I support many Thunderbird users and I've definitely seen the spellcheck bug. I've never seen the font change bug. Since you've seen it more than once, as a guess, maybe it's some customization implemented across the office (e.g., and addon?)
I don't think the spellcheck is very consequential -- just ignore it and move on -- and I support many Thunderbird users and they have not complained about it. I still wish it were fixed and Thunderbird could use some spit and polish, but overall our users love it. It's fast and efficient.
FOSS is a tool like any other: Good for some things, less good for other things. If you want a highly polished app, FOSS is often a poor choice; it doesn't seem to be in its DNA, at least for community-based projects. If you want professional support, that can also be a challenge with FOSS. If you want low purchase price, good functionality, security, confidentiality, access to highly technical resources (bug databases, developers, etc.), adherence to standards, etc., FOSS is pretty good.
As I responded to someone else, I was unaware of that and it is interesting. What are the differences? It seems to be open only to developers. Also, is there transparency -- can you see the status? Can you participate, either in the discussions or by contributing code?
Actually the reporting process on Microsoft Connect is relatively active and you do participate with the developers and others in discussion
Well, I admit I didn't know about that. Is it for Technet or MSDN members only, or can anyone participate? Is there transparency about the status of your bug?
OSS projects needs to understand that the end user doesn't give a shit about participating in developer discussion or following it every step of the way...
I run a business that provides end user support and my experience differs. Of course some feel that way, but many do want transparency and participation. Per your comment above, apparently Microsoft seems to see demand for it too.
As for the speed of Mozilla bugfixes, FireFox 3.x still can crash and lose your bookmarks and profile data which is an age old bug which has greatly frusterated many FireFox users for as long as I can remember. I don't care about the bug reporting experience when I'm rebuilding my lost shit, and it's never made me less pissed off when it happens.
I don't think this is true. I submitted a bug about eight years ago on a similar problem, I think with Mozilla Suite (Firefox and Thunderbird's predecessor, now called Seamonkey), but haven't seen it in probably 7 years. We support many Firefox users and they don't have the problem. I used to volunteer in Mozilla's support forums, and while there were crashes, very few caused dataloss.
However, if you make your arguments more angrily, disparage others, and swear a little, I might be convinced!
"All developers who have registered [for free] as an Apple Developer may submit bug reports and enhancement requests on Apple products and track these submissions using the Apple Bug Reporter."
Interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. In fairness though, it's for developers only, and does it provide the transparency and other benefits that Mozilla does?
But for the U.S. it's demonize two birds with one stone: The Feds get to play up the fear of nuclear terrorists, and plant the next-after-Iran seed in the public's mind as well.
Even though Venezuela wasn't involved at all, just watch how many "news" outlets echo the "Venezuela's stealing U.S. secrets and building nukes" part of the headline.
So it's win-win for the U.S. government. Who among them cares whether it's true?
Also from TFA:
Kenneth Gonzales, U.S. attorney for New Mexico, said the indictment does not allege the government of Venezuela or anyone acting on its behalf sought or was passed any classified information
So it doesn't appear the US gov't demonized anyone. They didn't write the Slashdot post (AFAIK) and didn't write the AP story.
I made a test case file and submitted it to Bugzilla. A few days later my reported bug is deleted, to be merged with the same bug report from *2005*
Nobody who works on Thunderbird felt like working on the bug. It's not a sexy bug, probably doesn't hit too many people, and has work arounds...so it's stayed in the software for ~6 years.
And yeah I know, I should go in and fix it myself. Maybe one day I will. In the meanwhile I'll keep using Mail.app and I'll move more users over to new versions of Outlook that actually seem somewhat decent, and we'll go from there.
How have Apple and Microsoft handled your bug reports for Mail.app and Outlook? Did the handle them like Mozilla, where you enter the bug directly in their internal bug databases, monitor the progress, participate in discussions with the developers, and even contribute development yourself? Or do you have no idea what the status is, no influence on the outcome, and no ability to contribute at all? Were the bugs even submitted to development? Were you able to find a way to submit them to Apple and Microsoft at all -- could you communicate with anyone beyond level 1 end user support technicians?
