These are ice sheets not glaciers. If an ice sheet is already stressed with summer heat a large mass of heated water will be enough to set the dominoes of pushing the ice out to sea with the heavy water pushing against it and melting it in the process.
When snow sticks temperatures drop 15 degrees or 7 for those on the Celsius scale as the snow reflects the heat of the sun back into space. Air is not heated by the sun. It is heated by the surface of the ground.
If black ash were on the snow it would warm up rather than reflect the heat back into space.
It also explains why Antarctica is so much colder than the northern equivalent which is ice free in the summer. Alaska can get warm in the summer and is the same latitude as the shores of Antarctica which never gets above freezing.
So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.
No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.
Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.
It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.
I am of the unpopular opinion here of stating IE 6 won because it was a better browser while Netscape was crap. Ask any oldtime web developer? If you think IE 6 was so horrible Netscape 4.7 was far far worse and less forgiving. IE only sin in terms of interoperability was activeX controls which were the answer over Netscape's plugins. But in terms of CSS and HTML IE 6 was the most compliant and best performing browser there was.
Yes times change but the vast majority of shitty websites that relied on IE were because of bug work arounds. Not sabotaging standards. Quirks mode was bug emulation for compatibility that Netscape started that IE also supported in addition to it's own quirks. YEs IE was around for MacOSX and Unix too:-)
FYI my handle here is because I was an anti MS zealot in those days and hated MS with a passion and agreed with you earlier.
Looking back I have to say my hatred was because I didn't realize how backwards corporate customers requiring compatibility is and how resistant and afraid of change MBA bosses are when it comes to the bottom line.
MS Windows sucked because Dos was old. No other answer. In comparison XP also was very very crusty in 2014 yet hundreds of millions die hards LOVED IT and even got +5 informative ratings here 3 years ago SERIOUSLY. What does this have to do with a Microsoft monopoly and shitty software? Easy, DOS was standard so MS had to run Windows on top of DOS complete with the extended vs expanded memory, config.sys hell,.dll conflits, and even the 1981 bios which until 5 years ago came with all PCs (some on Slashdot claim is still superior over EFI firmware) which made the foundation based on mashed potatoes architecturally.
So due to WordPerfect and Lotus Notes WIndows had to suck due to all the hacks to get DOs underneath it working on modern hardware. Same is true for IE 6 sucking after a few years from 2001. Compatibility and newer cutting edge things like CSS cascade styling sheets were so cutting edge the code was not baked in IE yet as it was ancient and experimental.
I do not think Bill is evil anymore. I just think he made a smart move to sell DOS to IBM for $25 a copy while CPM (also available) was $250 a copy. Also you mention in the 1990s Window is all you had? The was after the 1980s when you could also choose the Amiga, Commodore, Mac, Apple II, Atari, etc. The market choose Microsoft as DOS was not too bad yet in the 1980s.
It takes 3 months for prices of crude oil to reflect refineries and of course the price gougers errr I mean the buyers and sellers get the gasoline only to sell it again to gas stations. Notice when oil lost 75% that prices only went down 50%. The people buying and selling double dip before and after it is refined.
LOL, you're so far off base that you've left the planet.
Yep which is why Statcounter has Firefox lower than IE with marketshare at 6%. I think I am not the one who is out of reality as the majority of us have moved on.
Remember Firefox was growing almost unstoppable in 2010 and within 2 years started declining FAST. Any piece of software it can happen too as we all remember the days of 90% marketshare of IE 6 too which started to wane in just a few years to Firefox previously.
A major difference: Internet Explorer was intentionally ignored and crippled by Microsoft to stall the development of web apps in favor of native apps. Firefox won because they pretty much got a walkover and everyone except Microsoft wanted it to win. Nobody at Mozilla wanted to lose users and few wanted a for-profit company to replace them but they lost anyway. IMHO because they took way, way, way too long to do multi-process. Close a Chrome tab and the resources get reclaimed. If it crashes, one tab crashes. In Firefox it all came crumbling down and you had to kill it completely. They lost to Chrome on merit and the sooner they get their head out of their ass and stop blaming other things the better. Yeah I saw the ads for Chrome too, but I wouldn't have switched unless it actually sucked less.
