Google is creating a single, simple, privacy policy (GOOD!)
The policy includes provisions that allow Google to share data with Google - that is, if you go to site.owned-by-google.com, and then go to also.owned-by-google.com, Google will use the information that you put on both sites, consolidate it, and use it to select what ads to show you. (OH NOES! BAAAD!)
Now, the billion dollar question: the second point is a surprise to me and probably 99% of the people here. Why? Because I pretty much thought Google already did that. I mean, why wouldn't they? When I'm on GMail and Google Maps and Google Plus I have a big bar on the top of the screen reminding me I'm logged into the Google.
Is it evil? Well, depends really on what they do with that information. If they make an agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield that anyone searching for the words "Cancer symptoms" will automatically have their name, address, and social security number sent to blacklist@bcbs.com, then yeah. If, on the other hand, they use it so that ads.google.com/showad.pl?customer=wb serves an ad for "Underworld" because you watched all the vampire shows on Youtube, received email from someone called "megagoth@yahoo.com", and did a Google images search for "women in black latex catsuits", then so what?
And there's the rub. We pretty much know what Google does with this information. It's using it to select ads for us to see. I can see how collecting data enables Google to do evil, but I don't think collecting data requires Google do evil. Google can keep the information private, and use it to provide a service that's useful for advertisers and, to some extent, advertisees alike. That's not evil. And to the best of my knowledge (that is, nobody's reported evidence of the contrary) that's what Google does.
I really don't see this as being anything other than another fake controversy covering a company that's made a lot of enemies lately.
All revenue stream ideas are not equal. There's a world of difference between setting up a music store or cloud storage service, and changing a referrer id so Amazon gives you a kickback instead of the original developers. The ones you picked on were Canonical getting it right.
Porting lab? Largely unnecessary. The Wine people really do have 90% of that covered. I took a chance and installed Wine recently and thus far not had a single game downloaded from Steam that didn't work either right away, or with a minor, well documented, configuration fix. Even GTA-IV. That one's a miracle, given the degree to which it taxes the graphics card and the weakness of my own. And custom bespoke software is either being done in.NET or Java right now - and 90% of the time, when it's Java, it's running under GNU/Linux.
I think the right approach is looking for services Ubuntu users might buy. There's a lot more that Canonical could be doing and offering, but what they're doing is a good start.
Work with Google/Android to produce a true dual UI - a good desktop UI and a tablet UI, that are distinct but can easily be supported by a single application. Right now the direction Ubuntu is going in is to be a mediocre version of both.
Listen to your users. Users don't hate the launch bar, they just want it better designed and more flexible. When everyone's hitting the hack you put in to deal with too many icons filling the bar, you're doing it wrong. (Also - launch bar should respect multiple workspaces, and please fix the menu bar - at the very least, stop hiding it. It does nothing for usability if you don't know where "File" is before you move the mouse.)
Stop replacing slightly imperfect software with the latest greatest not-as-good stuff. Banshee is terrible, there was never anything wrong with Rhythmbox. Banshee, on the other hand, uses 100% CPU and memory on a regular Netbook. Read that again. An MP3 player uses 100% CPU and memory on one of the most popular classes of PC.
Likewise, if the latest version of something is mediocre, don't be afraid to install an older version as default. Most of us would be delighted with Firefox 3.6.
Concentrate on the holes. Tweaking the UI is one thing, but there's still no centralized workstation management (for example) in Ubuntu. Where is "Ubuntu Directory Server"? Why is there not integration out of the box with Active Directory? These kinds of things may not be interesting to home users and people who just want to tinker, but they're critical to corporate acceptance, and right now Ubuntu's support for LDAP and Kerberos is limited to a bunch of inaccurate, misleading, HOWTOs.
None of the above are radical suggestions. None prevent Canonical from pushing the system forward, indeed point 1 is actually both advancing the free desktop significantly and ensuring Ubuntu and Android stand a chance against Windows 8.
BTW Ubuntu One, Ubuntu Music, etc, are all about actually getting some revenue streams in. If they're profitable, Canonical absolutely should be doing that.
This functionality is not remotely related to either the shell or Alt-F2. Essentially this is Canonical working in the same space as Microsoft did when it created the ribbon - deciding drop-down menus within applications aren't the right way for users to access advanced functionality, and trying to come up with an alternative.
This isn't about typing "Alt-F2 Gimp", it's about typing "View source" when you're in Firefox and getting the source to the current page.
Is it dumb, stupid, pointless, and typical of the problems Ubuntu is facing at the moment? Probably, although I haven't tried it so it might be worthwhile, but quite honestly, menus are visual and organized in an easy to navigate way, I still can't stand the ribbon and I can't see much point in this feature either, it strikes me as having the same problems. Given developers still can't decide whether the control panel for their application should be called "Preferences" or "Options" (or "Customize"), how the hell is a user supposed to pick the right one if they can't even look at a neatly categorized list that's organized roughly the same way in 90% of apps across three different current desktop platforms? At least today all you have to worry about is whether it's under Edit or Tools.
But, for the love of APK, please stop with the "I can do this already... it's called the Bourne Shell!!!! +7 INSIGHTFUL" crap. No, you can't. Hell, you couldn't even do it with AREXX on the Amiga and that was halfway there.