Every application has bugs as old as its first release-- have you seen the age of some Windows security vulnerabilities, going back over a decade? -- and your particular concern won't necessarily get fixed. But if you compare the experience of handling end user bugs at Mozilla with the same thing at Apple or Microsoft, well, there really is no comparison.
If you read the TFA, you will learn that the government of Venezuela was not involved at all. The accused didn't sell secrets to anyone but an undercover FBI agent. While trying to sell nuclear secrets to a foreign government is definitely a problem, it's not true that they were "giving nuclear secrets to Venezuela".
I wasn't interested in this at all, until I read that it was a young woman who made the post to Reddit. Now I'm definitely interested. Does anyone know what she looks like? I mean, being a woman implies she's old enough, and young is certainly promising, but you never know. Before I get involved in something like this, I definitely want to know what she looks like. I've been burned on more than one blind date and Internet romance. Also, of course, is she married? Is she dating anyone? How seriously? Is he socially conscious? Because I am, and that's usually my hook, because I'm not really like a jock or anything, but some girls are into that. Also, we both like Colbert, so that's something in common too. Anyway, if anyone gets her email address or some pics, please send them to me, because this seems like a really cool idea from a young woman.
I have a problem with the idea that since 90% of users is too stupid to deal with this (rather trivial) problem themselves, the government should step in and save us (or you, considering i'm not in the USA). This kind of thing is way beyond what the government should be doing, and only opens the door for more power-grabbing
Imagine if consumers could obtain information about the internal operations of corporations, and the corporations had no technical means of protecting themselves. I bet there would be a law then and nobody would be calling it power-grabbing (except a few people on/.)! Automotive safety regulations, the DMCA, homicide laws, and the Bill of Rights -- are they all power grabs?
Those with power like to argue that laws which restrict them are power-grabbing by the government (really, by their fellow citizens). Sure, if you already have power, you can take care of yourself and don't want to lose your ability to use it, and certainly your rights should be legally protected too. But one function of government is to protect the weak (e.g., from fraud, assault, theft, starvation, parental abuse, and dangerous chemicals).
It doesn't hurt, but I doubt it's much in their budgets either, especially split 3 ways. That's approx. one high-level employee per company, for one year.
Really? It's just a meme? Have you ever looked at the process by which a bill becomes law? Have you ever seen a regulatory agency, and how that law becomes policy? Have you ever read the news about cops enforcing the law, people getting tangled up in regulations? Do you even vote? The only guarantee with a regulation is that this incredibly messy process is what's going to pick the winners and losers.
Can you name a mechanism or institution that is not "messy"? Have you seen the way corporations work? The "free market"? In theory, they all work efficiently, as do government regulations. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
But in reality, everything is messy; it's the nature of human institutions. If our criteria is neatness, we might as well quit (or welcome our robotic overlords). Unfortunately, there's nothing inherently good or bad about the government or any of the alternatives. Problems seem simpler if we make absolute statements like, 'government -- bad', but they aren't realistic. In the end, we have to make messy decisions in a messy world.
Off-topic, I find that emoticons destroy the effectiveness of satire. "A Modest Proposal" wouldn't have been nearly as effective under the title "A Modest Proposal:)".
I agree and I love satire. But there's so much absurdity on the Internet, it's hard to tell when it's intentional. People knew Jonathan Swift didn't really want to cook their children. If someone posted that idea to a web forum, I wouldn't be so sure.
I was thinking the other day that we need more satire (and trolling!). It's the antidote to the obsessive, indulgent outrage that is posted everywhere. Thanks for reminding me how to do it well.
