I don't feel like it's quite so dramatic... virtually nobody even knows who Mozilla is, and even fewer have any feedback to offer on the workings of their browser. It's just that switching browsers now isn't quite the radical thing it used to be. Aside from making sure you have your bookmarks and maybe two plugins, there's little difference for most people. The days of websites being written with IE-colored glasses on are over, thank christ. I think everyone can thank Firefox (and probably Apple, a bit) for that.
So people see Chrome ads every 30 seconds, all day, every day. It's fast and intuitive enough, and it's Google, so people use it. The only big, must-have plugins (for those who care) all exist for it. So switching isn't a big deal. Bajillions of people use Safari on iOS because it's what's on their iDevice. The sky doesn't fall in on anyone.
The funny thing is, a few (most would say very minor) bugs in Chrome that really aggravate me have been there for well over a year now, so I started switching a few machines back to Firefox. It's not the dog it used to be and I don't mind getting updates (maybe I've been conditioned by phone apps). And who knows, maybe I'll be on something else in a year or two. I don't know, and I don't really have to care anymore. That's pretty cool.
You'd think they would have some kind of resolution plan for this that the exchange and participants both agreed to. It's not like any business, anywhere, doesn't have problems turn up.
If the compensation fund is exactly (or better than) what's in those terms, you'd think the bank would get told to "go screw".
I thought the take-away was, "Pay your programmers well, or things will go horribly wrong."
Also, don't breed that really large, featherless, murderous variety of chess playing velociraptor with opposable digits. They're not worth the aggravation.
Well and, it's $20 for those three machines, right?
I'll say this for Apple... the OS upgrades are reasonably priced, given the margins they get elsewhere.
Indeed. And I see a looong list of games for the XBL Indie section. Same for obviously amateur games in the Android market. Not to mention all the PC games I see in HIB's and the like.
Seems to me "homebrew" has become a more legit thing, embraced by various platforms. Not killed.
Someone should just do comments as a service, like Disqus does, but using the same basic system as Slashdot.
It allows for anonymous posts, which can either disappear or be highly visible based on the content of the post, or you can opt to lean on your history of being a decent contributor and post using your name... which lends some very modest bit of credibility and visibility to each post on an individual basis.
Give the site admins using the service the option of considering network-wide "karma" if they want, or keeping it specific to their site. Allow for temp/perma bans and spam flagging.
Maybe that's a product. Maybe you do it for free and do a "powered by" that links slashdot to increase traffic. Either way, outsource the JS work to someone else.;)
Most of these "Real Name" schemes are really just "Facebook Auth Mandatory". The idea is that there's a barrier to making and using bogus accounts. Obviously that barrier isn't so terribly high, since you can always just make a bogus FB account for shit-talking.
Now obviously I haven't done any formal studies on the subject, and I don't know about this thing in Korea, but it does appear to have some minor effect on the general civility of conversation on some sites. No practical method is going to eradicate nasty posts, but the noise level is a little better.
The flip side is, on the rare occasion I post on a site that requires that (I really don't like it), I feel like I have to be really careful about voicing my opinion, for exactly the reason you mentioned.
They can't get everyone to have their boarding pass and id out before the security checkpoint. You think we'll jump right to confirmation of facebook membership with matching credentials via NFC?
I don't disagree. The joke is that we just don't care about the vast majority of those people we once knew.
You OK these people, find out they put on a lot of weight, had 2.5 kids, have some health problem, and hate their jobs. Big surprises. Then your interest wanes, you don't get around to removing those people... but you continue to gripe that they're spamming your "news" feed with lots of stupid crap you don't want to see.;)
I'm not buying it. Even if that were what we were talking about, it seems impractical to the point of absurdity, and might well reduce the fidelity of screening like that if it even exists. And I'm not sure anyone is nearly as worried about finding the white male mass murderer at places where we screen. At least, not so much as terrorists... people, it seems, we have a hard enough time picking out of a crowd with much better data.
