Hmm, that's really weird. I'm currently using 36.0.4 on Linux Mint, and everything's mostly fine. It does seem to have a memory leak in it, so I seem to need to kill it and restart it every week or two, but it is normal for me to just leave it open all the time (on a laptop which gets suspended every night) with a couple dozen tabs in two windows. So not perfect, as I had said before, but not any worse than I've had with most browsers over the years. And FF is really good about remembering all my open tabs so I'm always right back where I was when I restart it. (And unlike stupid Chromium, it waits until you actually look at a tab before loading it, instead of trying to reload every single tab all at once when you restart and restore.)
Did you not read my post? It isn't just anti-vaxxers, there's other people who are susceptible to these diseases: people who can't take the vaccine (allergic or immune-compromised), and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them.
Also, we're talking about kids here; the anti-vaxxers' kids don't deserve to catch diseases. If it were just anti-vax parents catching diseases themselves because of their stupid choice to not vaccinate, then yeah, who cares? Hoist by their own petard and all that. But this isn't the case; it's innocent people, mainly kids (both theirs and other peoples'), who are suffering because of these idiots.
Many of the vehicles that anyone looking at them would classify as full size SUVs use unibody construction, especially at the higher end.
Then the OP's statement about them is correct. They're gas guzzlers and symbols of conspicuous consumption. At least the CUVs actually get pretty decent fuel economy (they get about the same economy now as regular cars got 10 years ago, mid-high 20s). As for crash statistics, how many of these: * Lexus RX 350 4WD midsized luxury SUV * Mercedes-Benz GL-Class 4WD large luxury SUV * Volvo XC90 4WD midsized luxury SUV * Audi A4 4WD luxury midsized car
are actually on the road? Of course the fatality rate is going to be small or zero on something where so few people drive them, compared to things like the Versa and Civic where everyone and his brother has one. These statistics aren't adjusted for the relative sales rates.
And what's with this one, anyway? * Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab 4WD pickup truck, 79 deaths
Obviously, a big huge vehicle isn't necessarily any safer, unfortunately for Chevy drivers.
That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.
You have a few good points here, but the gay vs. straight thing is totally wrong. It's the right wing fracturing society on that issue, because they refuse to treat gays as equals. What's happening is they're finally sick of being treated as second-class citizens and are demanding equal rights (as they should), and the religious conservatives are having a cow over it. Then they run around and scream about the "gay agenda", which I guess is like the "negro agenda" back before the Civil Rights Act. Can't have those minorities demanding equal rights and treatment, now can we?
What the hell are you talking about? Firefox has become more stable; I abandoned FF several years ago because it crashed so often, and switched to Chromium; in the last year, I've switched back because Chromium is such a memory hog and crashes so much, and Firefox isn't and doesn't. FF is better with memory, and rarely crashes (esp. compared to Chromium). It's not perfect by any means, but it's a lot better than it used to be.
When was the last time you used Firefox?
That said, I also switched from AdBlock Plus to uBlock, and that's helped a lot too. ABP is a hog. (But I switched back to FF well before I dumped ABP.)
No one in 1983 outside of a few academics in collegiate CS departments had any idea what the Internet was, and it sure as hell wasn't "spreading quickly" unless perhaps you mean that some more college CS departments were getting connected. It was completely unknown to the general US public until 1988 or 89, when Kevin Mitnick made the national news for his worm and the newscasters had to explain to everyone what the Internet was and why his crime was a crime. Even then, people forgot about it pretty quickly. It didn't really become part of the national consciousness until around 1994 when AOL got on the internet and we had the Eternal September, and then it became commercialized in the Dot-Com boom.
Yes, it is a bit out-of-date at this point; due to a huge backlash, they've changed their strategy with G+ recently. But it's not like they've suddenly changed their entire overall corporate strategy, they've just found out they had to back off on the forced-G+ and real-name policies, and are probably pursuing more insidious strategies now.
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted. A system which threatens minor crimes with draconian punishment needs to be reformed. As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
Wrong, there's lots of sites where there's feature degradation for mobile users. Just because you think good design wouldn't have this problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, or that all mobile sites exhibit good design.