Also if what you're saying about Shuttleworth's goals is true, why hasn't Shuttleworth left Canonical?
LTS has never been for software that's already stable. Traditionally LTS releases are the most buggy versions upon launch. No system administrator jumps from one LTS to another without waiting a few months for Canonical to get the kinks out.
When people talk about "stability" with LTS releases they're talking about it being unchanging, not being free of bugs. Because it's unchanging Canonical usually makes sure LTS releases come with the latest greatest of everything, because three years down the line it's still going to be stuck with that version of everything - with bug fixes of course.
It sounds counter intuitive, but it wouldn't make sense for something you need to support for three to five years to come with software that's "tried and tested" - because that'd mean a distribution that's obsolete long before its support period is up.
It sounds to me you are assuming that Israel is acting like Britain did, and carry on from there as if it is fact.
No, you're taking it further than I wrote. What I said is that there are parallels, that Britain's behavior was, indeed, condemned internationally, and that there are lessons to be learned. I believe the parallels are closer than you do, but not as close as you appear to think I do.
There are a few major distinctions. First, Britain was never in any existential danger. The Irish never threatened to kill all Brits, and neither did anyone else.
Well Britain (as a whole - ie England, Scotland, and Wales) wasn't founded suddenly, with a large population of Irish/Celts living there already finding the state that now ruled them being designed to promote and protect a culture that wasn't their's. As for Ireland, I'd be very surprised if there weren't calls from Irish leaders at the time Britain invaded and took control for exactly what you propose never happened, but that was centuries ago, long before the establishment of newspapers and other media that would record anything other than the positions of the victors.
What the hell do you think happened back then? "Oh noes, my land has just been given over to someone else after my country was invaded by the British. Well, isn't that a shame, I'll just sit here and take it. I mean, I can't really hate the British for it, it's not their fault, they live under a monarchy for goodness sake! Live and let live, that's my motto."
I appreciate the Irish people are known for being laid back, but that's just absurd.
Well, guess what. Israel withdrew from all of the Gaza strip, evacuating all of the settlements there. Not only did the Palestinian reaction not be to increase the acceptance (quite the contrary), the international reaction wasn't either. No attempt to stop the missiles from Gaza on Israeli civilians. After that move, you will be hard pressed to convince any right thinking Israeli that simply withdrawing from the west bank is going to end the hostilities. All people look at, and rightly so, is the fire radius of the west bank border to where most of the Jewish population reside.
Why would you expect a partial withdrawal from the territories in question, with only partial acceptance of self government for that area, to end (or significantly relieve) tensions? I appreciate it might seem a big step, but if it doesn't even come close to solving and ending the underlying injustices, then what's the point?
Parallel - Britain actually withdrew from Eire in the 1940s, following attempts to create semi-self government schemes in the half century before in both Eire and the North. Did it end terrorism? Was the fact that Northern Ireland was mostly Scott-Irish considered an adequate justification for keeping that small sliver of land to those in Ireland and those who supported the IRA abroad?
No, of course not. It was certainly well meant, as was Britain's termination of self-rule for the North in the early seventies, but it was always going to need a hell of a lot more to deal with the situation.
Israel has a number of things going against it, which are not going to be addressed overnight, and much of the problem is that the very concept is flawed. A government that represents all people living under its jurisdiction is not founded as a "Jewish State" or "Celtic State" or "Aryan State" or whatever. And states that have come into existence because of International dictat have rarely started on the right foot either.
Can it be solved while keeping Israel's character and role as a "Jewish state"? Probably not. I can't see how that can work. I know it's well meant, I'm glad there was at least a gut feeling Internationally post-1945 that there needed to be some protection for a traditionally discriminated against group. But I don't think giving over a large chunk of
If it wants people in the US to be wealthy enough to buy its products, hell yes it has an obligation to the US economy.
The joke here is that TFA is estimating something like a 10-15% increase in money cost for a US made iPhone, while failing to take into account the likely rise in median incomes that would have happened since the mid-nineties if US corporations hadn't been in such a rush to lay off their employees and moves jobs overseas. This is a classic race to the bottom, or tragedy of the commons, and yes, Apple acted against its own interests by undermining the economy it relies upon.
The answer, of course, is right there in your reply. But decades of war, terrorism, and defensiveness has left many unable to see it. And I'd remind you too that the Israeli state is set up for a specific "race" or "religion", not as a government for those who live within its jurisdiction. That is my concern. You talked about a "(well you meant British people) State" vs a "Jewish State", and that went to the heart of my problem with it - there is no British state, at least, not in the same sense. Britain is set up for the people who live within its borders.
Israel can run itself in the same way, and I see you arguing it does, but it's a fiction to argue that's what Israel represents.
Look, I actually forgot something in my original comment, which was to address one similar situation that us Brits and ex-Brits are all too familiar with, Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has some similarities, except what Israel is doing today (or rather, in modern history) that concerns many of us started in Ireland several centuries ago. Britain annexed Ireland, looked at the most attractive part - the North - and sent in settlers, mostly jackasses from Scotland as it happens (I say this because it explains a lot when you realize that many of those settlers went on to settle the US deep south and take a similar role in oppressing blacks) to take over the lands owned by those already living there.