Wait so IE was stalled and ignored only? Hmm. I beg to differ. True Firefox was more standard compliant and added more things quicker and that I agree. But it ignored it's users and it's core competency as a lean mean and detailed browser. By 2010 the world was moving towards having a browser fill out the forms, frequently used passwords, bookmark synchronization, modern security with threading, etc.
Maybe Mozilla suffered from too much technical debt with Gecko which had even more technical debt from Netscape.
Microsoft wanted IE to match the version of Windows as most users like my Mom do not know what a browser is. Look at this hilarious video?
I think in 2017 that hopefully is not true but in the 2000s it was Windows to get on the internet etc. Windows Longhorn had a release date of 2004 so IE 7 was going to be included and we all know what happened with that? Oddly, XP stuck around until 2014 thanks to IE 6 still being used in the office for 13 years!!! Thanks Sap, Workday, and horribly written VBScript.HTA apps. Anyways Firefox and IE just did not keep up with the times, but in different ways. WinAMP can still play video and.mp3 files fine, but because it didn't have a streaming service became obsolete unlike RealNetwork which sucked ass. Both went the way of the dodo bird thanks to Spotify and Pandora.
That is because Firefox is catching up to Chrome 1.0 and IE 8. It now is getting duplicated memory support and new things called threads for added security, sandboxing on Windows, and SMP support. It is almost 10 years behind.
Too little too late. I say this in sadness as I was a firefox fanboy back in the day, but to me it is like using WinAmp or IE. Sure they are both better but are from a different era while others have been leading for a very long time now.
Firefox has it's chance with 4.0 to use the new threading model as it was called electrolysis back then. Executives wanted compatibility and an answer to IE 9 with hardware acceleration so release now fix later etc.
Sorry but I doubt it is much faster than Chrome. Webkit is what webmasters write to these days and with 6% marketshare it is not worth a website designers time to write a spec and test too. It hurts as I wanted Firefox to succeed. But they lost fair and square.
Gecko was not flexible to work with which is why Google abandoned Chrome on Gecko and switched to webkit and why Apple decided to use Webkit as well with Safari. This might have been changed recently but it is a little late. My 70 year old dad uses Firefox but I know of no one else. Corporations did once use it 2012 and earlier before the constant updates and improvements with IE. Group Policy support is still missing that Chrome has limited support for that System Administrators can deploy and update.
Bullcrap. Chrome has about half the market. Firefox is at about 6%, about half of Safari's share.
I only use Firefox for Selenium scripts, and even for that I have to use an old version since the latest releases of FF no longer work with Selenium. Web automation was the only area where Firefox was superior... so they broke it.
Wow. How sad.
My father is retired and 70 now. He was once a nerd who used to do punch card programming back during the IBM mainframe 360 days. He is out of date with computer knowledge and industry for awhile now, but still uses Firefox. He is loyal because he saved us from MS owning the internet and reading about the nightmares of IE 6 early last decade.
I share his sentiment. I was a rapid Firefox fanboy back when it was called Phoenix and it was a secret geek thing like Linux today. My how times change and is sombering because I have not run Firefox as my main browser in GOSH half a decade now since early 2011 when Chrome 6 and IE 9 were so much better options and FAST on my dual core AMD laptop. Firefox 3.6 was meh and getting slloow and used up lots of ram.
What did mozilla do? They released 4.0 and did the disaster constant update! It was worse. Websites would break, plugins kept breaking, things would always change which made corporate America about to kick Firefoxes ass BACK OUT and replace it with IE all over again! Grrr
Chrome was fast and IE 9 was now standards compliant with smooth hardware acceleration and was light. I started using Chrome and haven't looked back.
Interestingly, I found out Chrome OS and the Chrome browser was originally using Mozilla Gecko internally. The engineers at Google decided WebKit was far superior to work with and more modular without Netscape crud and legacy stuff. This meant much better security and a model where you can update every 6 weeks without breaking plugins too. This is a classic lesson of poor leadership and management in the graveyard of once good technology and should be a lesson in the future. WinAMP, Lotus Notes, AIM, are examples. I fear Linux is heading in that direction now too with shitty guis, SystemD, pulseAudio, Wayland, and no real leadership or designs or goals.
