along with windows 10 on every Windows 7+ OS and involuntary at that...shut down Windows Update in your services to prevent OS hijacking by MS
No, don't. Windows Update is how you get security updates. And more importantly, if you don't trust your OS vendor to act in your best interests, and you distrust them so much you want to disable security updates, then why are you continuing to use their OS???
If your OS vendor is actually untrustworthy, (and the OS is closed-source so you don't really know what's going on under the hood), then stop using their OS. It's really that simple.
Continuing to trust your critical data and privacy to an OS that you cannot examine or understand how it works, produced and maintained by a vendor that you explicitly distrust, is sheer insanity.
You complaints about Firefox sound good, except that all the other mainstream browsers are at least as bad.
Chrome is a memory hog and reloads everything when a session is restarted (unlike FF which waits until you look at a tab to reload it).
IE is, well, IE (or "Edge" as they call it now), and has no plug-ins AFAIK. On today's web, uBlock Origin and a script blocker are mandatory. And it only runs on Windows.
Safari only runs on Macs.
So it's not like there's a lot of great choices out there.
If you're a creative or skilled enough designer, programmer or artist to the point that you could actually do justice to a remake of a classic, well-respected game, then surely you're creative or skilled enough to make your own game, right?
Let's look at it from the other perspective: If you're a big company that has enough creative or skilled designers, programmers, and artists to actually do justice to a remake of a classic, well-respected game, then surely you're creative or skilled enough to make an original game, right?
I switched to Chromium several years ago because FF was having problems, but I ended up switching back to FF because Chromium is such a memory hog (a side effect of having a separate process per tab, I think). I always avoided Chrome because of Google's added closed-source "features".
But lately with FF I've been seeing what you're complaining about: after a while, the FF process will peg the CPU, and I'll end up having to Ctrl-Alt-Esc and kill it. After I restart the session, it won't use much CPU at all; part of this is because FF is much smarter than Chrome at restarting sessions. Chrome will load ALL the tabs at once, bringing your computer to a crawl as it ties up the CPU and RAM loading and rendering dozens of tabs at once, whereas FF will only load and render a tab when you look at it, and all the others will just serve as placeholders until you do. But after a certain amount of time browsing, FF will start chewing up CPU cycles and need to be restarted.
I really wish FF would add a feature to show, in a table, every tab and how much resources it's using, so I can figure out which tabs/websites are causing me so many problems. (And yes, I have both uBlock Origin and NoScript installed.)
So much human effort wasted on projects destined to die, which could have been spent on something more original and less obviously derivatively infringing...
Maybe, but consider this: why are you holding these unpaid enthusiasts to a far, far higher standard than what you're holding the game companies and Hollywood to?
All I've been seeing out of Hollywood and the game companies for the past decade now (at least) is derivatives. Granted, they're derivatives of stuff they actually own the rights to, but still: Hollywood can't come up with an original movie any more, it's all sequels, prequels, further installations in the same "universe", etc. Game companies are the same, everything they make now is yet another derivative of something that came out in the 1980s. This article is case-in-point: how many derivatives of Metal Gear have there been now? Metal Gear came out sometime around 1985!!! I'm still seeing Metroid games, and that came out even earlier. Didn't they just release a new Metroid?
So if the game companies can't come up with anything original like they did when the NES was brand-new, how do you expect a bunch of unpaid volunteers to do better?
No, he's not stuck in 2005, he's stuck on Slashdot. He's absolutely right: if Mozilla had actually fixed this feature, tons of Slashdotters would be bitching about it just like he pointed out.
Now, if you want to make the case that most Slashdotters are stuck in 2005 (or 1995), then you'd have a valid point.
Apple is depriving these software writers of their rightful revenue, and hopefully they'll be sued for it, and better yet a law passed banning this kind of practice. This is no different than ad-blocking and script-blocking software, which prevents upstanding advertisers from running JavaScript software on peoples' computers and rightfully earning revenue from it.
I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. So sure, Congress could impeach him, but the President could also direct the military and federal police to act against Congress and arrest them. It'd be an interesting situation for sure; who would the military follow? I think at that point, it'd depend on what the top military leaders believed, if a war was really necessary or if it was foolhardy or worse.
Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist, not a Dominionist. Carter's religion didn't involve trying to take over the nation and then the world and institute Christianity as the sole religion, and it certainly didn't consider non-believers to be "enemies of God" as Cruz does.
That is a really despicable things to say. How dare you insult Sasquatches like that. Sasquatches are peaceful creatures that go out of their way to even be seen by humans, let alone bother them. Ted Cruz is a religious loon who wants to take over the world and make Christianity the only religion.