Well, I'm glad it was satire and always appreciate the form, and we agree about knee-jerk reactions in all forms. As I'm sure you know, many people make arguments like that seriously, so there's no way to tell if you were serious. My apologies. Have you considered emoticons?;)
I think what you are saying is reasonable, except I disagree with a couple of points:
there has always been a balance found, often falling into the general form of "If something has a reasonable expectation of being unobserved by the public, police need a warrant to observe it"
Agreed that has been the balance, AFAIK, but my point is that technology has made that balance obsolete. Because technology makes it simple to observe everything all the time, that balance gives too much power to the state.
Personally, my opinion is that knowing someone's location is not much of a problem. Likewise, video, audio, and heart rate are meaningless without context. In a court of law, there is a explicit right to defend yourself, and explain the context of anything that the prosecution may have. You have a right to examine the evidence against you in its entirety. If that right is violated, the evidence is likely to be eliminated, favoring a fair trial over conviction.
I agree about court, but the people in power have traditionally used many other powers. They can harass, embarrass, intimidate the political opposition, or simply utilize the info for more practical advantage (e.g., track your opponents, who they meet with, what they are planning, etc.). Look how McCarthy destroyed lives with 'secret' information, Nixon's dirty tricks, the FBI's spying on MLK's and publicizing his adultery, etc. Eventually, someone like that will be in power again; I think these tools are too powerful to give them.
Anyway, of course balance is the solution. Absolute answers provide certainty, making them more comforting and more ridiculous.
Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.
Why was the parent modded up? It's clever rhetoric, but it's obviously absurd. It might even be a troll (but people get more and more serious with their absurdity these days, so you never know).
What about my right to murder someone who looks at me funny? Should I have a right to torture you until you work for me? All but the most basic civilizations are based on the careful limiting of what people can do. If everyone respects those limits, the society runs smoothly....
Yes, you should outlaw yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Yes, you should take away the right for someone to murder others in the name of religion. Yes, you should place limits on the amount of hazardous materials a person can gather, or the amount of stuff they can take from others without paying, or the ability to have certain devices capable of quickly causing widespread harm.
Your argument is that murder and torture are "rights" that were taken away? And because there are some legal restrictions on behavior, we have no rights at all? Obviously you are joking. I hope it's a joke. It's as absurd as claiming absolute rights.
What essential right is actually being given up here? Where in the constitution does it require that police already know your actions before they can investigate them?
In the Fourth Amendment, where it says The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.. So yes, police need probable cause before they search your person, house, paper, and effects. For some reason the founding fathers didn't explicitly specify automobiles.
If my Fourth Amendment rights apply only in my house, they're almost useless, a mere technicality. I have to leave my house to live my life. Everything I do and own is at some point external to my house (e.g., books I read, phone calls I make, visitors, etc.), except for the things I build from scratch from the dirt under the basement and never take outside, and the thoughts in my head. Is that all that's protected?
The police can already do this. They can follow you by car, bike, helicopter, or on foot. They can check every license plate in the city. They don't need a warrant unless they start entering the conceptual ground of "search and seizure".
Here's the new issue and challenging part. We can't ignore the effect of technology. For example, the right to bear arms was established before there technology advanced and we created missiles; the technology changed things. The legality of police following someone was established before advances in information technology; that changes things too. We can't pretend that the old law applies just as before.
Using IT, the state could track record all movements of all citizens outside their homes, and even record them on video, monitor their heart rate, record their speech, etc (not now, but it's not far off). Many think that that would be a great invasion of privacy, create the tools of oppression (imagine McCarthy, Nixon, or J Edgar Hoover with that information), and effectively eliminate most of the rights in the Fourth Amendment.
So we need to find a new balance, but I think the general principle is that, however we interpret those rights in the era of information technology, the Fourth Amendment wasn't written in jest.
If you didn't anticipate it, you were being naive. How many people would turn away the money, when there is almost no risk associated? If someone at the NY Times took the money, they'd risk losing their job and if it was a systematic thing, the NY Times would lose readers, so there's an incentive. For bloggers, there's almost no incentive -- little chance of getting caught, and little chance of consequences if they are. How many do you think are so altruistic that they'd turn away the cash? (And I'm sure liberal bloggers do the same.)