Remember Firefox was growing almost unstoppable in 2010 and within 2 years started declining FAST. Any piece of software it can happen too as we all remember the days of 90% marketshare of IE 6 too which started to wane in just a few years to Firefox previously.
Goodbye Mozilla. Sorry it didn't work out and will always remember you.
Mathematically it doesn't make sense how Amazon can be cheaper. So they host it instead of you. But now you have to pay Amazon and all their developers, middleman, taxes, and the same costs you paid when the servers were in your MDF.
The only logical reason why this is taking off is Wall Street is penny wise and dollar dumb and stupid as they only count revenue in quarters. So you have one fixed cost but no spikes which make the share price go up. Where if you hosted it you would see a dip in the quarterly shareprice as you would need to upgrade hardware/software.
So you end up paying more but evenly.
Unless you are traded on Wall Street or small and do not have an IT department yet it sounds like a bad bet. I see Amazon is becoming the next Microsoft with proprietary API's and frameworks which glue you in too which is another red flag. Unless the bet is the Amazon APIs are so amazing and good that they give you a solution you can't get with opensource?
What the hell is integration? It is so 1990s buzzword but I do not know what it means. It sounds like an excute to only buy from Microsoft or something as it works together if I recall PHBs using integration constantly.
QA is going away thanks to Agile development. That is why Microsoft has no QA at all whatsoever with Windows 10. With Agile/Scrum the developers and users do the QA with happy faces/sad etc.
Nope, turns out this person is arguing for software quality. They think CI/CD is settled in the sense that it isn't going away, stop trying to change it, move on to other things like the latest buzz words. I believe CI/CD is what has made software shit these days. Companies start by promising x number of features, and rush it out the door after x-y>0 features are partially done, then CI/CD with users as their beta testers. You no longer have a finished version and solid piece of software, and no way to stick with a particular version, which is especially true on the walled garden of iOS. Gone are the days of a solid product coming out that stands on its own for years without the need for anything but occasional security updates.
Funny I thought CIO's were about labeling IT as a cost center with a focus on saving. Or better yet being eliminated by having ther HR or finance department run IT who get bonuses by outsourcing to the cheapest country as possible and using 10 year old software and never updating as that is out of the contract with TATA.
Call my cynical and perhaps this has changed from last decade and the last recession but that is how I remember it.
The federal government typically gets involved to prevent state rights when it comes to corporations. They have done it to override the energy industry with fracking. Even if the both the state and county vote against ruining their environment the federal government will override and nullify the laws usually with executive orders by the president or pork barrelled in an unrelated bill like a federal budget.
Show me one freaking phone today that I can replace the battery! Just one? Don't cite older phones sold used or refurbished. I just do not want to blow $300 a fucking year due to glued in batteries and screens you have to break
No but the battery on my $650 is about shot and the charging port is eroded. I don't want to pay another $700 because the battery is glued in!
Fuck Apple for starting this trend as not one phone sold today made in the past year has a non glued in battery and ability to take it apart without breaking the screen.
Imagine a car with a weirded shut hood? Need an oil change? That will be $10,000 for a new engine etc
AMOLED has burn ins. It is part of the technology and Samsung cheats by dithering and pixel shifting so you will get fuzzy haze. IPS is superior in many ways in monitors even if the darks are a little bright. Viewing angles and being visible in sunlight are a must
LG only manufactures it. It is a google phone otherwise. That's like blaming Samsung for the IPhone. FYI LG makes excellent screens. I own a monitor and TV by them. AMOLED has burn ins.
Samsung cheats by moving the pixels around and doing dithering and flickering
South Korea knows they can barely survive and are almost equally matched with North Korea military wise. However, this time around it is on North Korea to retaliate not the South Korea which is more reserved.
Kim wants to remain in power at all costs and believes he is a world superpower. What started the shelling was one shell hitting the water on the other side of the DMZ. North Korea will certainly start war if we actually bomb a target without a doubt and Kim knows he would be assassinated for appearing weak if he just takes it by his generals.