Centuries later, it would be false to argue it's not still a problem although we're finally seeing some movement in the right direction, and there's at least a temporary peace that'll last until at least the protestant majority there gets defensive again and start using their power to oppress the large, native, minority.
Until I moved to the US, I lived under the threat of terrorism most of my life, and I didn't even live in Northern Ireland. The IRA would plant bombs in train station trash cans and under tables in pubs. I may not have been in as much danger as someone living in the occupied territories, but, mind you, I would have been had I lived in Belfast, in the thick of it.
My sympathies ultimately are, and were, with those suffering oppression and a lack of representation in Northern Ireland. The governmental structure set up to govern that area did not protect them. Their basic civil rights were curtailed, and propagandists, as with Israel, focussed on the reactions of those who fought back rather than the basic legitimacy of the constitution of that area.
And that's actually the position of most people I know. International reaction has always been critical of Britain's overall handling of Northern Ireland except when Britain has tried to deal with the injustices. And actually, people in Britain I know feel the same way!
This isn't a double standard. We're not singling out Israel. Yes, we know you guys have a lot of terrorism, but you're hardly unique in that.
In my view, building a state for a people, rather than for all the people who live within its jurisdiction, is an error, and that's what makes me a non-Zionist. In my view, and in the view of many others, occupying a territory and sending in settlers to take over the lands of those already living within its borders, is not merely unjust, but a terrible mistake, confirmed by centuries of history. And Israel's defenders are not doing their country any favors at all by simply sliming anyone who points this out as "anti-semitic".
Not the same thing as forming governments that discriminate in favor of one race/religion/etc opposed to another. If the Czech government were to actually discriminate against Slovaks, or vice versa, you can bet there would be international outrage.
As an ex-Brit, I can tell you that there's no real strong wish for a "British state" there (I assume you meant that rather than English) - self government, yes, but on the basis of those who live in Britain, not simply people who trace their heritage to King Arthur or, for that matter, members of the Church of England. Britain's mostly fine with immigration, and the desire is that people who come in join in with the community, practice good citizenship, and contribute culturally and economically. While the Church of England has a constitutional position in United Kingdom Government, the UK government does not, in practice, allow it to control UK policy, or discriminate against those who live under its dictates.
In fact, countries that have decided to govern in support of one group of people who live there over another has, in fact, always been condemned in recent International history, with the exception of Israel, and kinda-sorta the Vatican.
Personally speaking, I think the idea of a large piece of land with people living on it since birth being given over to a "race" or, slightly less evily, those who practice a specific religion, is distasteful. The government of that land needs to represent the people who live there, not a particular group. I understand the sentiment that the Jews are a special case in that they've suffered centuries of discrimination, ultimately resulting on pogroms and the holocaust, but I'm not convinced that the right way to correct an injustice and deal with centuries of hatred is to create a new injustice. I am not, personally, a Zionist.
All of which is somewhat beside the point. With few exceptions, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not questioned by those being smeared. The people who are branded "anti-semitic" are rarely, actually, anti-Zionist. What they generally criticize are:
1. The policies of the State of Israel, with particular regard to its treatment of a group of people who were born on land, and whose parents and grandparents, were born on land, now controlled by Israel.
2. The unqualified support given by some US politicians to Israel's security, on occasion apparently at the expense of the US itself.
These criticisms, even when qualified with a general feeling that "The Jews have been discriminated against for centuries, they deserve somewhere they can consider a safe home", cause writers who state them to be branded anti-semitic. The end result is damaging to our discourse and our ability to do the right things. And it's arguable that, in the end, the mentality does not help Israel in the slightest. In the long run, without pressure to move forward, Israel risks becoming a South Africa.
"Rich whitey" is essentially the ruling class. If they weren't ruling, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. There's no entity out there randomly doling out cash and letting you keep it. And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.
Should we "hate" (or rather, criticize) them? I don't "hate" many of these guys but I don't think there's anything wrong with distrusting, criticizing, and attacking those in power.
In fact, unless they're working to spread the power down to all of us, I see it as a moral duty.
Yep. Next time I'll use the humor-while-making-a-point font;-)
It is unfortunate that it's hard at this point to know what someone means by "Anti-semitic". I knew there was a 90% chance it genuinely was a hateful SSID, but the degree to which people are slapping the term on anything meant there was always that 10% chance it was a comment that was anti-Israel, or something otherwise innocent.
It's a shame the word "anti-semitic" has been rendered virtually meaningless lately. It used to mean something about hating or discriminating against Jews.
Ping of death was corrected in most OS around 2000, but there are NT boxes & even 9x boxes out there still - so, ping CAN still issue a "ping of death" - fact!
No, it can't. No mainstream operating system has ever shipped with a version of ping that outputs malformed ping packets, let alone ping packets malformed in a way that would cause a PoD. Ever. Exploiting the PoD requires a specially written tool to output a malformed ping packet. You cannot use the ping command to do that.
If I'm wrong, it's fairly easy to prove. Show me the bug report that reports to Microsoft, Canonical, or Apple, that the ping command shipped with their system outputs malformed ping packets. And in the mean time, demonstrate for me how a Windows 7 machine can crash an unpatched Windows 95 machine using the ping command. Don't just handwave and claim it's "fact", put up or shut up. Tell me the exact command line to issue from a Windows 7 Administrator cmd.exe window to crash a Windows 95 machine whose IP address is 10.0.0.1.