Even major media gets away with it. News Corp (owners of Fox and the Wall Street Journal) just agave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. They are open advocates for the Republican party. Yet Fox News is the most popular cable channel, the Wall Street Journal is the most popular newspaper (or 2nd to USA Today?), and people like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck utter falsehoods and slander consistently, and are rewarded with the highest ratings on cable. Much of what bloggers write is just as bad. Why would taking some cash matter to their readers?
That's modded "funny"? Are we laughing at his ignorance, or with it? What do Slashdot members from India think? Unfortunately for 'Ethanol-fueled', living in the U.S. won't make him smarter than someone in India. On the other hand, getting out of his basement, learning from and about other people and cultures, and seeing the world a little is a great way to learn.
Sorry, the post makes many assumptions, such as the laws of microeconomics, the laws of thermodynamics, the continuing existence of roads on which to drive and money to spend, and, as you point out, basic scientific literacy among the people reading it.
The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more. Bicycles are even cheaper, if you ignore the cost of your time and of becoming a smear on the expressway. How about hitchhiking?.
Slashdot Mirror
I support many Thunderbird users and I've definitely seen the spellcheck bug. I've never seen the font change bug. Since you've seen it more than once, as a guess, maybe it's some customization implemented across the office (e.g., and addon?)
I don't think the spellcheck is very consequential -- just ignore it and move on -- and I support many Thunderbird users and they have not complained about it. I still wish it were fixed and Thunderbird could use some spit and polish, but overall our users love it. It's fast and efficient.
FOSS is a tool like any other: Good for some things, less good for other things. If you want a highly polished app, FOSS is often a poor choice; it doesn't seem to be in its DNA, at least for community-based projects. If you want professional support, that can also be a challenge with FOSS. If you want low purchase price, good functionality, security, confidentiality, access to highly technical resources (bug databases, developers, etc.), adherence to standards, etc., FOSS is pretty good.
As I responded to someone else, I was unaware of that and it is interesting. What are the differences? It seems to be open only to developers. Also, is there transparency -- can you see the status? Can you participate, either in the discussions or by contributing code?
Regardless, thanks for pointing it out.
Well, I admit I didn't know about that. Is it for Technet or MSDN members only, or can anyone participate? Is there transparency about the status of your bug?
I run a business that provides end user support and my experience differs. Of course some feel that way, but many do want transparency and participation. Per your comment above, apparently Microsoft seems to see demand for it too.
I don't think this is true. I submitted a bug about eight years ago on a similar problem, I think with Mozilla Suite (Firefox and Thunderbird's predecessor, now called Seamonkey), but haven't seen it in probably 7 years. We support many Firefox users and they don't have the problem. I used to volunteer in Mozilla's support forums, and while there were crashes, very few caused dataloss.
However, if you make your arguments more angrily, disparage others, and swear a little, I might be convinced!
Interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. In fairness though, it's for developers only, and does it provide the transparency and other benefits that Mozilla does?
Fission bomb is a technology that's more than half a century old. There isn't much secret to be stolen to build a crude bomb.
True, if you already have the materials. The knowledge of how to refine the uranium or plutonium is very hard to obtain.
Also from TFA:
So it doesn't appear the US gov't demonized anyone. They didn't write the Slashdot post (AFAIK) and didn't write the AP story.
How have Apple and Microsoft handled your bug reports for Mail.app and Outlook? Did the handle them like Mozilla, where you enter the bug directly in their internal bug databases, monitor the progress, participate in discussions with the developers, and even contribute development yourself? Or do you have no idea what the status is, no influence on the outcome, and no ability to contribute at all? Were the bugs even submitted to development? Were you able to find a way to submit them to Apple and Microsoft at all -- could you communicate with anyone beyond level 1 end user support technicians?
Every application has bugs as old as its first release-- have you seen the age of some Windows security vulnerabilities, going back over a decade? -- and your particular concern won't necessarily get fixed. But if you compare the experience of handling end user bugs at Mozilla with the same thing at Apple or Microsoft, well, there really is no comparison.