Yeah it would be different. Trump doesn't see it that way.
$56K is still crap! Yes it pays the bills for a single person and your aguements about benefits is mute since they are being taken away from Republican legislatures and match the private sector.
I still like engineering they start at 70K a year, perhaps starting at 50k a year and maxing out at 90K would attract good talent. You bulk at that? Well then you do not value education nor see the ROI. In the book Freakanomics the author makes a case for a $200,000 a year kindergarten position. The reason is children are impressionable most at a young age. You get them interested young and each student can easilyt make $500,000 a year more over the his or her lifetime. Multiple that times 25 x 30 years and you get the picture? No one wants to pay them decent because they want to feel superior in their own roles and titles and assume it is easy.
At least by opening the salary much much higher you have large pool to choose from. Principals can fire the bad teachers easier and the demand to join a union will go down as they can replace them easily and good ones will WANT to stay.
I know of no one paying $20,000 a year in benefits or medical costs. If I do then I will move to Canada or Europe where I do not have to pay these outrageous fees.
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
Yes and maybe prepared to use them if North Korea strikes back with one after we start bombing them which every indication is that Trump is ready. Please to God I hope I am wrong.
I truly do believe within a few weeks we will be at war with North Korea. Maybe even a nuclear war without a doubt if it is started.
Trump over and over makes quotes saying diplomacy is a waste of time, we need to bomb North Korea, America won't stand for a nuclear North Korea, I can't believe it takes 3 months to plan for a war, to last Lindsey Gramm saying he just spoke with Trump and he is ready to bomb them and prefers to loose regional security over a threat to the United States unless Kim gives up his nuclear weapons.
Briebart news says we can easy defeat North Korea and the Pentagon doesn't know what they are talking about etc. I believe, he gets his intelligence from these websites over his advisers as he says he is more intelligent than the generals.
I am not trying to be a far left wing troll here. Just saying I see the evidence that he plans to bomb the sh*t out of them very soon and doesn't know what he is about to unleash. THe military thankfully does and is preparing.
I hope to hell I am wrong! As much as I hate North Korea I do not want to see nuclear weapons and 1,000,000 people killed! Yes that is the estimate from government sources in the US and South Korea.
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
OR more likely Trump is ready to bomb the shit out of NK and try to destroy his nuclear silos and launchers burried deep in granite mountains and they are preparing for the worst if Kim decides to retaliate back with nuclear weapons.
My reasons are Trump's quotes from we can't have a nuclear NK to criticizing generals for saying it takes too long to come up with war plans in 3 months to Lindsey Gramm saying Trump is prepared to strike NK if they don't stop nuclear weapon development. I see this pattern and I do think (sorry Republican readers not trying to troll...) that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity and temperament to hold off making such a decision. Many on the far right sights actually believe we can win within days and it will be cake. Totally ignorant of the 500,000 troops brainwashed and 1,000,000 in reserves ready to die to kill Americans and enough artillery for 40,000 rounds an hour at SK.
Since Kim doesn't want to appear weak or a losing leader and risk being assassinated he has no choice but to start war after the bombing.
Meanwhile, yes the US is being prepared as it will take many many bombers a long time to neutralize the threat.
Slashdot Mirror
These are ice sheets not glaciers. If an ice sheet is already stressed with summer heat a large mass of heated water will be enough to set the dominoes of pushing the ice out to sea with the heavy water pushing against it and melting it in the process.
When snow sticks temperatures drop 15 degrees or 7 for those on the Celsius scale as the snow reflects the heat of the sun back into space. Air is not heated by the sun. It is heated by the surface of the ground.
If black ash were on the snow it would warm up rather than reflect the heat back into space.
It also explains why Antarctica is so much colder than the northern equivalent which is ice free in the summer. Alaska can get warm in the summer and is the same latitude as the shores of Antarctica which never gets above freezing.
So you are saying that the market voted with their wallets. Which made Microsoft the most popular.
No. People were not given a choice. If you walked into a computer store in the 1990s, you had a choice of Windows, Windows, or Windows.