BS. You are not the arbiter of what religion is and isn't correct, or who is practicing their religion "wrong". There's nothing remotely logical about religion in the first place, so calling their practice "logically impossible" makes no sense at all.
Every Christian sect is based on selective interpretation of an ancient book that's compiled from many volumes from various sources over several thousand years, most of it just written-down versions of oral lore. The Bible is completely contradictory, so of course different sects are going to interpret it differently. The Dominionist version isn't any more wrong than whatever interpretation you choose to believe, if any. However, their beliefs *are* real, and very disturbing, and anyone who isn't one of them should be doing whatever they can to make sure these wackos don't gain any power over them.
I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.
A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too. Even funnier would be if they both chose each other as running mates, and ran that way: Trump/Sanders vs Sanders/Trump.
However, I disagree about them doing anything meaningful. Even with an uncooperative Congress, the President does have a lot of power, and especially the power to say "no" and refuse action. If Congress wants to start a war in the middle east and the President says "no", that's the end of it: there's no military action without his approval. If Congress or other powers-that-be want to grab Snowden or Assange and torture them in Guantanamo, the President has the power to not do that, and even to pardon them. If Congress wants to pass TPP or SOPA/PIPA or whatever, the President has a lot of power to throw a wrench into the works there. If Congress wants the NSA to spy on all Americans, the President has the power to shut it down.
What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all.
You're definitely not the first person to think of this. A LOT of people have suggested this for a while now. However, it seems that Sanders has thrown a wrench into that plan. A lot of Democrat voters despise Hillary and will vote for Trump instead of her (or just write Sanders in). According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.
That isn't a problem. The President is free to resign at any time, and the Vice President will then take over as Acting President. It's exactly what Nixon did.
Honestly, I'd be OK with Trump doing that, as long as his VP isn't one of the existing or former GOP candidates. It couldn't be any worse than any of the other current GOP candidates, or Hillary. Trump is likely doing all this for his big ego anyway, but still that's a lot better than the other GOP candidates and Hillary who are really working for special interests.
Bullshit. Other companies have some source code that MS claims is the Windows source code. If they haven't actually compiled that code and produced a binary-identical version of Windows, then it's not. MS does *not* provide the full build system or all the source code that goes into Windows.
Linux hasn't had good uptake because of non-existent marketing, and because of applications.
However, it doesn't matter if Linux doesn't run the applications when you're risking national security by running a closed-source OS that is known to send private data back to MS, and does who-knows-what-else. They don't give the US government the source code to Windows. (They probably make available some source code they claim is the full and complete source.)
Furthermore, a lot of Windows applications can be run under WINE, sometimes even better than on Windows. This would work even better if the USG dumped a bunch of money on CodeWeavers to improve WINE further. A lot of people have been complaining that Windows 10 breaks some of their applications. How is the USG going to handle it when their old apps don't work on the new OS?
They're going to have to be retrained to use Windows 10. Switching them to Linux/KDE from their current Windows 7 would be an easier transition than that. And with a custom distro, they could make KDE look and work almost just like Win7.
Well, they did make SELinux for a reason after all: they wanted the extra security capabilities for their internal use. But it does seem pretty stupid that a government competent enough to make something as technically sophisticated as SELinux can't be bothered to actually use it on all their PCs so that government operations aren't subject to the whims of a for-profit multinational corporation or vulnerable to the security shortcomings in that commercial OS.
I'd prefer to see a free-market solution to this. That's what we're doing here in the US, to a good extent, and it's working: cable companies keep jacking up their prices for TV service, so smart people "cut the cord" in response while TV-addicted morons get stuck paying the higher prices. Eventually, this should result in the cablecos going out of business, or turning into internet-only utilities (which absolutely should be regulated as I said before).
Slashdot Mirror
along with windows 10 on every Windows 7+ OS and involuntary at that...shut down Windows Update in your services to prevent OS hijacking by MS
No, don't. Windows Update is how you get security updates. And more importantly, if you don't trust your OS vendor to act in your best interests, and you distrust them so much you want to disable security updates, then why are you continuing to use their OS???
If your OS vendor is actually untrustworthy, (and the OS is closed-source so you don't really know what's going on under the hood), then stop using their OS. It's really that simple.
Continuing to trust your critical data and privacy to an OS that you cannot examine or understand how it works, produced and maintained by a vendor that you explicitly distrust, is sheer insanity.
You complaints about Firefox sound good, except that all the other mainstream browsers are at least as bad.
Chrome is a memory hog and reloads everything when a session is restarted (unlike FF which waits until you look at a tab to reload it).
IE is, well, IE (or "Edge" as they call it now), and has no plug-ins AFAIK. On today's web, uBlock Origin and a script blocker are mandatory. And it only runs on Windows.