If you read the TFA, you will learn that the government of Venezuela was not involved at all. The accused didn't sell secrets to anyone but an undercover FBI agent. While trying to sell nuclear secrets to a foreign government is definitely a problem, it's not true that they were "giving nuclear secrets to Venezuela".
Uhhh ... I think we already met. I definitely remember you.
I wasn't interested in this at all, until I read that it was a young woman who made the post to Reddit. Now I'm definitely interested. Does anyone know what she looks like? I mean, being a woman implies she's old enough, and young is certainly promising, but you never know. Before I get involved in something like this, I definitely want to know what she looks like. I've been burned on more than one blind date and Internet romance. Also, of course, is she married? Is she dating anyone? How seriously? Is he socially conscious? Because I am, and that's usually my hook, because I'm not really like a jock or anything, but some girls are into that. Also, we both like Colbert, so that's something in common too. Anyway, if anyone gets her email address or some pics, please send them to me, because this seems like a really cool idea from a young woman.
I have a problem with the idea that since 90% of users is too stupid to deal with this (rather trivial) problem themselves, the government should step in and save us (or you, considering i'm not in the USA). This kind of thing is way beyond what the government should be doing, and only opens the door for more power-grabbing
Imagine if consumers could obtain information about the internal operations of corporations, and the corporations had no technical means of protecting themselves. I bet there would be a law then and nobody would be calling it power-grabbing (except a few people on /.)! Automotive safety regulations, the DMCA, homicide laws, and the Bill of Rights -- are they all power grabs?
Those with power like to argue that laws which restrict them are power-grabbing by the government (really, by their fellow citizens). Sure, if you already have power, you can take care of yourself and don't want to lose your ability to use it, and certainly your rights should be legally protected too. But one function of government is to protect the weak (e.g., from fraud, assault, theft, starvation, parental abuse, and dangerous chemicals).
For them a sum of $475,000 is quite a lot
It doesn't hurt, but I doubt it's much in their budgets either, especially split 3 ways. That's approx. one high-level employee per company, for one year.
$475,000
Not even a bump on a decimal point on a rounding error in NASA's budget. Signifies nothing.
Adblock/host-file
Helpful to you and me, though not a complete solution. More importantly in this context, it's not really a something a typical end user can manage.
Really? It's just a meme? Have you ever looked at the process by which a bill becomes law? Have you ever seen a regulatory agency, and how that law becomes policy? Have you ever read the news about cops enforcing the law, people getting tangled up in regulations? Do you even vote? The only guarantee with a regulation is that this incredibly messy process is what's going to pick the winners and losers.
Can you name a mechanism or institution that is not "messy"? Have you seen the way corporations work? The "free market"? In theory, they all work efficiently, as do government regulations. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
But in reality, everything is messy; it's the nature of human institutions. If our criteria is neatness, we might as well quit (or welcome our robotic overlords). Unfortunately, there's nothing inherently good or bad about the government or any of the alternatives. Problems seem simpler if we make absolute statements like, 'government -- bad', but they aren't realistic. In the end, we have to make messy decisions in a messy world.
Maybe you could add a "whitelist this site for cookies y/n?" query right after "do you want to save the password for this site"?
The CS Lite addon does what you want (for Firefox):
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5207/
I agree and I love satire. But there's so much absurdity on the Internet, it's hard to tell when it's intentional. People knew Jonathan Swift didn't really want to cook their children. If someone posted that idea to a web forum, I wouldn't be so sure.
I was thinking the other day that we need more satire (and trolling!). It's the antidote to the obsessive, indulgent outrage that is posted everywhere. Thanks for reminding me how to do it well.
Well, I'm glad it was satire and always appreciate the form, and we agree about knee-jerk reactions in all forms. As I'm sure you know, many people make arguments like that seriously, so there's no way to tell if you were serious. My apologies. Have you considered emoticons? ;)
I think what you are saying is reasonable, except I disagree with a couple of points:
Agreed that has been the balance, AFAIK, but my point is that technology has made that balance obsolete. Because technology makes it simple to observe everything all the time, that balance gives too much power to the state.