Windows had the apps because it had the users. It had the users because it had the apps. That gave Microsoft monopoly power, which they badly abused in ways that were later deemed illegal, to crush competitors and sabotage open standards.
It didn't have to be that way. The Internet was developed on open standards. Anyone can access the Web, anyone can connect a server, anyone can create a browser. The standards for transmitting content, and displaying pages is standardized. There is no good reason that it couldn't have been the same for OSes. We could've had a standard framework for GUIs and desktop apps, that would work on all platforms. Apps would not be "Windows only", and developers would not have to write in Javascript and run in a browser just to get cross platform capability.
I am of the unpopular opinion here of stating IE 6 won because it was a better browser while Netscape was crap. Ask any oldtime web developer? If you think IE 6 was so horrible Netscape 4.7 was far far worse and less forgiving. IE only sin in terms of interoperability was activeX controls which were the answer over Netscape's plugins. But in terms of CSS and HTML IE 6 was the most compliant and best performing browser there was.
Yes times change but the vast majority of shitty websites that relied on IE were because of bug work arounds. Not sabotaging standards. Quirks mode was bug emulation for compatibility that Netscape started that IE also supported in addition to it's own quirks. YEs IE was around for MacOSX and Unix too :-)
FYI my handle here is because I was an anti MS zealot in those days and hated MS with a passion and agreed with you earlier.
Looking back I have to say my hatred was because I didn't realize how backwards corporate customers requiring compatibility is and how resistant and afraid of change MBA bosses are when it comes to the bottom line.
MS Windows sucked because Dos was old. No other answer. In comparison XP also was very very crusty in 2014 yet hundreds of millions die hards LOVED IT and even got +5 informative ratings here 3 years ago SERIOUSLY. What does this have to do with a Microsoft monopoly and shitty software? Easy, DOS was standard so MS had to run Windows on top of DOS complete with the extended vs expanded memory, config.sys hell, .dll conflits, and even the 1981 bios which until 5 years ago came with all PCs (some on Slashdot claim is still superior over EFI firmware) which made the foundation based on mashed potatoes architecturally.
So due to WordPerfect and Lotus Notes WIndows had to suck due to all the hacks to get DOs underneath it working on modern hardware. Same is true for IE 6 sucking after a few years from 2001. Compatibility and newer cutting edge things like CSS cascade styling sheets were so cutting edge the code was not baked in IE yet as it was ancient and experimental.
I do not think Bill is evil anymore. I just think he made a smart move to sell DOS to IBM for $25 a copy while CPM (also available) was $250 a copy. Also you mention in the 1990s Window is all you had? The was after the 1980s when you could also choose the Amiga, Commodore, Mac, Apple II, Atari, etc. The market choose Microsoft as DOS was not too bad yet in the 1980s.
It takes 3 months for prices of crude oil to reflect refineries and of course the price gougers errr I mean the buyers and sellers get the gasoline only to sell it again to gas stations. Notice when oil lost 75% that prices only went down 50%. The people buying and selling double dip before and after it is refined.
LOL, you're so far off base that you've left the planet.
Yep which is why Statcounter has Firefox lower than IE with marketshare at 6%. I think I am not the one who is out of reality as the majority of us have moved on.
Remember Firefox was growing almost unstoppable in 2010 and within 2 years started declining FAST. Any piece of software it can happen too as we all remember the days of 90% marketshare of IE 6 too which started to wane in just a few years to Firefox previously.
A major difference: Internet Explorer was intentionally ignored and crippled by Microsoft to stall the development of web apps in favor of native apps. Firefox won because they pretty much got a walkover and everyone except Microsoft wanted it to win. Nobody at Mozilla wanted to lose users and few wanted a for-profit company to replace them but they lost anyway. IMHO because they took way, way, way too long to do multi-process. Close a Chrome tab and the resources get reclaimed. If it crashes, one tab crashes. In Firefox it all came crumbling down and you had to kill it completely. They lost to Chrome on merit and the sooner they get their head out of their ass and stop blaming other things the better. Yeah I saw the ads for Chrome too, but I wouldn't have switched unless it actually sucked less.
