of a human in stone age was well below 20, meaning individuals chance to die of cancer while of breeding age was nonexistent.
It's worth noting that this is still considered largely correct. The most successful life form on the planet is a fly, and most successful mammal is a rat.
A great example of minimalism working in favor of evolution in humans is our intestinal tract. If you look at most large apes that bear close resemblance to humans, they can eat food that would cause us to get sick and die, in spite of being similar omnivores to us humans. Why? Because at the end of our evolution, we discovered fire. Cooking causes most proteins to break up as well as largely disinfect the food. Adapting to this, the humans who survived the evolutionary selection were the ones who had vastly downsized and simplified intestinal tract, that couldn't consume much of the uncooked food that larger could. This means that where apes and some other prehistoric evolutionary branches of human race ate raw food, and had to use much more energy digesting it, in turn causing it to need more food for same amount of work, humans who survived were far more efficient. This is very noticeable when you look at gorillas for example - they have large pot bellies, mainly because of sheer size of their intestinal tract.
In this regard, if humans were to lose knowledge of fire, they would likely become extinct, as our ability to eat uncooked food is severely hamstrung by our evolution. But as long as we can cook, we are far more energy efficient then competition. As a result, we can afford a much larger brain, that consumes much more energy. A very common argument in modern evolutionary theory is that discovery of fire, and consequent evolution of our intestinal tract have been a requirement for evolution into modern homo sapiens, as without it, we would be unlikely to be able to successfully support our current brain's energy needs.
In this regard, the requirement for two eyes is actually not about conservation - it's about need for stereo vision for successful hunting. The proper argument is that we don't have a third eye in case of loss of one eye (and subsequent severe diminishing of ability to hunt) because of minimalism - those who lose an eye will likely die off but majority will be able to die of other reasons.
Point is that much if not most of modern malware is done in the name of profit. As a result, the higher installed base goes, the more effort will be done to infect the machines.
In this regard, both absolute amount and amount proportional to total installed base should shift towards w7, as has happened.
That would be great. Maybe we could stop all the bitching and whining about China's "record" and get on to making money through profitable trade.
You massively underestimate the political capital hidden in the "human rights" claim. It's not just about China - West has used "human rights" as an excuse to for a lot of land and resource grabs in the last few decades. They make for an easy and generally acceptable reason both to outsiders and their own population. Losing this would cause significant amount of damage both home and abroad.
Building it on a meaningful level is hard enough, as it requires supraconductivity. Costs would be astronomical.
That said, tech mentioned in OP, unlike RSFQ doesn't even exist yet. It's just a working theory. By the time it's working, there are bound to be ways to use it.
4.1. Entire crew on captured ship killed, ship scuttled in revenge. Cameras get beautiful shots of small pieces of children scattered across burning remains of bombed village. Massive calls go for war crime tribunal for people who ordered strike on civilians. US loses essentially all political clout it had with "human rights issues" worldwide. Company that owned the ship/its insurers and teary wives and children of killed seamen go to court against US and likely win huge damages, as potential ransom costs but a small fraction of ship and its cargo's value.
Correct. All above are in the scope of INCREASED PUNISHMENT FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. They do not happen pro-actively but retroactively.
The problem is that what you're advocating is akin to drunk driver losing his license forever after the first time someone caught him buying alcohol after conviction, with no car involved.
Assuming you have at least one speeding ticket and a history of recently purchasing a car capable of going past the speed limit, clearly, the same conditions you describe applying to MS apply to you as well.
Slashdot Mirror
What about those using it for mathematics, physics, and many other subjects that have nothing to do with programming? Does being good at programming give you a free pass to cheat those as well?
What will stop a hacked calculator from displaying this message as well?
We have competition in most countries of Europe. Real one. Neelie Kroes is just too damn scary for telcos to even try.
Which is why I'm not upgrading to 4.x until there is a reliable way to get it to come back. And since I don't really care about investigating this issue, as 3.6.x satisfies my browsing needs, it's pretty unlikely that I will ever upgrade.