As the other responder pointed out, there's still 50% of your users using PCs to view your site. In addition, a large fraction of those mobile users are using larger-screen devices like tablets, and might not want to see your crappy feature-limited mobile site, and want to see the normal one instead. Do you have an easy way for them to see the desktop site, or do you make it impossible?
Anyone who spends anytime in the wilderness hiking etc, still likes feature phones. They either have days of standby battery time, removable batters so you can prevent parasitic drain so as to be sure that lithium ion cell will be ready if you NEED it. They still tend to weigh less than even the smallest smart phones too; although the gap is shrinking. Finally these phones are cheap should they come to an unfortunate end like you slip fording a stream and everything in your pack gets soaked or you fall and crush the thing, etc no big loss and you don't have to have some insurance plan. Even if nothing bad happens to them they tend to be fairly rugged without the need for more weight in the form of protective cases etc.
From what I've read, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has a removable battery, and is waterproof. It's still vulnerable to being crushed I guess.
No, it doesn't, because Google doesn't own mobile devices. They have a hand in them with Android, but they don't really own Android (they give it away to the device makers), though they do profit from Android's use of Google services. However, Android isn't the only mobile platform, iOS is the other one, and is arguable much larger according to stats showing how much their users actually spend on stuff.
Anyway, they're not pushing people toward mobile devices; people are doing that all by themselves. Google is pushing websites to have mobile-friendly websites. It's crap, of course; not every website is necessarily one which people are going to want to look at on a mobile device. For instance, how many people order from McMaster-Carr on their phone versus from a PC? Probably almost none, because most people buying from there are getting stuff for business use, not for personal use, and if they're at work ordering nuts and bolts and metal stock, they're sitting in front of a PC.
Just because something doesn't work out, doesn't mean you were wrong to try in the first place.
In many cases, yes, it does mean exactly that.
Proof: Windows 8 Metro UI
I would add Google+, but actually G+ has its uses. It's pretty popular with highly technical people, especially in the OSS realm, for communicating in a way that allows the general public to see what's going on. The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine: people who like it could use it, people who like Facebook can use that instead, and people who don't want to use any social media stuff like that could ignore both of them. But no, Google wants to push everyone into using G+ whether they want to or not, by tying it to their other (highly popular) services like YouTube and Gmail and making it really hard to not have a G+ account.
The problem with Google these days is they want to force themselves on everyone instead of just offering a bunch of services and letting people pick and choose and use what they want. It's hubris, but an especially obnoxious type of hubris. They have several very popular services like Gmail and Maps and YouTube and of course Search, but they can't just be happy with that, they have to keep pushing for MOAR, to the point where they're pissing people off. That's not a good way to run a stable company, but it seems that Americans don't give a shit about having stable businesses any more, they need to have constant, year-over-year double-digit growth or else they're "dying". So Google won't just offer some nice services and be happy with the revenue they generate (either directly or indirectly); if something isn't growing fast and dominating the market utterly, they drop it like a hot potato, even though lots of users like it and want to keep it. Eventually, this management method is going to catch up to them.
Here again, we have the whole "lesser of two evils" problem, or in Batman's case, "do we choose not-evil but ineffectual, or evil and over-effectual?" Batman won't do anything to the politicians because he doesn't believe in killing people, just delivering them to justice, and other than knocking some heads, he's completely powerless when the justice system itself is too corrupt or powerless to act. Ras Al Ghul would be effective, but too effective, since he'd simply poison the entire city and destroy everything. RAG doesn't believe in any kind of surgical strike, he believes in completely destroying a civilization when it's too corrupt.
The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.
According to whom? This sounds like a conspiracy theory to be honest. What evidence is there of such plans? Automakers have always been able to make it a PITA to change your headlight bulbs, or do just about anything else, but they haven't (except with some particular makes and models). With today's computer-laden cars, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from lighting the check-engine light when a headlight goes out, and then refusing to allow the replacement headlight to work unless the car is taken to a dealership and reset with a special, proprietary tool. You don't need the DMCA to do this, you just build it into the car's software. How many cars are actually like that right now? They could have done that with my Volvo (a 2005 model, now 10 years old): it senses when bulbs burn out and puts up a message on the dashboard saying so. Then you just replace the bulb and the warning message goes away. You do need the special "VIDA" service tool to do some things, such as programming a remote keyfob to work with the car, but for simple stuff like headlight bulbs, there's no need, they actually make it really easy to replace the bulbs, and the computer helpfully tells you which bulbs are out.