Wait so IE was stalled and ignored only? Hmm. I beg to differ. True Firefox was more standard compliant and added more things quicker and that I agree. But it ignored it's users and it's core competency as a lean mean and detailed browser. By 2010 the world was moving towards having a browser fill out the forms, frequently used passwords, bookmark synchronization, modern security with threading, etc.
Maybe Mozilla suffered from too much technical debt with Gecko which had even more technical debt from Netscape.
Microsoft wanted IE to match the version of Windows as most users like my Mom do not know what a browser is. Look at this hilarious video?
I think in 2017 that hopefully is not true but in the 2000s it was Windows to get on the internet etc. Windows Longhorn had a release date of 2004 so IE 7 was going to be included and we all know what happened with that? Oddly, XP stuck around until 2014 thanks to IE 6 still being used in the office for 13 years!!! Thanks Sap, Workday, and horribly written VBScript .HTA apps. Anyways Firefox and IE just did not keep up with the times, but in different ways. WinAMP can still play video and .mp3 files fine, but because it didn't have a streaming service became obsolete unlike RealNetwork which sucked ass. Both went the way of the dodo bird thanks to Spotify and Pandora.
That is because Firefox is catching up to Chrome 1.0 and IE 8. It now is getting duplicated memory support and new things called threads for added security, sandboxing on Windows, and SMP support. It is almost 10 years behind.
Too little too late. I say this in sadness as I was a firefox fanboy back in the day, but to me it is like using WinAmp or IE. Sure they are both better but are from a different era while others have been leading for a very long time now.
Firefox has it's chance with 4.0 to use the new threading model as it was called electrolysis back then. Executives wanted compatibility and an answer to IE 9 with hardware acceleration so release now fix later etc.
Sorry but I doubt it is much faster than Chrome. Webkit is what webmasters write to these days and with 6% marketshare it is not worth a website designers time to write a spec and test too. It hurts as I wanted Firefox to succeed. But they lost fair and square.
Gecko was not flexible to work with which is why Google abandoned Chrome on Gecko and switched to webkit and why Apple decided to use Webkit as well with Safari. This might have been changed recently but it is a little late. My 70 year old dad uses Firefox but I know of no one else. Corporations did once use it 2012 and earlier before the constant updates and improvements with IE. Group Policy support is still missing that Chrome has limited support for that System Administrators can deploy and update.
Firefox remains the dominant browser
Bullcrap. Chrome has about half the market. Firefox is at about 6%, about half of Safari's share.
I only use Firefox for Selenium scripts, and even for that I have to use an old version since the latest releases of FF no longer work with Selenium. Web automation was the only area where Firefox was superior ... so they broke it.
Wow. How sad.
My father is retired and 70 now. He was once a nerd who used to do punch card programming back during the IBM mainframe 360 days. He is out of date with computer knowledge and industry for awhile now, but still uses Firefox. He is loyal because he saved us from MS owning the internet and reading about the nightmares of IE 6 early last decade.
I share his sentiment. I was a rapid Firefox fanboy back when it was called Phoenix and it was a secret geek thing like Linux today. My how times change and is sombering because I have not run Firefox as my main browser in GOSH half a decade now since early 2011 when Chrome 6 and IE 9 were so much better options and FAST on my dual core AMD laptop. Firefox 3.6 was meh and getting slloow and used up lots of ram.
What did mozilla do? They released 4.0 and did the disaster constant update! It was worse. Websites would break, plugins kept breaking, things would always change which made corporate America about to kick Firefoxes ass BACK OUT and replace it with IE all over again! Grrr
Chrome was fast and IE 9 was now standards compliant with smooth hardware acceleration and was light. I started using Chrome and haven't looked back.
Interestingly, I found out Chrome OS and the Chrome browser was originally using Mozilla Gecko internally. The engineers at Google decided WebKit was far superior to work with and more modular without Netscape crud and legacy stuff. This meant much better security and a model where you can update every 6 weeks without breaking plugins too. This is a classic lesson of poor leadership and management in the graveyard of once good technology and should be a lesson in the future. WinAMP, Lotus Notes, AIM, are examples. I fear Linux is heading in that direction now too with shitty guis, SystemD, pulseAudio, Wayland, and no real leadership or designs or goals.