It really makes me wonder - on one hand we have a whole boat of bloatware a la personas shoved down our throats. On the other hand, things we actually need like status bar are getting the axe. Does mozilla actually want IE to rebound on its share because it will remain the only proper PC browser instead of "full experience of mobile piece of shit browser on your desktop PC"?
Really bad idea, because I like to see where I am, for phishing reasons if nothing else. Realistically it also kills a lot of efficiency when having multiple tabs open.
Same reason for status bar at least in mozilla - I like being able to see where the link leads immediately, not to mention various status add-ons like ghostery feeding me information at a glance. If I ever want to go for minimalist look, all I need to do is hit F11. I don't need a forced full screen mode shoved down my throat, thank you very much, and that's where this is going.
A lot of this apparent minimalist mania seems to be about making PC (note: talking about personal computers in general here, including macs and others) browsers just as bad as mobile ones, since we can't make mobile ones be as good as desktop ones due to lack of screen space. With google and android, it only makes sense that they are pushing for it.
What makes much less sense is others actually following them.
This brings word "used" to a whole ... old(?) meaning.
Probably because price difference on new vs used is often negligible, while remaining significant vs free.
Google makes most of their money off giving their users as little privacy as possible so their targeted ads become even more valuable to advertisers.
Microsoft makes most of their money by making people and organisations pay for using their software. They could care less about digging clients private information. Bing is a bit of a different story, but bing is just a small division inside microsoft that has very little connection with windows division, which is what we're talking about here.
Aforementioned difference in income models makes for all the difference in the world when it comes to being a threat to privacy.
Kingdom for mod points, this is as funny as slashdot gets!
Tell that to B-2 pilots.
Actually scratch that. Tell that to ANY modern pilot, be he military or civilian. For added bonus, tell that to greens all over the world and be lynched on the spot, as unstable aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient and can only be flown with fly-by-wire. Trying to fly it manually will result in very spectacular and fiery ending.
I call cow. Let's mate!
ASD - Analogue Subscriber Donkey*.
The next generation of internet communication (after your oppressive government shuts down other internet access lines).
*Speed depends on the Donkey, quality of road and driver. Government checkpoints may cause packet loss.
Privacy laws like these have some of the same issues, in that it's impossible to perfectly follow them to the letter while still conducting business. The difference is the consequences are much higher. Since it's China and India I assume that bribing your way out is still possible, but the price is much higher and if you offer too low, you could end up dead (particularly in China).
False. Essentially everyone here in EU follows them to the letter, and has done so for years. In some countries, well over a decade.
The only people who cannot follow them, are either not in EU and do not want to follow EU laws, or are literally too stupid to follow them. They're actually very easy when you get an IT-admin's version of them, and very easy to follow. You do not need to be schooled in law to understand them, one hour review is enough for most people.
As a comparison, when I was getting my security guard card for a summer job, legal rights and obligations took several days to teach and were a major part of the course.
I'm saying this from experience, I spent several years maintaining local university's campus network as a local admin, and one of the things we got a wiki page on was privacy laws, what we're allowed to do, what we're not allowed to do, what users are allowed to do, and what users are not allowed to do.
Interestingly, most of the stuff that opponents of privacy laws scream about as "this hinders my ability to maintain proper network management", as an admin you're actually exempt, by law. It's not a stupid piece of legislation by any means, and most certainly allows for maintaining very complex networks. You just have to actually want or feel obligated to follow the law.
While true, many omnivorous mammals such as apes can consume cooked food without major problems. We on the other hand cannot consume raw meat or unwashed vegetarian menu because our digestive system isn't designed for it and will get hit by major diseases and various problems.
A good comparison here is any large predator such as wolf. It can consume raw meat, in state of significant decay. It's stomach will destroy most of the bacteria and small parasites and intestines will be able to absorb nutrients from such a diet. We would not.
Our intestinal tract is MUCH simpler in this regard then almost any omnivorous mammal of similar size, in addition to being smaller.
Notably, carcinogenic effect of the smoke is not negated by our digestive system to a degree so significant that would clearly differ from other similar mammals such as apes. Note that much of the cooking does NOT involve smoke - there is significant proof that much of diet was in fact in form of various stews rather then smoked meat, as stews offer a significantly better nutritional value due to better absorption. Finally, carcinogenic effects are very long-term, and average life span of a human in stone age was well below 20, meaning individuals chance to die of cancer while of breeding age was nonexistent.