You won't because you can't. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about. You've never known what you're talking about. The same thing goes for the "Spybot SAD" hosts file modification thing. You don't understand why CA was asking about modifying HOSTS, which interestingly enough probably means you unintentionally fed false information to them about the operation of your application.
You claim your app isn't scriptable, yet also claim it's "two lines of code" which means it cannot possibly verify that the application its hiding is what you intended it to be. So it is scriptable, and it is usable by a malware writer. Which is probably why most malware organizations still report the software as malware.
Meanwhile you post here over and over again with increasingly ridiculous assertions about your work and knowledge, and cannot understand it when a bunch of us find it hilarious and needle you over it.
If you know of a way to use the ping command to exploit the PoD please post it here. More importantly, make sure Microsoft, Canonical/GNU, the various *BSD groups, and Apple are made aware of it immediately. If their ping utilities, as shipped, are outputting malformed packets, then they have major bugs in them. You would be utterly irresponsible not to let them know.
Let me put it this way. I just had to kill and restart Firefox (FF9) because it went into swap hell again. I'm using it on a 1.5G Ubuntu VM (which may not be huge, but it's 50% more memory than a Netbook, and last I heard we're still supporting those, right? Also: when did a glorified rich text viewer start needing gigabytes to run?)
How many tabs open? About 15. How much memory in use at the time? It claimed less than a gig.
What mistake did I make? Actually, I've noticed that if I have more than ten tabs open, I can pretty much cause swap hell by starting (and closing) a PDF in Evince - which needless to say, happens frequently when browsing anyway. Somehow Evince loading is enough to injure Firefox, permanently.
I've just upgraded to the preview of FF10 via http://ppa.launchpad.net/mozillateam/firefox-next/ubuntu/. We'll see what happens. I'm not holding my breath, I've heard the "Oh, you're not running the very latest release" thing for a while now - I do upgrade, I still get the same problem.
Oh, and no problems with Chrome which has many more tabs open, but is still responsive.
The history and profile thing is a new one, but guess what: I don't want to lose my history, bookmarks, cookies, and everything else. If storing a user's profile is sub-optimal, perhaps that's something that needs fixing too?
Anyone tired of this "Blah blah anyone who says Chrome is faster than Firefox is lying, my stack of independent benchmarks show that Firefox doesn't use any RAM any more at all and Chrome is the memory hog and BTW Firefox are starting Memory Optimization Initiative #94 which undermines my claim that Firefox is suddenly memory efficient but I'm going to pounce on it anyway and pretend it validates everything I've flamed people over."
This article exists because:
Firefox has severe memory problems
Everyone knows it
The "benchmarks" everyone keeps going on about do not accurately model real world behavior. Most of us have seen, with our own eyes, Firefox going into swap hell after a day or two - and often after an hour or two - of real usage
Your comment exists because:
People are switching to Chrome in droves
Chrome is a horrible browser, for the reasons you give and more
That's HOW BAD the situation is with Firefox. We love Firefox. We want to use it. We just need to have things that Chrome gives us, you know, like a scroll bar that works in real time, and the ability to click on a tab and see a response rather than waiting for half a minute while the disk grinds.
To be honest, I can only repeat what I've said a million times before. Mozilla needs to ditch Firefox 4+, and go back to the 3.6 code base. And if they don't, someone with enough momentum (Canonical?) needs to fork 3.6 for them.
I really wish installing Firefox 3.6 on my otherwise up-to-date Ubuntu system was trivial and not going to break anything. Despite all the Mozilla people claiming otherwise, FF3.6 was genuinely better than every version I've tried since. It was more memory efficient.
I fairly recently benchmarked running versions of Chrome and Firefox - not the artificial tests where someone boots the browsers up and loads a set number of tabs and measures then, but tested them both after at least 48 hours of real use. Chrome was using less memory, despite having many times as many tabs open. Firefox was stuttering, with every attempt to change tab or scroll the page causing disk page thrashing.
I don't like Chrome, and it's a measure of the degree to which Firefox has fallen that I'm using it 90% of the time. I hope this article isn't yet another "Sure, Mozilla is finally taking memory usage seriously!" article that means nothing in practice.
It'll affect a relatively low number of neighborhoods, essentially those with an extremely high proportion of one race, and the quota will disappear as soon as it's filled. I don't see why there would be that many people resenting it. If 5% of homes must be owned by ethnic minorities, then it'd stand to reason that even in an environment in which neighborhoods are currently 100% white, 100% latino, 100% black, etc, at worst 5% of whites would be affected.
I don't see that we're talking about much lower prices either. The homes in my neighborhood, which seems to be a predominantly white area, aren't especially expensive right now, and aren't much lower than the predominately black area across the highway. Everyone who's upset about this who isn't upset because of the whole "OMG! BLACK PEOPLE LIVING NEXT DOOR!" element seems to be obsessed with edge cases.
Whatever the right solution is, it's time to do something about it.
Oh just ignore it. The principle, long established by dittoheads, is to take any accusation of racism and respond with "I'm not a racist, you're a racist". It's idiotic, it ignores the fundamental issues, but the idea is to try to get liberals on the defensive. If you do that, you don't need to address the fundamental issues they're complaining about.