Remember Firefox was growing almost unstoppable in 2010 and within 2 years started declining FAST. Any piece of software it can happen too as we all remember the days of 90% marketshare of IE 6 too which started to wane in just a few years to Firefox previously.
Goodbye Mozilla. Sorry it didn't work out and will always remember you.
Mathematically it doesn't make sense how Amazon can be cheaper. So they host it instead of you. But now you have to pay Amazon and all their developers, middleman, taxes, and the same costs you paid when the servers were in your MDF.
The only logical reason why this is taking off is Wall Street is penny wise and dollar dumb and stupid as they only count revenue in quarters. So you have one fixed cost but no spikes which make the share price go up. Where if you hosted it you would see a dip in the quarterly shareprice as you would need to upgrade hardware/software.
So you end up paying more but evenly.
Unless you are traded on Wall Street or small and do not have an IT department yet it sounds like a bad bet. I see Amazon is becoming the next Microsoft with proprietary API's and frameworks which glue you in too which is another red flag. Unless the bet is the Amazon APIs are so amazing and good that they give you a solution you can't get with opensource?
What the hell is integration? It is so 1990s buzzword but I do not know what it means. It sounds like an excute to only buy from Microsoft or something as it works together if I recall PHBs using integration constantly.
QA is going away thanks to Agile development. That is why Microsoft has no QA at all whatsoever with Windows 10. With Agile/Scrum the developers and users do the QA with happy faces/sad etc.
Nope, turns out this person is arguing for software quality. They think CI/CD is settled in the sense that it isn't going away, stop trying to change it, move on to other things like the latest buzz words. I believe CI/CD is what has made software shit these days. Companies start by promising x number of features, and rush it out the door after x-y>0 features are partially done, then CI/CD with users as their beta testers. You no longer have a finished version and solid piece of software, and no way to stick with a particular version, which is especially true on the walled garden of iOS. Gone are the days of a solid product coming out that stands on its own for years without the need for anything but occasional security updates.
Funny I thought CIO's were about labeling IT as a cost center with a focus on saving. Or better yet being eliminated by having ther HR or finance department run IT who get bonuses by outsourcing to the cheapest country as possible and using 10 year old software and never updating as that is out of the contract with TATA.
Call my cynical and perhaps this has changed from last decade and the last recession but that is how I remember it.
Exactly. Expect a $50 government surcharge in your next Comcast bill. Have a nice day
The federal government typically gets involved to prevent state rights when it comes to corporations. They have done it to override the energy industry with fracking. Even if the both the state and county vote against ruining their environment the federal government will override and nullify the laws usually with executive orders by the president or pork barrelled in an unrelated bill like a federal budget.
Show me one freaking phone today that I can replace the battery! Just one? Don't cite older phones sold used or refurbished. I just do not want to blow $300 a fucking year due to glued in batteries and screens you have to break
So I have to blow $600 every 2 years or $300 a year just because I can't replace the battery on my phone??
10 years ago I could replace my battery on a very expensive phone or laptop
No but the battery on my $650 is about shot and the charging port is eroded. I don't want to pay another $700 because the battery is glued in!
Fuck Apple for starting this trend as not one phone sold today made in the past year has a non glued in battery and ability to take it apart without breaking the screen.
Imagine a car with a weirded shut hood? Need an oil change? That will be $10,000 for a new engine etc
Join me and ascend to God hood for you are weak! And I am mighty!
AMOLED has burn ins. It is part of the technology and Samsung cheats by dithering and pixel shifting so you will get fuzzy haze. IPS is superior in many ways in monitors even if the darks are a little bright. Viewing angles and being visible in sunlight are a must
LG only manufactures it. It is a google phone otherwise. That's like blaming Samsung for the IPhone. FYI LG makes excellent screens. I own a monitor and TV by them. AMOLED has burn ins.
Samsung cheats by moving the pixels around and doing dithering and flickering
South Korea knows they can barely survive and are almost equally matched with North Korea military wise. However, this time around it is on North Korea to retaliate not the South Korea which is more reserved.