Safari only runs on Macs.
So it's not like there's a lot of great choices out there.
Sounds exactly like Gnome3.
If you're a creative or skilled enough designer, programmer or artist to the point that you could actually do justice to a remake of a classic, well-respected game, then surely you're creative or skilled enough to make your own game, right?
Let's look at it from the other perspective:
If you're a big company that has enough creative or skilled designers, programmers, and artists to actually do justice to a remake of a classic, well-respected game, then surely you're creative or skilled enough to make an original game, right?
Apparently not.
I switched to Chromium several years ago because FF was having problems, but I ended up switching back to FF because Chromium is such a memory hog (a side effect of having a separate process per tab, I think). I always avoided Chrome because of Google's added closed-source "features".
But lately with FF I've been seeing what you're complaining about: after a while, the FF process will peg the CPU, and I'll end up having to Ctrl-Alt-Esc and kill it. After I restart the session, it won't use much CPU at all; part of this is because FF is much smarter than Chrome at restarting sessions. Chrome will load ALL the tabs at once, bringing your computer to a crawl as it ties up the CPU and RAM loading and rendering dozens of tabs at once, whereas FF will only load and render a tab when you look at it, and all the others will just serve as placeholders until you do. But after a certain amount of time browsing, FF will start chewing up CPU cycles and need to be restarted.
I really wish FF would add a feature to show, in a table, every tab and how much resources it's using, so I can figure out which tabs/websites are causing me so many problems. (And yes, I have both uBlock Origin and NoScript installed.)
So much human effort wasted on projects destined to die, which could have been spent on something more original and less obviously derivatively infringing...
Maybe, but consider this: why are you holding these unpaid enthusiasts to a far, far higher standard than what you're holding the game companies and Hollywood to?
All I've been seeing out of Hollywood and the game companies for the past decade now (at least) is derivatives. Granted, they're derivatives of stuff they actually own the rights to, but still: Hollywood can't come up with an original movie any more, it's all sequels, prequels, further installations in the same "universe", etc. Game companies are the same, everything they make now is yet another derivative of something that came out in the 1980s. This article is case-in-point: how many derivatives of Metal Gear have there been now? Metal Gear came out sometime around 1985!!! I'm still seeing Metroid games, and that came out even earlier. Didn't they just release a new Metroid?
So if the game companies can't come up with anything original like they did when the NES was brand-new, how do you expect a bunch of unpaid volunteers to do better?
No, he's not stuck in 2005, he's stuck on Slashdot. He's absolutely right: if Mozilla had actually fixed this feature, tons of Slashdotters would be bitching about it just like he pointed out.
Now, if you want to make the case that most Slashdotters are stuck in 2005 (or 1995), then you'd have a valid point.
Um, Ted Cruz. He's a Dominionist. Go read about Dominionism; that's exactly what they advocate.
The 5-letter sequence "P100D" is not copyrightable.
It's not illegal to hack into a device that you own, idiot.
Apple is depriving these software writers of their rightful revenue, and hopefully they'll be sued for it, and better yet a law passed banning this kind of practice. This is no different than ad-blocking and script-blocking software, which prevents upstanding advertisers from running JavaScript software on peoples' computers and rightfully earning revenue from it.
I don't see why: the extremely rich companies may exert a lot of influence through media, donations, etc., however at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the votes. If the people vote for some non-establishment candidate, then that's who wins the election and takes office.
And what the hell is "Photoshoppe"? Is that a 19th century photographer or something?
No, it's the photo-editing program they used in the 19th century on the steam-powered computers they had back then....
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. So sure, Congress could impeach him, but the President could also direct the military and federal police to act against Congress and arrest them. It'd be an interesting situation for sure; who would the military follow? I think at that point, it'd depend on what the top military leaders believed, if a war was really necessary or if it was foolhardy or worse.
The government has been forcing you to pay other peoples' medical bills ever since the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid were passed into law.
If you don't like that, I suggest you move to Somalia, where you don't have to pay for any socialized services.
Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist, not a Dominionist. Carter's religion didn't involve trying to take over the nation and then the world and institute Christianity as the sole religion, and it certainly didn't consider non-believers to be "enemies of God" as Cruz does.
That is a really despicable things to say. How dare you insult Sasquatches like that. Sasquatches are peaceful creatures that go out of their way to even be seen by humans, let alone bother them. Ted Cruz is a religious loon who wants to take over the world and make Christianity the only religion.
BS. You are not the arbiter of what religion is and isn't correct, or who is practicing their religion "wrong". There's nothing remotely logical about religion in the first place, so calling their practice "logically impossible" makes no sense at all.
