I never said it was okay to lie to people, only that it's an important skill to develop to be able to distinguish trusted sources from untrusted sources. If you think we can just solve the problem by somehow magically eliminating lies, then you are naive. I would not include doctors, pharmacists, or drug companies on a list of trusted sources wholesale. That's being a bit too coarse-grained about it. Trusting all doctors without any thought is just silly. Same goes for any group really.
I do not have an answer like "trust X" that works for every situation. That should be pretty obvious. All I can say is that it takes a bit more critical reading and thinking to determine what to believe and how to react. It is those skills I am advocating, not wholesale trust in any one person or organization for not everyone will give you the truth for a myriad of reasons, some malicious, some self-serving, and some naive.
The most important skill one can learn is to evaluate the quality of a source. We cannot all be experts on everything, but we can learn to identify experts. Where did the money come from? Where was the information first published? What do other experts, preferably ones you know personally, think about the topic? Is there a little studying you can do that would improve your conversation with the expert or reading of the material?
Obviously one cannot be sure all the time, but just putting a little thought into these kinds of issues will go a long way in helping one make informed choices. This goes for more than just children's safety.
The real trouble is that we've gotten to the point where science has been demonized and all that matters to most people is how they "feel", which opens them up to having their emotions played with and FUD campaigns succeed.
Surely if you are worried about speed of switching tabs, you've not let your hand leave the keyboard and use either hotkeys or the awesomebar to switch tabs, in which case it matters not where they are. I can type meta-D and the first few letters of a tab and enter faster than I can move my mouse to and from the mouse, let alone move it.
Do you also never get up during commercial breaks in ad-supported televisions shows lest you feel a pang of guilt that you stole?
Here's how HTTP works:
1) My browser, an agent on my behalf, requests a document on my behalf from you. 2) Your server, an agent on your behalf, returns to me the document data. 3) My browser parses the document, choosing to run or not run code that is included in your document as well as load or not load referenced elements in the document. For a variety of reasons, I may or may not be interested in requesting all referenced documents.
How is choosing not to download all supporting documents stealing the one document that I requested and you gave me?
Chaos would ensue if if wasn't allocated. Because as a society we need to agree what we're using what parts for, government is the natural choice. The problem where though, is that the power shifted from the people via the government to just the government. In essence, we all own it, and we've elected some people to make a sane process of deciding how to use it but those people stopped acting in our interested and instead became greedy and we're too jaded to get uppity and change it.
I see, I thought you wanted audiovisual national news not on cable, what you really want is a particular show from MSNBC with Chris, Lawrence, and Rachel. Yeah, if MSNBC don't offer it elsewhere than cable, I'm not sure what to tell you then: I guess you're stuck with cable.
I though from the context of a do-not-track mechanism, "our side" was pretty clearly referring to those that do not wish to be tracked. I'm not sure why you'd think it means the average consumer.
You do realize that we're talking about a anyone being able to provide a telco a phone number and say $10 please without the number's owner's permission nor awareness. You are right though, it's not theft, it's wire fraud.
The 18 days comes from the product of 1.5 days/month * 12 months.
I think it's a bit high regardless (1.5 days could easily fall on a weekend that I might need or even want to work), but it's misleading (at best) to suggest it's 18 days of straight offline time.
Even worse, no where in the article does it actually state 1.5 days. Anywhere. I must be new here, but here is the relevant quote from the article:
Under the service level agreement, customers receive 25 per cent off their monthly payment if uptime falls below 99.9 per cent to 99 per cent, half of the sum back if it falls below 99 per cent and a complete refund for anything under 95 per cent.
King said clearly Microsoft would prefer it had no issues but claimed: "the processes in place are robust and financially backed, if you look across cloud providers in the market that is unique."
In other words, it's just like Google's service, only they don't claim 100% uptime, which is unlikely to be realistic (even Gmail has failed on numerous occasions). And, they pay you if it falls below 99.9% uptime. Considering that you still get the benefit of local deployment, as well as the cloud, I'd say that's actually a good deal.
Not one I have any interest in paying for, but it sounds a lot better than Google's unlikely claim.