Kim wants to remain in power at all costs and believes he is a world superpower. What started the shelling was one shell hitting the water on the other side of the DMZ. North Korea will certainly start war if we actually bomb a target without a doubt and Kim knows he would be assassinated for appearing weak if he just takes it by his generals.
Yeah it would be different. Trump doesn't see it that way.
$56K is still crap! Yes it pays the bills for a single person and your aguements about benefits is mute since they are being taken away from Republican legislatures and match the private sector.
I still like engineering they start at 70K a year, perhaps starting at 50k a year and maxing out at 90K would attract good talent. You bulk at that? Well then you do not value education nor see the ROI. In the book Freakanomics the author makes a case for a $200,000 a year kindergarten position. The reason is children are impressionable most at a young age. You get them interested young and each student can easilyt make $500,000 a year more over the his or her lifetime. Multiple that times 25 x 30 years and you get the picture? No one wants to pay them decent because they want to feel superior in their own roles and titles and assume it is easy.
At least by opening the salary much much higher you have large pool to choose from. Principals can fire the bad teachers easier and the demand to join a union will go down as they can replace them easily and good ones will WANT to stay.
I know of no one paying $20,000 a year in benefits or medical costs. If I do then I will move to Canada or Europe where I do not have to pay these outrageous fees.
Besides the fact it makes no sense to have bombers on standby when we have plenty of missiles that'll do the job faster and easier, [...]
Err... isn't that exactly what the B52s are armed with: cruise missiles? Does the US even have any atomic bombs any more?
Yes and maybe prepared to use them if North Korea strikes back with one after we start bombing them which every indication is that Trump is ready. Please to God I hope I am wrong.
I truly do believe within a few weeks we will be at war with North Korea. Maybe even a nuclear war without a doubt if it is started.
Trump over and over makes quotes saying diplomacy is a waste of time, we need to bomb North Korea, America won't stand for a nuclear North Korea, I can't believe it takes 3 months to plan for a war, to last Lindsey Gramm saying he just spoke with Trump and he is ready to bomb them and prefers to loose regional security over a threat to the United States unless Kim gives up his nuclear weapons.
Briebart news says we can easy defeat North Korea and the Pentagon doesn't know what they are talking about etc. I believe, he gets his intelligence from these websites over his advisers as he says he is more intelligent than the generals.
I am not trying to be a far left wing troll here. Just saying I see the evidence that he plans to bomb the sh*t out of them very soon and doesn't know what he is about to unleash. THe military thankfully does and is preparing.
I hope to hell I am wrong! As much as I hate North Korea I do not want to see nuclear weapons and 1,000,000 people killed! Yes that is the estimate from government sources in the US and South Korea.
When the Soviet union was the threat, having the bombers on alert was a credible deterrant. Specifically, they put the Soviets on notice that even if they launched a strike sufficient to annihilate the U.S. we would get the bombers safely in the air first and they would go down with us.
Today, the threat is different. Nobody is at all prepared to launch an attack to annihilate the U.S. Even if N. Korea does it's worst, we'll have plenty of ability (and will) to turn them into a glass wasteland.
OR more likely Trump is ready to bomb the shit out of NK and try to destroy his nuclear silos and launchers burried deep in granite mountains and they are preparing for the worst if Kim decides to retaliate back with nuclear weapons.
My reasons are Trump's quotes from we can't have a nuclear NK to criticizing generals for saying it takes too long to come up with war plans in 3 months to Lindsey Gramm saying Trump is prepared to strike NK if they don't stop nuclear weapon development. I see this pattern and I do think (sorry Republican readers not trying to troll ...) that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity and temperament to hold off making such a decision. Many on the far right sights actually believe we can win within days and it will be cake. Totally ignorant of the 500,000 troops brainwashed and 1,000,000 in reserves ready to die to kill Americans and enough artillery for 40,000 rounds an hour at SK.
Since Kim doesn't want to appear weak or a losing leader and risk being assassinated he has no choice but to start war after the bombing.
Meanwhile, yes the US is being prepared as it will take many many bombers a long time to neutralize the threat.