But it doesn't matter, there's a list of reasons I don't see that happening anyway. What doesn't surprise me is that the paranoid persecution complex on slashdot would manifest here.
The notion that there is some "science" behind the idea makes it more likely that at some point in the future, somebody in the future will stop me at an airport or a police checkpoint. Because I don't have a Facebook account.
I agree that the whole thing is stupid, but I find the part about stopping people unlikely. Rough estimate, probably a quarter of the "friends" associated with my facebook page are using something other than their first and last name, you don't supply your social, and there's all manner of inaccurate auxiliary info in there for everyone. Meanwhile, I can't think of more than one person under 60 that doesn't have an account.
There are 955 million active facebook users in a month. That's three times the population of the US. So let's assume the US is over-represented among facebook users and guess 100 million US citizens that don't have good, solid matches.
So being able to stop each person you don't have a matching facebook account for and doing a psych eval would be downright impossible. You'd end up wasting time almost exclusively on people with facebook accounts... millions of them.
Facebook doesn't concern of interest me. It's another flash-in-the-pan, and I'd be quite surprised if the stock price comes back in the next 12 months.
They certainly get a disproportionate share of hype, but I wouldn't quite call Facebook a flash-in-the-pan. For all the talk, they're profitable and revenue grew 32% this quarter. What hurt the stock price was that growth was down from the 45% growth the previous quarter and costs skyrocketed. Meanwhile, user base is up 29% from a year ago to 955 million active monthly users.
The stock price's vicious downdraft, despite the fact the company is earning a profit and increasing its customer base, highlights the "disconnect between the stock and the company," says John Fitzgibbon of IPOScoop.com.
Well, that's an important bit of info I didn't see in the article.
And I suppose it's worth reminding everyone that this is NFC. Your phone would have to be in near-contact with the exploiting hardware. Not impossible I suppose, given that skimming happens with traditional payment cards.
I didn't understand the two word description of the problem with Android, so I looked up that Ars article you mentioned...
The Nexus Sâ"when running the Gingerbread (2.3), by far the most dominant Android installationâ"contains multiple memory-corruption bugs. They allow Millerâ"using nothing more than a specially designed tagâ"to take control of the application "daemon" that controls NFC functions. With additional work, he said the tag could be modified to execute malicious code on the device. Some, but possibly not all of those bugs were fixed in the Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0) version of Android, so the attacks may also work against that release and Jelly Bean (4.1) as well.
All of this. And I'm a dues-paid, life member and NRA-ILA contributor.
I can appreciate the difficult job the NRA does. And when you wrestle with pigs you're going to get dirty. That said, I don't like it when I see them say things that are just hyperbole, or pontificate on unrelated subjects. That doesn't represent me very well, even if it's with the best possible intentions.
Yet it's a net win. I'm still a proud member... just... anything you care about will always feel like it can be done even better.
As the guy who said it originally, someone who worked in a warehouse, and someone who is surrounded by people that work in warehouses all day, that's precisely what I was getting at. It was about Amazon's working conditions, not a slight against anyone based on their job description.
I'm not worried about anyone punching me in the mouth, or some random slashdotter getting all indignant about it, but it was worth clarifying. Thanks.
Yeah whatever happened with thorium reactors? I thought those were supposed to be the super-safe, super-cheap, panacea of future power. I even seem to remember China was going all-in on them... but I haven't heard anything in a long while.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't feel like it's quite so dramatic... virtually nobody even knows who Mozilla is, and even fewer have any feedback to offer on the workings of their browser. It's just that switching browsers now isn't quite the radical thing it used to be. Aside from making sure you have your bookmarks and maybe two plugins, there's little difference for most people. The days of websites being written with IE-colored glasses on are over, thank christ. I think everyone can thank Firefox (and probably Apple, a bit) for that.
So people see Chrome ads every 30 seconds, all day, every day. It's fast and intuitive enough, and it's Google, so people use it. The only big, must-have plugins (for those who care) all exist for it. So switching isn't a big deal. Bajillions of people use Safari on iOS because it's what's on their iDevice. The sky doesn't fall in on anyone.