Surely if some automaker really tried this, they'd get so much bad press in the automotive press they'd fix it.
You don't get 37 MPG while using all 200 of those ponies.
No, but no one actually uses all 200HP all the time unless they're at a race track. 37mpg isn't even an average number, it's a figure for highway cruising.
It's a turbo 4 so when I'm just cruising I get better mileage than a comparably powered naturally aspirated car. But when I use those 370 horses you can practically watch the fuel gauge go down.
Yep, that's the whole idea. Back in the bad ol' days, if you wanted good acceleration some of the time, you needed a bigger engine which got you crappy gas mileage all of the time. Now you can get an engine that gives you good gas mileage most of the time, and great acceleration for those times you want it.
Automakers have no control over what crappy states do. What if one state suddenly decided to mandate all gasoline sold in the state to be E85? Most cars wouldn't be able to handle that. This is one of the downsides of not having a strong-enough federal government: states have too much power to set their own (crappy) standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure about the exact numbers, but that's even worse, and shows how critical herd immunity is.
Hmm, that's really weird. I'm currently using 36.0.4 on Linux Mint, and everything's mostly fine. It does seem to have a memory leak in it, so I seem to need to kill it and restart it every week or two, but it is normal for me to just leave it open all the time (on a laptop which gets suspended every night) with a couple dozen tabs in two windows. So not perfect, as I had said before, but not any worse than I've had with most browsers over the years. And FF is really good about remembering all my open tabs so I'm always right back where I was when I restart it. (And unlike stupid Chromium, it waits until you actually look at a tab before loading it, instead of trying to reload every single tab all at once when you restart and restore.)
Did you not read my post? It isn't just anti-vaxxers, there's other people who are susceptible to these diseases: people who can't take the vaccine (allergic or immune-compromised), and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them.
Also, we're talking about kids here; the anti-vaxxers' kids don't deserve to catch diseases. If it were just anti-vax parents catching diseases themselves because of their stupid choice to not vaccinate, then yeah, who cares? Hoist by their own petard and all that. But this isn't the case; it's innocent people, mainly kids (both theirs and other peoples'), who are suffering because of these idiots.
I guess I missed that, I just saw the absolute number of deaths next to each model.
Anyway, I still want to know what the deal is with the Silverado. Is it just a piece of shit?
Many of the vehicles that anyone looking at them would classify as full size SUVs use unibody construction, especially at the higher end.
Then the OP's statement about them is correct. They're gas guzzlers and symbols of conspicuous consumption. At least the CUVs actually get pretty decent fuel economy (they get about the same economy now as regular cars got 10 years ago, mid-high 20s). As for crash statistics, how many of these:
* Lexus RX 350 4WD midsized luxury SUV
* Mercedes-Benz GL-Class 4WD large luxury SUV
* Volvo XC90 4WD midsized luxury SUV
* Audi A4 4WD luxury midsized car
are actually on the road? Of course the fatality rate is going to be small or zero on something where so few people drive them, compared to things like the Versa and Civic where everyone and his brother has one. These statistics aren't adjusted for the relative sales rates.
And what's with this one, anyway?
* Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab 4WD pickup truck, 79 deaths
Obviously, a big huge vehicle isn't necessarily any safer, unfortunately for Chevy drivers.
At public school, they also have a chance of causing an outbreak and killing a bunch of innocent kids.
That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.
You have a few good points here, but the gay vs. straight thing is totally wrong. It's the right wing fracturing society on that issue, because they refuse to treat gays as equals. What's happening is they're finally sick of being treated as second-class citizens and are demanding equal rights (as they should), and the religious conservatives are having a cow over it. Then they run around and scream about the "gay agenda", which I guess is like the "negro agenda" back before the Civil Rights Act. Can't have those minorities demanding equal rights and treatment, now can we?