The person you're responding to doesn't care, in all honesty, about whether I might have implied that the underlying cause of the racism shown by many posters in this thread might be fixed by legal mandates that encourage people of different races to live in the same neighborhoods. What he wants is the status quo.
So, lets say I have my house on the market for 6 months, and in the time only 3 families come and offer the price I want. But they all happen to be White. Are you suggesting that I should be forced to keep my house on the market even longer until a family of a race that you approve of comes along?
No, you're not forced to do anything. You have two choices: you can sell to a black family at a fair market value, or you can wait it out for other homes to be sold so you can sell your home at a higher price to a richer white person.
It's your choice ultimately. If you don't like the choice, tough. Those are the breaks of propping up, either pro-actively or through inaction, an unofficial apartheid system which, regretfully, exists in many places in the US.
I don't see your point. Are you trying to imply that that's somehow my problem if they can't?
Yes, it is your problem. Why would you think it isn't?
Really, I don't care. You're asking me to be against negative discrimination against a group that generally benefits from discrimination (people like me) to correct centuries of contemptable discrimination.
Does affirmative action have a place in a civil society? A better question is: does a civil society have any need for affirmative action?
Once we've dealt with the neighborhood problem, and after a few decades of blacks and whites, you know, actually living together and treating each other as equals, we'll have that civil society you're talking about. We'll discuss ending positive discrimination then, mmm 'kay?
Slashdot Mirror
Alright: the article says two things:
Now, the billion dollar question: the second point is a surprise to me and probably 99% of the people here. Why? Because I pretty much thought Google already did that. I mean, why wouldn't they? When I'm on GMail and Google Maps and Google Plus I have a big bar on the top of the screen reminding me I'm logged into the Google.
Is it evil? Well, depends really on what they do with that information. If they make an agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield that anyone searching for the words "Cancer symptoms" will automatically have their name, address, and social security number sent to blacklist@bcbs.com, then yeah. If, on the other hand, they use it so that ads.google.com/showad.pl?customer=wb serves an ad for "Underworld" because you watched all the vampire shows on Youtube, received email from someone called "megagoth@yahoo.com", and did a Google images search for "women in black latex catsuits", then so what?
And there's the rub. We pretty much know what Google does with this information. It's using it to select ads for us to see. I can see how collecting data enables Google to do evil, but I don't think collecting data requires Google do evil. Google can keep the information private, and use it to provide a service that's useful for advertisers and, to some extent, advertisees alike. That's not evil. And to the best of my knowledge (that is, nobody's reported evidence of the contrary) that's what Google does.
I really don't see this as being anything other than another fake controversy covering a company that's made a lot of enemies lately.
All revenue stream ideas are not equal. There's a world of difference between setting up a music store or cloud storage service, and changing a referrer id so Amazon gives you a kickback instead of the original developers. The ones you picked on were Canonical getting it right.
Porting lab? Largely unnecessary. The Wine people really do have 90% of that covered. I took a chance and installed Wine recently and thus far not had a single game downloaded from Steam that didn't work either right away, or with a minor, well documented, configuration fix. Even GTA-IV. That one's a miracle, given the degree to which it taxes the graphics card and the weakness of my own. And custom bespoke software is either being done in .NET or Java right now - and 90% of the time, when it's Java, it's running under GNU/Linux.
I think the right approach is looking for services Ubuntu users might buy. There's a lot more that Canonical could be doing and offering, but what they're doing is a good start.
If Ubuntu has ever executed on that, it's a recent policy. Ubuntu LTS releases are infamous for having overly untested software installed.
My list of things Ubuntu needs to do are:
None of the above are radical suggestions. None prevent Canonical from pushing the system forward, indeed point 1 is actually both advancing the free desktop significantly and ensuring Ubuntu and Android stand a chance against Windows 8.
BTW Ubuntu One, Ubuntu Music, etc, are all about actually getting some revenue streams in. If they're profitable, Canonical absolutely should be doing that.
This functionality is not remotely related to either the shell or Alt-F2. Essentially this is Canonical working in the same space as Microsoft did when it created the ribbon - deciding drop-down menus within applications aren't the right way for users to access advanced functionality, and trying to come up with an alternative.
This isn't about typing "Alt-F2 Gimp", it's about typing "View source" when you're in Firefox and getting the source to the current page.
Is it dumb, stupid, pointless, and typical of the problems Ubuntu is facing at the moment? Probably, although I haven't tried it so it might be worthwhile, but quite honestly, menus are visual and organized in an easy to navigate way, I still can't stand the ribbon and I can't see much point in this feature either, it strikes me as having the same problems. Given developers still can't decide whether the control panel for their application should be called "Preferences" or "Options" (or "Customize"), how the hell is a user supposed to pick the right one if they can't even look at a neatly categorized list that's organized roughly the same way in 90% of apps across three different current desktop platforms? At least today all you have to worry about is whether it's under Edit or Tools.
But, for the love of APK, please stop with the "I can do this already... it's called the Bourne Shell!!!! +7 INSIGHTFUL" crap. No, you can't. Hell, you couldn't even do it with AREXX on the Amiga and that was halfway there.
Also if what you're saying about Shuttleworth's goals is true, why hasn't Shuttleworth left Canonical?