The funny thing is, a few (most would say very minor) bugs in Chrome that really aggravate me have been there for well over a year now, so I started switching a few machines back to Firefox. It's not the dog it used to be and I don't mind getting updates (maybe I've been conditioned by phone apps). And who knows, maybe I'll be on something else in a year or two. I don't know, and I don't really have to care anymore. That's pretty cool.
Don't drink from either cup. They're both poisoned.
You'd think they would have some kind of resolution plan for this that the exchange and participants both agreed to. It's not like any business, anywhere, doesn't have problems turn up.
If the compensation fund is exactly (or better than) what's in those terms, you'd think the bank would get told to "go screw".
I imagine it has to do with painting your retinas with lasers. ;)
Only kidding. I know Brother has been working on retinal imaging displays, and I got the impression the Google glasses might use the same technique.
http://www.brother.com/en/news/2008/rid/
I thought the take-away was, "Pay your programmers well, or things will go horribly wrong."
Also, don't breed that really large, featherless, murderous variety of chess playing velociraptor with opposable digits. They're not worth the aggravation.
A year or two ago they were saying Chicago, referencing GroupOn and others. Lately I've heard Austin, Texas a couple times.
This is the first time I've heard Phoenix, though I admit I don't pay close attention to the whole, "where's the next silicon valley" thing.
Well like I said at the end, outsource the JS part at least. :)
I like what slashdot moderation does at a high level. At lower levels it's been a bit ugly for some time now.
Well and, it's $20 for those three machines, right? I'll say this for Apple... the OS upgrades are reasonably priced, given the margins they get elsewhere.
Indeed. And I see a looong list of games for the XBL Indie section. Same for obviously amateur games in the Android market. Not to mention all the PC games I see in HIB's and the like.
Seems to me "homebrew" has become a more legit thing, embraced by various platforms. Not killed.
Someone should just do comments as a service, like Disqus does, but using the same basic system as Slashdot.
It allows for anonymous posts, which can either disappear or be highly visible based on the content of the post, or you can opt to lean on your history of being a decent contributor and post using your name... which lends some very modest bit of credibility and visibility to each post on an individual basis.
Give the site admins using the service the option of considering network-wide "karma" if they want, or keeping it specific to their site. Allow for temp/perma bans and spam flagging.
Maybe that's a product. Maybe you do it for free and do a "powered by" that links slashdot to increase traffic. Either way, outsource the JS work to someone else. ;)
Most of these "Real Name" schemes are really just "Facebook Auth Mandatory". The idea is that there's a barrier to making and using bogus accounts. Obviously that barrier isn't so terribly high, since you can always just make a bogus FB account for shit-talking.
Now obviously I haven't done any formal studies on the subject, and I don't know about this thing in Korea, but it does appear to have some minor effect on the general civility of conversation on some sites. No practical method is going to eradicate nasty posts, but the noise level is a little better.
The flip side is, on the rare occasion I post on a site that requires that (I really don't like it), I feel like I have to be really careful about voicing my opinion, for exactly the reason you mentioned.
They can't get everyone to have their boarding pass and id out before the security checkpoint. You think we'll jump right to confirmation of facebook membership with matching credentials via NFC?
Ok, I don't know for sure that that's true, but I'll give you that one on assumption alone. ;)
I don't disagree. The joke is that we just don't care about the vast majority of those people we once knew.
You OK these people, find out they put on a lot of weight, had 2.5 kids, have some health problem, and hate their jobs. Big surprises. Then your interest wanes, you don't get around to removing those people... but you continue to gripe that they're spamming your "news" feed with lots of stupid crap you don't want to see. ;)
I'm not buying it. Even if that were what we were talking about, it seems impractical to the point of absurdity, and might well reduce the fidelity of screening like that if it even exists. And I'm not sure anyone is nearly as worried about finding the white male mass murderer at places where we screen. At least, not so much as terrorists... people, it seems, we have a hard enough time picking out of a crowd with much better data.
