Chromium is "fully open" - Chrome is not. At least according to TFA, they're talking about Chrome. Nice job pretending they're the same thing*.
Both Chrome and Chromium have a single location bar that also acts as a search bar. That means when you enter any URL by default, it pings Google as you type. You can turn it off, but as many people have mentioned, defaults matter.
Even to the extent that the browser is fully open source, its primary function is to lead you to Google's closed-source cloud services, which is the only reason Chrome exists. It's not a "gift", and Google isn't Santa Claus.
* If you ask me what the difference is between the two, I couldn't tell you, because Chrome is not open source.
15 years ago (not so long ago if you're 60), you had to worry about protecting your extremely fragile floppies (which were the main form of backup then). Technology is much more robust now, but plenty of people have legitimately been burned in the past.
Also, you have training and experience what NOT to click that you're taking for granted.
Unless you think this study was falsified or manipulated in some way, I don't see your point. Questioning the study based on who funded it is ad hominem and simply not useful.
It's even in TFA: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."
Also, TFA says "The average intake of coffee in 1986 was 1.9 cups per day", while the summary says refers to "a fairly normal six-plus cups per day". Weird.
Still, kudos for the summarizer for posting a direct link to the study on oxfordjournals.org.
Why should Wikileaks mind this leak? The CIA doesn't trust its staff, either, and they're not ashamed to admit it, either. Very few large institutions trust their entire staff. That's why very few employees have root access to their machines or the company database.
Well, if someone does something and takes the "credit", then they're not part of Anonymous. But yes, Anonymous includes anyone who identifies with Anonymous, who may or may not be people you want to associate with, if you're also part of Anonymous. How can you ever trust your fellow Anonymous member? It's not sustainable.
Unfortunately, this exact argument was used in the 1960's against civil rights. Why shouldn't a restaurant not have the right to not serve to blacks? Why shouldn't a town be allowed to exclude people based on ethnicity or religion? How is it right to take away that "freedom"?
Living in a society means making compromises and giving up individual freedoms for the betterment of all. Otherwise we're just chimpanzees smashing each others' heads with rocks. The trick is to minimize the freedoms that need to be given up.
As it happens, our society decided (legally) that racial discrimination was no longer a freedom that individuals or institutions could exercise.
Maybe a "move to different desktop" button would make sense, then, as a replacement for minimize. I vastly prefer the multiple desktop metaphor to minimizing on a single desktop. The purpose of minimizing in the first place is to get the window off the screen, but I find that minimized windows on MacOS get "lost", and I have to hunt for them. Sometimes MacOS "unminimizes" by switching to a different desktop, which can be jarring. I'm with Gnome on this one. But I would still like a single button to move the window out of view, since that's a common action for me.
Maybe people who read this site have more influence than you think? I mean, who sets up Paypal on most websites? Computer people do. The kind of people who are more likely to read Slashdot. Maybe the next non-technical person will decide not to use Paypal on my recommendation, because I'm up on stories like this (99.9% of the country has no idea about Paypal v Bradley Manning - are you kidding me?) and I can warn them that Paypal might freeze their account if they don't like their business.
You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma. At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.
Let me get this straight. THC is legal and safe when it's artificial and patented, but not when it occurs naturally? And that *discards* the Big Pharma angle?
p.s. Our last 3 consecutive presidents are admitted drug users. Politicians are full of shit when it comes to this issue.
The pen is mightier than the sword (or gun). Fascism is held at bay by an educated, ethical populace.
One striking thing in Egypt is that so many of the police officers (and military) abandoned Mubarak, took off their uniforms, and joined the protestors. They realized they were on the wrong side.
Sometimes it's close, but most of the time I'm still more comfortable with the police officer on the street being armed than the NRA enthusiast next door.
You simply can't kill as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. Just like you can't kill as many people with a gun as you can with explosives. Which is why we ban explosives. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
* If you ask me what the difference is between the two, I couldn't tell you, because Chrome is not open source.
LISP and Prolog-based expert systems 30 years ago?
You mean before the internet?
This one runs brute-force on any modern machine using software that can also be used to watch cute videos of cats.