LTS has never been for software that's already stable. Traditionally LTS releases are the most buggy versions upon launch. No system administrator jumps from one LTS to another without waiting a few months for Canonical to get the kinks out.
When people talk about "stability" with LTS releases they're talking about it being unchanging, not being free of bugs. Because it's unchanging Canonical usually makes sure LTS releases come with the latest greatest of everything, because three years down the line it's still going to be stuck with that version of everything - with bug fixes of course.
It sounds counter intuitive, but it wouldn't make sense for something you need to support for three to five years to come with software that's "tried and tested" - because that'd mean a distribution that's obsolete long before its support period is up.
No, you're taking it further than I wrote. What I said is that there are parallels, that Britain's behavior was, indeed, condemned internationally, and that there are lessons to be learned. I believe the parallels are closer than you do, but not as close as you appear to think I do.
Well Britain (as a whole - ie England, Scotland, and Wales) wasn't founded suddenly, with a large population of Irish/Celts living there already finding the state that now ruled them being designed to promote and protect a culture that wasn't their's. As for Ireland, I'd be very surprised if there weren't calls from Irish leaders at the time Britain invaded and took control for exactly what you propose never happened, but that was centuries ago, long before the establishment of newspapers and other media that would record anything other than the positions of the victors.
What the hell do you think happened back then? "Oh noes, my land has just been given over to someone else after my country was invaded by the British. Well, isn't that a shame, I'll just sit here and take it. I mean, I can't really hate the British for it, it's not their fault, they live under a monarchy for goodness sake! Live and let live, that's my motto."
I appreciate the Irish people are known for being laid back, but that's just absurd.
Why would you expect a partial withdrawal from the territories in question, with only partial acceptance of self government for that area, to end (or significantly relieve) tensions? I appreciate it might seem a big step, but if it doesn't even come close to solving and ending the underlying injustices, then what's the point?
Parallel - Britain actually withdrew from Eire in the 1940s, following attempts to create semi-self government schemes in the half century before in both Eire and the North. Did it end terrorism? Was the fact that Northern Ireland was mostly Scott-Irish considered an adequate justification for keeping that small sliver of land to those in Ireland and those who supported the IRA abroad?
No, of course not. It was certainly well meant, as was Britain's termination of self-rule for the North in the early seventies, but it was always going to need a hell of a lot more to deal with the situation.
Israel has a number of things going against it, which are not going to be addressed overnight, and much of the problem is that the very concept is flawed. A government that represents all people living under its jurisdiction is not founded as a "Jewish State" or "Celtic State" or "Aryan State" or whatever. And states that have come into existence because of International dictat have rarely started on the right foot either.
Can it be solved while keeping Israel's character and role as a "Jewish state"? Probably not. I can't see how that can work. I know it's well meant, I'm glad there was at least a gut feeling Internationally post-1945 that there needed to be some protection for a traditionally discriminated against group. But I don't think giving over a large chunk of
It doesn't work. Look what happened to Sony. Turned evil the moment they bought a major movie studio.
If it wants people in the US to be wealthy enough to buy its products, hell yes it has an obligation to the US economy.
The joke here is that TFA is estimating something like a 10-15% increase in money cost for a US made iPhone, while failing to take into account the likely rise in median incomes that would have happened since the mid-nineties if US corporations hadn't been in such a rush to lay off their employees and moves jobs overseas. This is a classic race to the bottom, or tragedy of the commons, and yes, Apple acted against its own interests by undermining the economy it relies upon.
The answer, of course, is right there in your reply. But decades of war, terrorism, and defensiveness has left many unable to see it. And I'd remind you too that the Israeli state is set up for a specific "race" or "religion", not as a government for those who live within its jurisdiction. That is my concern. You talked about a "(well you meant British people) State" vs a "Jewish State", and that went to the heart of my problem with it - there is no British state, at least, not in the same sense. Britain is set up for the people who live within its borders.
Israel can run itself in the same way, and I see you arguing it does, but it's a fiction to argue that's what Israel represents.
Look, I actually forgot something in my original comment, which was to address one similar situation that us Brits and ex-Brits are all too familiar with, Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has some similarities, except what Israel is doing today (or rather, in modern history) that concerns many of us started in Ireland several centuries ago. Britain annexed Ireland, looked at the most attractive part - the North - and sent in settlers, mostly jackasses from Scotland as it happens (I say this because it explains a lot when you realize that many of those settlers went on to settle the US deep south and take a similar role in oppressing blacks) to take over the lands owned by those already living there.
Centuries later, it would be false to argue it's not still a problem although we're finally seeing some movement in the right direction, and there's at least a temporary peace that'll last until at least the protestant majority there gets defensive again and start using their power to oppress the large, native, minority.
Until I moved to the US, I lived under the threat of terrorism most of my life, and I didn't even live in Northern Ireland. The IRA would plant bombs in train station trash cans and under tables in pubs. I may not have been in as much danger as someone living in the occupied territories, but, mind you, I would have been had I lived in Belfast, in the thick of it.
My sympathies ultimately are, and were, with those suffering oppression and a lack of representation in Northern Ireland. The governmental structure set up to govern that area did not protect them. Their basic civil rights were curtailed, and propagandists, as with Israel, focussed on the reactions of those who fought back rather than the basic legitimacy of the constitution of that area.