What you're talking about are usually called "CUVs" now, not "SUVs". They're also called "crossovers".
His statement isn't true for things like the CRV or CX-5, but it certainly is for the full-size SUVs.
Any decent minivan these days can seat 7. What's your problem?
Firefox is becoming less and less stable.
What the hell are you talking about? Firefox has become more stable; I abandoned FF several years ago because it crashed so often, and switched to Chromium; in the last year, I've switched back because Chromium is such a memory hog and crashes so much, and Firefox isn't and doesn't. FF is better with memory, and rarely crashes (esp. compared to Chromium). It's not perfect by any means, but it's a lot better than it used to be.
When was the last time you used Firefox?
That said, I also switched from AdBlock Plus to uBlock, and that's helped a lot too. ABP is a hog. (But I switched back to FF well before I dumped ABP.)
No one in 1983 outside of a few academics in collegiate CS departments had any idea what the Internet was, and it sure as hell wasn't "spreading quickly" unless perhaps you mean that some more college CS departments were getting connected. It was completely unknown to the general US public until 1988 or 89, when Kevin Mitnick made the national news for his worm and the newscasters had to explain to everyone what the Internet was and why his crime was a crime. Even then, people forgot about it pretty quickly. It didn't really become part of the national consciousness until around 1994 when AOL got on the internet and we had the Eternal September, and then it became commercialized in the Dot-Com boom.
Yes, it is a bit out-of-date at this point; due to a huge backlash, they've changed their strategy with G+ recently. But it's not like they've suddenly changed their entire overall corporate strategy, they've just found out they had to back off on the forced-G+ and real-name policies, and are probably pursuing more insidious strategies now.
He was charged with 35 years, so you don't know what he would have received. That's what the prosecutor wanted. A system which threatens minor crimes with draconian punishment needs to be reformed. As for you, I hope some cop shoots you.
You're a fucking moron. How does "access without authorization" warrant a 35 year sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that. That's the whole problem here. Fuck you.
Wrong, there's lots of sites where there's feature degradation for mobile users. Just because you think good design wouldn't have this problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, or that all mobile sites exhibit good design.
As the other responder pointed out, there's still 50% of your users using PCs to view your site. In addition, a large fraction of those mobile users are using larger-screen devices like tablets, and might not want to see your crappy feature-limited mobile site, and want to see the normal one instead. Do you have an easy way for them to see the desktop site, or do you make it impossible?
Anyone who spends anytime in the wilderness hiking etc, still likes feature phones. They either have days of standby battery time, removable batters so you can prevent parasitic drain so as to be sure that lithium ion cell will be ready if you NEED it. They still tend to weigh less than even the smallest smart phones too; although the gap is shrinking. Finally these phones are cheap should they come to an unfortunate end like you slip fording a stream and everything in your pack gets soaked or you fall and crush the thing, etc no big loss and you don't have to have some insurance plan. Even if nothing bad happens to them they tend to be fairly rugged without the need for more weight in the form of protective cases etc.
From what I've read, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has a removable battery, and is waterproof. It's still vulnerable to being crushed I guess.
No, it doesn't, because Google doesn't own mobile devices. They have a hand in them with Android, but they don't really own Android (they give it away to the device makers), though they do profit from Android's use of Google services. However, Android isn't the only mobile platform, iOS is the other one, and is arguable much larger according to stats showing how much their users actually spend on stuff.
Anyway, they're not pushing people toward mobile devices; people are doing that all by themselves. Google is pushing websites to have mobile-friendly websites. It's crap, of course; not every website is necessarily one which people are going to want to look at on a mobile device. For instance, how many people order from McMaster-Carr on their phone versus from a PC? Probably almost none, because most people buying from there are getting stuff for business use, not for personal use, and if they're at work ordering nuts and bolts and metal stock, they're sitting in front of a PC.
Just because something doesn't work out, doesn't mean you were wrong to try in the first place.
In many cases, yes, it does mean exactly that.