You quote the part where it states 18 days for the year, or 3/2 days for the month. The authoer left the calculation as an exercise to the reader, but it's pretty clearly spelled out there.
The person he was responding to said that his personal information was worthless. He was not trying to point out what Facebook has or does not have, just that what they do have is worth something and to point out that the personal information is not in fact worthless.
I think his point was the user doesn't know that. If they know you are using a well-known open-source backend that they know hashes passwords, then they know. If you are a closed-source proprietary app that does not publish their source code for the end-user to read, how is he to know if you properly treat passwords?
How about plugin developers actually [do stuff they should]? If they [did that stuff] with new versions like they should, then marking the plugin as compatible with the versions that pass would take essentially no extra effort.
Fix that for you. Unless I suppose you think testing takes no effort.
According to the OED, it's been used for both nominative and dative direct and indirect objects for over a thousand years with varying degrees of acceptability.
Maybe he felt there should be more focus on long-term goals and less focus on short-term goals. That is, after all, what he said. It's not a binary thing. He felt it was too much of one and not enough of the other.
How about someone familiar with the company and product feels that the company has become detrimentally focused on the short term. You are correct that does not mean short term alone, but it seems he feels it means too much focus on making certain numbers on certain dates and not enough focus on improving the browser itself.
I'm not sure you understand how processes use RAM then. That 340MB may or may not actually be used. If you have memory to spare, it makes sense to allocate more to caching and loading as much as possible into RAM. Now, if it's using 340MB and your trashing due to being low on physical memory then that's bad, but if you are sitting there with 5GB free, why not allocate 340MB to load everything it can and expand it's in-memory cache?
For the record, FF5 for me has allocated 163MB privately (not counting shared libraries) with three tabs open privately. Closing two tabs reduced that by nothing, but why should it? I'm only using 47% of my physical RAM right now.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it was okay to lie to people, only that it's an important skill to develop to be able to distinguish trusted sources from untrusted sources. If you think we can just solve the problem by somehow magically eliminating lies, then you are naive. I would not include doctors, pharmacists, or drug companies on a list of trusted sources wholesale. That's being a bit too coarse-grained about it. Trusting all doctors without any thought is just silly. Same goes for any group really.
I do not have an answer like "trust X" that works for every situation. That should be pretty obvious. All I can say is that it takes a bit more critical reading and thinking to determine what to believe and how to react. It is those skills I am advocating, not wholesale trust in any one person or organization for not everyone will give you the truth for a myriad of reasons, some malicious, some self-serving, and some naive.
I can.
The most important skill one can learn is to evaluate the quality of a source. We cannot all be experts on everything, but we can learn to identify experts. Where did the money come from? Where was the information first published? What do other experts, preferably ones you know personally, think about the topic? Is there a little studying you can do that would improve your conversation with the expert or reading of the material?
Obviously one cannot be sure all the time, but just putting a little thought into these kinds of issues will go a long way in helping one make informed choices. This goes for more than just children's safety.
The real trouble is that we've gotten to the point where science has been demonized and all that matters to most people is how they "feel", which opens them up to having their emotions played with and FUD campaigns succeed.
The browser market might not be the most lucrative, but there is some return on one's investment.
Surely if you are worried about speed of switching tabs, you've not let your hand leave the keyboard and use either hotkeys or the awesomebar to switch tabs, in which case it matters not where they are. I can type meta-D and the first few letters of a tab and enter faster than I can move my mouse to and from the mouse, let alone move it.
Do you also never get up during commercial breaks in ad-supported televisions shows lest you feel a pang of guilt that you stole?
Here's how HTTP works:
1) My browser, an agent on my behalf, requests a document on my behalf from you.
2) Your server, an agent on your behalf, returns to me the document data.
3) My browser parses the document, choosing to run or not run code that is included in your document as well as load or not load referenced elements in the document. For a variety of reasons, I may or may not be interested in requesting all referenced documents.
How is choosing not to download all supporting documents stealing the one document that I requested and you gave me?