But it doesn't matter, there's a list of reasons I don't see that happening anyway. What doesn't surprise me is that the paranoid persecution complex on slashdot would manifest here.
The notion that there is some "science" behind the idea makes it more likely that at some point in the future, somebody in the future will stop me at an airport or a police checkpoint. Because I don't have a Facebook account.
I agree that the whole thing is stupid, but I find the part about stopping people unlikely. Rough estimate, probably a quarter of the "friends" associated with my facebook page are using something other than their first and last name, you don't supply your social, and there's all manner of inaccurate auxiliary info in there for everyone. Meanwhile, I can't think of more than one person under 60 that doesn't have an account.
There are 955 million active facebook users in a month. That's three times the population of the US. So let's assume the US is over-represented among facebook users and guess 100 million US citizens that don't have good, solid matches.
So being able to stop each person you don't have a matching facebook account for and doing a psych eval would be downright impossible. You'd end up wasting time almost exclusively on people with facebook accounts... millions of them.
Look again. :)
True enough. And their P/E is still ridiculous, but I'd guess their numbers look much better next quarter if they don't spend like crazy.
Facebook doesn't concern of interest me. It's another flash-in-the-pan, and I'd be quite surprised if the stock price comes back in the next 12 months.
They certainly get a disproportionate share of hype, but I wouldn't quite call Facebook a flash-in-the-pan. For all the talk, they're profitable and revenue grew 32% this quarter. What hurt the stock price was that growth was down from the 45% growth the previous quarter and costs skyrocketed. Meanwhile, user base is up 29% from a year ago to 955 million active monthly users.
The stock price's vicious downdraft, despite the fact the company is earning a profit and increasing its customer base, highlights the "disconnect between the stock and the company," says John Fitzgibbon of IPOScoop.com.
All from the other USA Today article...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/story/2012-07-27/facebook-stock/56525044/1
Put simply, there are too few "voices of conscience" in that list for my comfort.
Well, that's an important bit of info I didn't see in the article.
And I suppose it's worth reminding everyone that this is NFC. Your phone would have to be in near-contact with the exploiting hardware. Not impossible I suppose, given that skimming happens with traditional payment cards.
I didn't understand the two word description of the problem with Android, so I looked up that Ars article you mentioned...
The Nexus Sâ"when running the Gingerbread (2.3), by far the most dominant Android installationâ"contains multiple memory-corruption bugs. They allow Millerâ"using nothing more than a specially designed tagâ"to take control of the application "daemon" that controls NFC functions. With additional work, he said the tag could be modified to execute malicious code on the device. Some, but possibly not all of those bugs were fixed in the Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0) version of Android, so the attacks may also work against that release and Jelly Bean (4.1) as well.
Ah. So upgrade your phone.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/07/android-nokia-smartphone-hack/
All of this. And I'm a dues-paid, life member and NRA-ILA contributor.
I can appreciate the difficult job the NRA does. And when you wrestle with pigs you're going to get dirty. That said, I don't like it when I see them say things that are just hyperbole, or pontificate on unrelated subjects. That doesn't represent me very well, even if it's with the best possible intentions.
Yet it's a net win. I'm still a proud member... just... anything you care about will always feel like it can be done even better.
As the guy who said it originally, someone who worked in a warehouse, and someone who is surrounded by people that work in warehouses all day, that's precisely what I was getting at. It was about Amazon's working conditions, not a slight against anyone based on their job description.
I'm not worried about anyone punching me in the mouth, or some random slashdotter getting all indignant about it, but it was worth clarifying. Thanks.
Three full years in an Amazon.com warehouse? From the stories, that sounds like a death sentence.
Yeah whatever happened with thorium reactors? I thought those were supposed to be the super-safe, super-cheap, panacea of future power. I even seem to remember China was going all-in on them... but I haven't heard anything in a long while.