Proof: Windows 8 Metro UI
I would add Google+, but actually G+ has its uses. It's pretty popular with highly technical people, especially in the OSS realm, for communicating in a way that allows the general public to see what's going on. The problem with G+, as I see it, is not it existing, but the way Google has tried to force everyone into using it. If they'd just offer it as an optional service, it'd be fine: people who like it could use it, people who like Facebook can use that instead, and people who don't want to use any social media stuff like that could ignore both of them. But no, Google wants to push everyone into using G+ whether they want to or not, by tying it to their other (highly popular) services like YouTube and Gmail and making it really hard to not have a G+ account.
The problem with Google these days is they want to force themselves on everyone instead of just offering a bunch of services and letting people pick and choose and use what they want. It's hubris, but an especially obnoxious type of hubris. They have several very popular services like Gmail and Maps and YouTube and of course Search, but they can't just be happy with that, they have to keep pushing for MOAR, to the point where they're pissing people off. That's not a good way to run a stable company, but it seems that Americans don't give a shit about having stable businesses any more, they need to have constant, year-over-year double-digit growth or else they're "dying". So Google won't just offer some nice services and be happy with the revenue they generate (either directly or indirectly); if something isn't growing fast and dominating the market utterly, they drop it like a hot potato, even though lots of users like it and want to keep it. Eventually, this management method is going to catch up to them.
Here again, we have the whole "lesser of two evils" problem, or in Batman's case, "do we choose not-evil but ineffectual, or evil and over-effectual?" Batman won't do anything to the politicians because he doesn't believe in killing people, just delivering them to justice, and other than knocking some heads, he's completely powerless when the justice system itself is too corrupt or powerless to act. Ras Al Ghul would be effective, but too effective, since he'd simply poison the entire city and destroy everything. RAG doesn't believe in any kind of surgical strike, he believes in completely destroying a civilization when it's too corrupt.
The logical endgame here is to NOT allow you to change your headlamp bulb, and require you to bring it into the shop so that an authorized, qualified technician will replace it properly, thus maintaining the integrity and safety of the automobile.
According to whom? This sounds like a conspiracy theory to be honest. What evidence is there of such plans? Automakers have always been able to make it a PITA to change your headlight bulbs, or do just about anything else, but they haven't (except with some particular makes and models). With today's computer-laden cars, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from lighting the check-engine light when a headlight goes out, and then refusing to allow the replacement headlight to work unless the car is taken to a dealership and reset with a special, proprietary tool. You don't need the DMCA to do this, you just build it into the car's software. How many cars are actually like that right now? They could have done that with my Volvo (a 2005 model, now 10 years old): it senses when bulbs burn out and puts up a message on the dashboard saying so. Then you just replace the bulb and the warning message goes away. You do need the special "VIDA" service tool to do some things, such as programming a remote keyfob to work with the car, but for simple stuff like headlight bulbs, there's no need, they actually make it really easy to replace the bulbs, and the computer helpfully tells you which bulbs are out.
Surely if some automaker really tried this, they'd get so much bad press in the automotive press they'd fix it.
You don't get 37 MPG while using all 200 of those ponies.
No, but no one actually uses all 200HP all the time unless they're at a race track. 37mpg isn't even an average number, it's a figure for highway cruising.
It's a turbo 4 so when I'm just cruising I get better mileage than a comparably powered naturally aspirated car. But when I use those 370 horses you can practically watch the fuel gauge go down.
Yep, that's the whole idea. Back in the bad ol' days, if you wanted good acceleration some of the time, you needed a bigger engine which got you crappy gas mileage all of the time. Now you can get an engine that gives you good gas mileage most of the time, and great acceleration for those times you want it.
Automakers have no control over what crappy states do. What if one state suddenly decided to mandate all gasoline sold in the state to be E85? Most cars wouldn't be able to handle that. This is one of the downsides of not having a strong-enough federal government: states have too much power to set their own (crappy) standards.
Last I heard, the Danes were getting into it with the Jews over this, because they are working to ban the practice.
I'm rooting for the Danes. I don't give a shit what your stupid religion says, mutilating young children's genitals is barbaric.