And that's actually the position of most people I know. International reaction has always been critical of Britain's overall handling of Northern Ireland except when Britain has tried to deal with the injustices. And actually, people in Britain I know feel the same way!
This isn't a double standard. We're not singling out Israel. Yes, we know you guys have a lot of terrorism, but you're hardly unique in that.
In my view, building a state for a people, rather than for all the people who live within its jurisdiction, is an error, and that's what makes me a non-Zionist. In my view, and in the view of many others, occupying a territory and sending in settlers to take over the lands of those already living within its borders, is not merely unjust, but a terrible mistake, confirmed by centuries of history. And Israel's defenders are not doing their country any favors at all by simply sliming anyone who points this out as "anti-semitic".
No real difference. Money is power and power is money. If you don't have the power to keep it, you lose it.
Not the same thing as forming governments that discriminate in favor of one race/religion/etc opposed to another. If the Czech government were to actually discriminate against Slovaks, or vice versa, you can bet there would be international outrage.
As an ex-Brit, I can tell you that there's no real strong wish for a "British state" there (I assume you meant that rather than English) - self government, yes, but on the basis of those who live in Britain, not simply people who trace their heritage to King Arthur or, for that matter, members of the Church of England. Britain's mostly fine with immigration, and the desire is that people who come in join in with the community, practice good citizenship, and contribute culturally and economically. While the Church of England has a constitutional position in United Kingdom Government, the UK government does not, in practice, allow it to control UK policy, or discriminate against those who live under its dictates.
In fact, countries that have decided to govern in support of one group of people who live there over another has, in fact, always been condemned in recent International history, with the exception of Israel, and kinda-sorta the Vatican.
Personally speaking, I think the idea of a large piece of land with people living on it since birth being given over to a "race" or, slightly less evily, those who practice a specific religion, is distasteful. The government of that land needs to represent the people who live there, not a particular group. I understand the sentiment that the Jews are a special case in that they've suffered centuries of discrimination, ultimately resulting on pogroms and the holocaust, but I'm not convinced that the right way to correct an injustice and deal with centuries of hatred is to create a new injustice. I am not, personally, a Zionist.
All of which is somewhat beside the point. With few exceptions, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is not questioned by those being smeared. The people who are branded "anti-semitic" are rarely, actually, anti-Zionist. What they generally criticize are:
1. The policies of the State of Israel, with particular regard to its treatment of a group of people who were born on land, and whose parents and grandparents, were born on land, now controlled by Israel.
2. The unqualified support given by some US politicians to Israel's security, on occasion apparently at the expense of the US itself.
These criticisms, even when qualified with a general feeling that "The Jews have been discriminated against for centuries, they deserve somewhere they can consider a safe home", cause writers who state them to be branded anti-semitic. The end result is damaging to our discourse and our ability to do the right things. And it's arguable that, in the end, the mentality does not help Israel in the slightest. In the long run, without pressure to move forward, Israel risks becoming a South Africa.
"Rich whitey" is essentially the ruling class. If they weren't ruling, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. There's no entity out there randomly doling out cash and letting you keep it. And the white bit... well, with one or two exceptions, that's just how it's working out.
Should we "hate" (or rather, criticize) them? I don't "hate" many of these guys but I don't think there's anything wrong with distrusting, criticizing, and attacking those in power.
In fact, unless they're working to spread the power down to all of us, I see it as a moral duty.
Yep. Next time I'll use the humor-while-making-a-point font ;-)
It is unfortunate that it's hard at this point to know what someone means by "Anti-semitic". I knew there was a 90% chance it genuinely was a hateful SSID, but the degree to which people are slapping the term on anything meant there was always that 10% chance it was a comment that was anti-Israel, or something otherwise innocent.
Apparently the SSID of the WAP was "IHaveSomeConcernsAboutIsraeliGovernmentPolicy"
It's a shame the word "anti-semitic" has been rendered virtually meaningless lately. It used to mean something about hating or discriminating against Jews.
No, it can't. No mainstream operating system has ever shipped with a version of ping that outputs malformed ping packets, let alone ping packets malformed in a way that would cause a PoD. Ever. Exploiting the PoD requires a specially written tool to output a malformed ping packet. You cannot use the ping command to do that.
If I'm wrong, it's fairly easy to prove. Show me the bug report that reports to Microsoft, Canonical, or Apple, that the ping command shipped with their system outputs malformed ping packets. And in the mean time, demonstrate for me how a Windows 7 machine can crash an unpatched Windows 95 machine using the ping command. Don't just handwave and claim it's "fact", put up or shut up. Tell me the exact command line to issue from a Windows 7 Administrator cmd.exe window to crash a Windows 95 machine whose IP address is 10.0.0.1.
You won't because you can't. You can't because you don't know what you're talking about. You've never known what you're talking about. The same thing goes for the "Spybot SAD" hosts file modification thing. You don't understand why CA was asking about modifying HOSTS, which interestingly enough probably means you unintentionally fed false information to them about the operation of your application.
You claim your app isn't scriptable, yet also claim it's "two lines of code" which means it cannot possibly verify that the application its hiding is what you intended it to be. So it is scriptable, and it is usable by a malware writer. Which is probably why most malware organizations still report the software as malware.