Also, you have training and experience what NOT to click that you're taking for granted.
They don't encourage it at work quite as much, though (I assume you mean playing loud music).
Unless you think this study was falsified or manipulated in some way, I don't see your point. Questioning the study based on who funded it is ad hominem and simply not useful.
It's even in TFA: "The association appears to be related to non-caffeine components of coffee."
Also, TFA says "The average intake of coffee in 1986 was 1.9 cups per day", while the summary says refers to "a fairly normal six-plus cups per day". Weird.
Still, kudos for the summarizer for posting a direct link to the study on oxfordjournals.org.
Why should Wikileaks mind this leak? The CIA doesn't trust its staff, either, and they're not ashamed to admit it, either. Very few large institutions trust their entire staff. That's why very few employees have root access to their machines or the company database.
Who are you living in fear of exactly? Didn't you hear? They got the bastard!
Well, if someone does something and takes the "credit", then they're not part of Anonymous. But yes, Anonymous includes anyone who identifies with Anonymous, who may or may not be people you want to associate with, if you're also part of Anonymous. How can you ever trust your fellow Anonymous member? It's not sustainable.
So the nerds are trying to recruit the wimps for protection from the machos?
What about making and selling a dark matter detector? I'm assuming you can patent that, even if you can't patent dark matter itself...
Don't forget nuclear power plants...
there are standards that society wants to promote, such as not hitting women, and accepting homosexuality.
You haven't been to Afghanistan, have you? There are plenty of places where "society" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Why shouldn't a restaurant not have the right to not serve to blacks?
D'oh! You know what I meant ;-)
Unfortunately, this exact argument was used in the 1960's against civil rights. Why shouldn't a restaurant not have the right to not serve to blacks? Why shouldn't a town be allowed to exclude people based on ethnicity or religion? How is it right to take away that "freedom"?
Living in a society means making compromises and giving up individual freedoms for the betterment of all. Otherwise we're just chimpanzees smashing each others' heads with rocks. The trick is to minimize the freedoms that need to be given up.
As it happens, our society decided (legally) that racial discrimination was no longer a freedom that individuals or institutions could exercise.
Who cares? They found friggin' ATLANTIS! Didn't you see the Disney movie**?
**Me neither
The flag is extremely clever, but it's a statement about copyright and IP, not "free speech". Calling it a "free speech flag" is misleading.
Maybe a "move to different desktop" button would make sense, then, as a replacement for minimize. I vastly prefer the multiple desktop metaphor to minimizing on a single desktop. The purpose of minimizing in the first place is to get the window off the screen, but I find that minimized windows on MacOS get "lost", and I have to hunt for them. Sometimes MacOS "unminimizes" by switching to a different desktop, which can be jarring. I'm with Gnome on this one. But I would still like a single button to move the window out of view, since that's a common action for me.
Thanks for the mammaries.
Maybe people who read this site have more influence than you think? I mean, who sets up Paypal on most websites? Computer people do. The kind of people who are more likely to read Slashdot. Maybe the next non-technical person will decide not to use Paypal on my recommendation, because I'm up on stories like this (99.9% of the country has no idea about Paypal v Bradley Manning - are you kidding me?) and I can warn them that Paypal might freeze their account if they don't like their business.
You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma. At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.
Let me get this straight. THC is legal and safe when it's artificial and patented, but not when it occurs naturally? And that *discards* the Big Pharma angle?
p.s. Our last 3 consecutive presidents are admitted drug users. Politicians are full of shit when it comes to this issue.
One striking thing in Egypt is that so many of the police officers (and military) abandoned Mubarak, took off their uniforms, and joined the protestors. They realized they were on the wrong side.
Sometimes it's close, but most of the time I'm still more comfortable with the police officer on the street being armed than the NRA enthusiast next door.
Your slippery slope argument goes both ways.
You simply can't kill as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. Just like you can't kill as many people with a gun as you can with explosives. Which is why we ban explosives. Period.
Then again, you can control people by telling them someone else is trying to control them, and that only by following you will they be truly free.
That's lying to them.