Every Christian sect is based on selective interpretation of an ancient book that's compiled from many volumes from various sources over several thousand years, most of it just written-down versions of oral lore. The Bible is completely contradictory, so of course different sects are going to interpret it differently. The Dominionist version isn't any more wrong than whatever interpretation you choose to believe, if any. However, their beliefs *are* real, and very disturbing, and anyone who isn't one of them should be doing whatever they can to make sure these wackos don't gain any power over them.
I did propose a solution which would result in my voting for Trump. Put him as VP alongside Sanders - it's just crazy enough to work. It's not like Congress is going to let either one of them do anything meaningful. We might as well give us the best entertainment money can buy, or something like that.
A Trump/Sanders ticket would be hilarious; I've thought of that too. Even funnier would be if they both chose each other as running mates, and ran that way: Trump/Sanders vs Sanders/Trump.
However, I disagree about them doing anything meaningful. Even with an uncooperative Congress, the President does have a lot of power, and especially the power to say "no" and refuse action. If Congress wants to start a war in the middle east and the President says "no", that's the end of it: there's no military action without his approval. If Congress or other powers-that-be want to grab Snowden or Assange and torture them in Guantanamo, the President has the power to not do that, and even to pardon them. If Congress wants to pass TPP or SOPA/PIPA or whatever, the President has a lot of power to throw a wrench into the works there. If Congress wants the NSA to spy on all Americans, the President has the power to shut it down.
What if Trump's not meant to win but is just meant to take enough votes from the Republicans to make the ride a bit easier for the Democrats? He is good friends with Hillary, after all.
You're definitely not the first person to think of this. A LOT of people have suggested this for a while now. However, it seems that Sanders has thrown a wrench into that plan. A lot of Democrat voters despise Hillary and will vote for Trump instead of her (or just write Sanders in). According to polls, though, if Hillary dropped out (perhaps because she was in jail) and it became a race between Bernie and any GOP person including Trump, Bernie would win. He's the least unfavorable candidate according to polls; lots of people despise Trump (on both sides), and lots of people despise Hillary (on both sides). Almost no one despises Bernie; they can't even come up with any real dirt on him. They can say stupid stuff about "socialism", they can say his policies won't work, they can say completely idiotic things about 90% tax rates (betraying a complete lack of understanding of marginal rates and also his actual policies), they can complain about his age (even though he's only 5 years older than Trump and 6 older than Hillary who's had a lot of health problems), but no one really *despises* him like they do all the other candidates. The other GOP candidates aren't as unliked, but they're not liked either: everyone thinks Cruz is a liar and a religious nut, and that Rubio is a robot and in the pocket of the establishment.
That isn't a problem. The President is free to resign at any time, and the Vice President will then take over as Acting President. It's exactly what Nixon did.
Honestly, I'd be OK with Trump doing that, as long as his VP isn't one of the existing or former GOP candidates. It couldn't be any worse than any of the other current GOP candidates, or Hillary. Trump is likely doing all this for his big ego anyway, but still that's a lot better than the other GOP candidates and Hillary who are really working for special interests.
Bullshit. Other companies have some source code that MS claims is the Windows source code. If they haven't actually compiled that code and produced a binary-identical version of Windows, then it's not. MS does *not* provide the full build system or all the source code that goes into Windows.
Linux hasn't had good uptake because of non-existent marketing, and because of applications.
However, it doesn't matter if Linux doesn't run the applications when you're risking national security by running a closed-source OS that is known to send private data back to MS, and does who-knows-what-else. They don't give the US government the source code to Windows. (They probably make available some source code they claim is the full and complete source.)
Furthermore, a lot of Windows applications can be run under WINE, sometimes even better than on Windows. This would work even better if the USG dumped a bunch of money on CodeWeavers to improve WINE further. A lot of people have been complaining that Windows 10 breaks some of their applications. How is the USG going to handle it when their old apps don't work on the new OS?
They're going to have to be retrained to use Windows 10. Switching them to Linux/KDE from their current Windows 7 would be an easier transition than that. And with a custom distro, they could make KDE look and work almost just like Win7.
Well, they did make SELinux for a reason after all: they wanted the extra security capabilities for their internal use. But it does seem pretty stupid that a government competent enough to make something as technically sophisticated as SELinux can't be bothered to actually use it on all their PCs so that government operations aren't subject to the whims of a for-profit multinational corporation or vulnerable to the security shortcomings in that commercial OS.
I'd prefer to see a free-market solution to this. That's what we're doing here in the US, to a good extent, and it's working: cable companies keep jacking up their prices for TV service, so smart people "cut the cord" in response while TV-addicted morons get stuck paying the higher prices. Eventually, this should result in the cablecos going out of business, or turning into internet-only utilities (which absolutely should be regulated as I said before).