It's worth noting that this is still considered largely correct. The most successful life form on the planet is a fly, and most successful mammal is a rat.
A great example of minimalism working in favor of evolution in humans is our intestinal tract. If you look at most large apes that bear close resemblance to humans, they can eat food that would cause us to get sick and die, in spite of being similar omnivores to us humans. Why? Because at the end of our evolution, we discovered fire. Cooking causes most proteins to break up as well as largely disinfect the food. Adapting to this, the humans who survived the evolutionary selection were the ones who had vastly downsized and simplified intestinal tract, that couldn't consume much of the uncooked food that larger could. This means that where apes and some other prehistoric evolutionary branches of human race ate raw food, and had to use much more energy digesting it, in turn causing it to need more food for same amount of work, humans who survived were far more efficient. This is very noticeable when you look at gorillas for example - they have large pot bellies, mainly because of sheer size of their intestinal tract.
In this regard, if humans were to lose knowledge of fire, they would likely become extinct, as our ability to eat uncooked food is severely hamstrung by our evolution. But as long as we can cook, we are far more energy efficient then competition. As a result, we can afford a much larger brain, that consumes much more energy. A very common argument in modern evolutionary theory is that discovery of fire, and consequent evolution of our intestinal tract have been a requirement for evolution into modern homo sapiens, as without it, we would be unlikely to be able to successfully support our current brain's energy needs.
In this regard, the requirement for two eyes is actually not about conservation - it's about need for stereo vision for successful hunting. The proper argument is that we don't have a third eye in case of loss of one eye (and subsequent severe diminishing of ability to hunt) because of minimalism - those who lose an eye will likely die off but majority will be able to die of other reasons.
Point is that much if not most of modern malware is done in the name of profit. As a result, the higher installed base goes, the more effort will be done to infect the machines.
In this regard, both absolute amount and amount proportional to total installed base should shift towards w7, as has happened.
Jokes aside, it works. Not as well as a proper vibrator, and needs a condom big enough to fit the phone, but it works.
12000 pound is a bit out of reach for your average basement-dwelling hacktivist.
Hence the point of it. Don't break confidentiality agreement.
Think of it like a doctor breaking patient confidentiality. Only in wikileaks case, fallout for "patient" is far more dramatic.
Yes? It's a standard confidentiality agreement, upheld by courts worldwide.
Considering the value, and danger related to the documents they handle, 12 million seems like a reasonable sum.
That would be great. Maybe we could stop all the bitching and whining about China's "record" and get on to making money through profitable trade.
You massively underestimate the political capital hidden in the "human rights" claim. It's not just about China - West has used "human rights" as an excuse to for a lot of land and resource grabs in the last few decades. They make for an easy and generally acceptable reason both to outsiders and their own population. Losing this would cause significant amount of damage both home and abroad.
Building it on a meaningful level is hard enough, as it requires supraconductivity. Costs would be astronomical.
That said, tech mentioned in OP, unlike RSFQ doesn't even exist yet. It's just a working theory. By the time it's working, there are bound to be ways to use it.
4.1. Entire crew on captured ship killed, ship scuttled in revenge. Cameras get beautiful shots of small pieces of children scattered across burning remains of bombed village. Massive calls go for war crime tribunal for people who ordered strike on civilians. US loses essentially all political clout it had with "human rights issues" worldwide. Company that owned the ship/its insurers and teary wives and children of killed seamen go to court against US and likely win huge damages, as potential ransom costs but a small fraction of ship and its cargo's value.
Mothballed along with "just bring a battleship near shore and flatten all potential harbors"
Correct. All above are in the scope of INCREASED PUNISHMENT FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. They do not happen pro-actively but retroactively.
The problem is that what you're advocating is akin to drunk driver losing his license forever after the first time someone caught him buying alcohol after conviction, with no car involved.
Assuming you have at least one speeding ticket and a history of recently purchasing a car capable of going past the speed limit, clearly, the same conditions you describe applying to MS apply to you as well.