I agree about court, but the people in power have traditionally used many other powers. They can harass, embarrass, intimidate the political opposition, or simply utilize the info for more practical advantage (e.g., track your opponents, who they meet with, what they are planning, etc.). Look how McCarthy destroyed lives with 'secret' information, Nixon's dirty tricks, the FBI's spying on MLK's and publicizing his adultery, etc. Eventually, someone like that will be in power again; I think these tools are too powerful to give them.
Anyway, of course balance is the solution. Absolute answers provide certainty, making them more comforting and more ridiculous.
Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.
Why was the parent modded up? It's clever rhetoric, but it's obviously absurd. It might even be a troll (but people get more and more serious with their absurdity these days, so you never know).
Your argument is that murder and torture are "rights" that were taken away? And because there are some legal restrictions on behavior, we have no rights at all? Obviously you are joking. I hope it's a joke. It's as absurd as claiming absolute rights.
In the Fourth Amendment, where it says The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.. So yes, police need probable cause before they search your person, house, paper, and effects. For some reason the founding fathers didn't explicitly specify automobiles.
If my Fourth Amendment rights apply only in my house, they're almost useless, a mere technicality. I have to leave my house to live my life. Everything I do and own is at some point external to my house (e.g., books I read, phone calls I make, visitors, etc.), except for the things I build from scratch from the dirt under the basement and never take outside, and the thoughts in my head. Is that all that's protected?
Here's the new issue and challenging part. We can't ignore the effect of technology. For example, the right to bear arms was established before there technology advanced and we created missiles; the technology changed things. The legality of police following someone was established before advances in information technology; that changes things too. We can't pretend that the old law applies just as before.
Using IT, the state could track record all movements of all citizens outside their homes, and even record them on video, monitor their heart rate, record their speech, etc (not now, but it's not far off). Many think that that would be a great invasion of privacy, create the tools of oppression (imagine McCarthy, Nixon, or J Edgar Hoover with that information), and effectively eliminate most of the rights in the Fourth Amendment.
So we need to find a new balance, but I think the general principle is that, however we interpret those rights in the era of information technology, the Fourth Amendment wasn't written in jest.
If you didn't anticipate it, you were being naive. How many people would turn away the money, when there is almost no risk associated? If someone at the NY Times took the money, they'd risk losing their job and if it was a systematic thing, the NY Times would lose readers, so there's an incentive. For bloggers, there's almost no incentive -- little chance of getting caught, and little chance of consequences if they are. How many do you think are so altruistic that they'd turn away the cash? (And I'm sure liberal bloggers do the same.)
Even major media gets away with it. News Corp (owners of Fox and the Wall Street Journal) just agave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. They are open advocates for the Republican party. Yet Fox News is the most popular cable channel, the Wall Street Journal is the most popular newspaper (or 2nd to USA Today?), and people like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck utter falsehoods and slander consistently, and are rewarded with the highest ratings on cable. Much of what bloggers write is just as bad. Why would taking some cash matter to their readers?
Readers get what they demand.
That's modded "funny"? Are we laughing at his ignorance, or with it? What do Slashdot members from India think? Unfortunately for 'Ethanol-fueled', living in the U.S. won't make him smarter than someone in India. On the other hand, getting out of his basement, learning from and about other people and cultures, and seeing the world a little is a great way to learn.
Sorry, the post makes many assumptions, such as the laws of microeconomics, the laws of thermodynamics, the continuing existence of roads on which to drive and money to spend, and, as you point out, basic scientific literacy among the people reading it.
How about trolling?
A side benefit to posting on /. It keeps people at their computers longer and away from their cars.
The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more. Bicycles are even cheaper, if you ignore the cost of your time and of becoming a smear on the expressway. How about hitchhiking?.
From TFA:
That doesn't invalidate it, but it's important for readers to know and should probably be in the summary.