Meanwhile you post here over and over again with increasingly ridiculous assertions about your work and knowledge, and cannot understand it when a bunch of us find it hilarious and needle you over it.
If you know of a way to use the ping command to exploit the PoD please post it here. More importantly, make sure Microsoft, Canonical/GNU, the various *BSD groups, and Apple are made aware of it immediately. If their ping utilities, as shipped, are outputting malformed packets, then they have major bugs in them. You would be utterly irresponsible not to let them know.
Let me put it this way. I just had to kill and restart Firefox (FF9) because it went into swap hell again. I'm using it on a 1.5G Ubuntu VM (which may not be huge, but it's 50% more memory than a Netbook, and last I heard we're still supporting those, right? Also: when did a glorified rich text viewer start needing gigabytes to run?)
How many tabs open? About 15. How much memory in use at the time? It claimed less than a gig.
What mistake did I make? Actually, I've noticed that if I have more than ten tabs open, I can pretty much cause swap hell by starting (and closing) a PDF in Evince - which needless to say, happens frequently when browsing anyway. Somehow Evince loading is enough to injure Firefox, permanently.
I've just upgraded to the preview of FF10 via http://ppa.launchpad.net/mozillateam/firefox-next/ubuntu/. We'll see what happens. I'm not holding my breath, I've heard the "Oh, you're not running the very latest release" thing for a while now - I do upgrade, I still get the same problem.
Oh, and no problems with Chrome which has many more tabs open, but is still responsive.
The history and profile thing is a new one, but guess what: I don't want to lose my history, bookmarks, cookies, and everything else. If storing a user's profile is sub-optimal, perhaps that's something that needs fixing too?
Anyone tired of this "Blah blah anyone who says Chrome is faster than Firefox is lying, my stack of independent benchmarks show that Firefox doesn't use any RAM any more at all and Chrome is the memory hog and BTW Firefox are starting Memory Optimization Initiative #94 which undermines my claim that Firefox is suddenly memory efficient but I'm going to pounce on it anyway and pretend it validates everything I've flamed people over."
This article exists because:
Your comment exists because:
To be honest, I can only repeat what I've said a million times before. Mozilla needs to ditch Firefox 4+, and go back to the 3.6 code base. And if they don't, someone with enough momentum (Canonical?) needs to fork 3.6 for them.
I really wish installing Firefox 3.6 on my otherwise up-to-date Ubuntu system was trivial and not going to break anything. Despite all the Mozilla people claiming otherwise, FF3.6 was genuinely better than every version I've tried since. It was more memory efficient.
I fairly recently benchmarked running versions of Chrome and Firefox - not the artificial tests where someone boots the browsers up and loads a set number of tabs and measures then, but tested them both after at least 48 hours of real use. Chrome was using less memory, despite having many times as many tabs open. Firefox was stuttering, with every attempt to change tab or scroll the page causing disk page thrashing.
I don't like Chrome, and it's a measure of the degree to which Firefox has fallen that I'm using it 90% of the time. I hope this article isn't yet another "Sure, Mozilla is finally taking memory usage seriously!" article that means nothing in practice.
It'll affect a relatively low number of neighborhoods, essentially those with an extremely high proportion of one race, and the quota will disappear as soon as it's filled. I don't see why there would be that many people resenting it. If 5% of homes must be owned by ethnic minorities, then it'd stand to reason that even in an environment in which neighborhoods are currently 100% white, 100% latino, 100% black, etc, at worst 5% of whites would be affected.
I don't see that we're talking about much lower prices either. The homes in my neighborhood, which seems to be a predominantly white area, aren't especially expensive right now, and aren't much lower than the predominately black area across the highway. Everyone who's upset about this who isn't upset because of the whole "OMG! BLACK PEOPLE LIVING NEXT DOOR!" element seems to be obsessed with edge cases.
Whatever the right solution is, it's time to do something about it.
Oh just ignore it. The principle, long established by dittoheads, is to take any accusation of racism and respond with "I'm not a racist, you're a racist". It's idiotic, it ignores the fundamental issues, but the idea is to try to get liberals on the defensive. If you do that, you don't need to address the fundamental issues they're complaining about.
The person you're responding to doesn't care, in all honesty, about whether I might have implied that the underlying cause of the racism shown by many posters in this thread might be fixed by legal mandates that encourage people of different races to live in the same neighborhoods. What he wants is the status quo.
Oh boy.
Keep digging.
No, you're not forced to do anything. You have two choices: you can sell to a black family at a fair market value, or you can wait it out for other homes to be sold so you can sell your home at a higher price to a richer white person.
It's your choice ultimately. If you don't like the choice, tough. Those are the breaks of propping up, either pro-actively or through inaction, an unofficial apartheid system which, regretfully, exists in many places in the US.
Yes, it is your problem. Why would you think it isn't?
Really, I don't care. You're asking me to be against negative discrimination against a group that generally benefits from discrimination (people like me) to correct centuries of contemptable discrimination.
Does affirmative action have a place in a civil society? A better question is: does a civil society have any need for affirmative action?
Once we've dealt with the neighborhood problem, and after a few decades of blacks and whites, you know, actually living together and treating each other as equals, we'll have that civil society you're talking about. We'll discuss ending positive discrimination then, mmm 'kay?