Chaos would ensue if if wasn't allocated. Because as a society we need to agree what we're using what parts for, government is the natural choice. The problem where though, is that the power shifted from the people via the government to just the government. In essence, we all own it, and we've elected some people to make a sane process of deciding how to use it but those people stopped acting in our interested and instead became greedy and we're too jaded to get uppity and change it.
I see, I thought you wanted audiovisual national news not on cable, what you really want is a particular show from MSNBC with Chris, Lawrence, and Rachel. Yeah, if MSNBC don't offer it elsewhere than cable, I'm not sure what to tell you then: I guess you're stuck with cable.
I though from the context of a do-not-track mechanism, "our side" was pretty clearly referring to those that do not wish to be tracked. I'm not sure why you'd think it means the average consumer.
Most of NPR's programming is not presented audio-visually. Luck will have it though, that most of PBS's is.
Hour-long, in-depth, commercial-free, national news coverage presented audio-visually: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/
You do realize that we're talking about a anyone being able to provide a telco a phone number and say $10 please without the number's owner's permission nor awareness. You are right though, it's not theft, it's wire fraud.
Maybe I don't understand who these free seminars are for, put perhaps a whitelist would suite them better than a blacklist?
Why can a cube not be composed of 3x4x5 cells so long a the cells are sized such that the cube is well, a cube?
Yes, you are right. In both cases the end-user doesn't know.
The 18 days comes from the product of 1.5 days/month * 12 months.
I think it's a bit high regardless (1.5 days could easily fall on a weekend that I might need or even want to work), but it's misleading (at best) to suggest it's 18 days of straight offline time.
Even worse, no where in the article does it actually state 1.5 days. Anywhere. I must be new here, but here is the relevant quote from the article:
In other words, it's just like Google's service, only they don't claim 100% uptime, which is unlikely to be realistic (even Gmail has failed on numerous occasions). And, they pay you if it falls below 99.9% uptime. Considering that you still get the benefit of local deployment, as well as the cloud, I'd say that's actually a good deal.
Not one I have any interest in paying for, but it sounds a lot better than Google's unlikely claim.
You quote the part where it states 18 days for the year, or 3/2 days for the month. The authoer left the calculation as an exercise to the reader, but it's pretty clearly spelled out there.
The person he was responding to said that his personal information was worthless. He was not trying to point out what Facebook has or does not have, just that what they do have is worth something and to point out that the personal information is not in fact worthless.
I think his point was the user doesn't know that. If they know you are using a well-known open-source backend that they know hashes passwords, then they know. If you are a closed-source proprietary app that does not publish their source code for the end-user to read, how is he to know if you properly treat passwords?
As opposed to java [sic], an abomination originally meant for embedded systems, and now an abomination used for just about everything else.
Fix that for you.
How about plugin developers actually [do stuff they should]? If they [did that stuff] with new versions like they should, then marking the plugin as compatible with the versions that pass would take essentially no extra effort.
Fix that for you. Unless I suppose you think testing takes no effort.
According to the OED, it's been used for both nominative and dative direct and indirect objects for over a thousand years with varying degrees of acceptability.
Mod this up! Few people realize that rational can be destructive.
Maybe he felt there should be more focus on long-term goals and less focus on short-term goals. That is, after all, what he said. It's not a binary thing. He felt it was too much of one and not enough of the other.
How about someone familiar with the company and product feels that the company has become detrimentally focused on the short term. You are correct that does not mean short term alone, but it seems he feels it means too much focus on making certain numbers on certain dates and not enough focus on improving the browser itself.
You are making the assumption that each web user only ever uses one browser.
I'm not sure you understand how processes use RAM then. That 340MB may or may not actually be used. If you have memory to spare, it makes sense to allocate more to caching and loading as much as possible into RAM. Now, if it's using 340MB and your trashing due to being low on physical memory then that's bad, but if you are sitting there with 5GB free, why not allocate 340MB to load everything it can and expand it's in-memory cache?
For the record, FF5 for me has allocated 163MB privately (not counting shared libraries) with three tabs open privately. Closing two tabs reduced that by nothing, but why should it? I'm only using 47% of my physical RAM right now.