I've seen people called racists or white supremacists purely because they're members of white supremacist groups, or consider blacks and/or hispanics and/or jews and/or muslims to be inferior people, and even because all they've done is make wild unpleasant and false accusations against non-white non-christian minorities.
It's getting ridiculous man. I mean, if you can't say "Jews do all the crime" without people calling you a racist, then what kind of society do we live in?
Chrome on Mobile is a completely different experience to Chrome on Desktop for both users and developers alike. The fact the two share code barely factors into anything.
If you're talking "market share", then you should provide context. Adding all versions of things called Chrome across two or three distinctly different types of technology and comparing it to a desktop browser is useless for the sake of comparison.
If you're going to use a Chromium based browser, why not just use Chrome?
The reason I use Firefox instead of Chrome has nothing to do with its rendering engine, I'd still use Firefox even if it did change to Blink. I use Firefox because the UI is much better. From seperate search/URL boxes, to minimum tab sizes and the use of scrolling to handle tab overflows, the UI is just orders of magnitude better than Chrome.
Ironically, Mozilla seems to agree with you. They're changing the UI to look more and more like Chrome's with each release. But not changing the rendering engine. When they finish, I'll go over to Chrome, because Blink is better than Gecko.
Depends. Did those 300,000 people pay any money, and if so, was it implied there'd be some kind of legal immunity for what they do with the satellite?
Because, if so, there's a story here about fraud and gullibility. There is zero chance of an uninhabitable region of space being recognized as a nation, yet people are buying the claim that this has any legitimacy.
I would be bothered about the security risks of a web application written in C or C++ (as it is I'm bothered by the amount of Internet facing software we use all the time written in those languages.)
I know Java has a poor reputation, but when people have compared like with like, it's not much less efficient than C++ - what it loses in forcing programmers to avoid efficient shortcuts it gains through replacing malloc()/free() with a heap based system. C# in theory has similar efficiency (and is much, much, nicer to program in than Java!)
It'd be nice to see developers switch from PHP (because, let's be honest, all this "Python vs Perl" stuff ignores the fact most of the programmers claiming to use Python every day are actually maintaining PHP applications in RL - that's what the web is written in) to Java/C# or something similar. If the FOSS community could develop a framework similar to.NET but with Unix rather than Windows conventions, that'd be great.
I wouldn't touch C for an application where there's only 256 bytes of RAM! That's assembly territory. You'd lost 25% of that memory just having two or three functions call one another with two or three parameters.
Yep, that would do it too. The point is though it's not something you can (easily and effectively) do by creating a virus that'll target USB mass storage devices. If you were going the "untargeted virus" route, you'd have to write something that knows about a lot of exploits for a lot of different USB devices. Targeting cellphones, or just creating a custom USB stick the way you're suggesting for a specific target, is much easier.
I don't think this exploit involves booting from a USB storage device, rather it's taking advantage of the fact a USB device can send malformed packets. To exploit this, you're going to need to do more than write data to a USB storage device, you're going to have to hack the USB device's firmware.
That's a tall order - yeah, there's probably quite a few out there that have exploits that would allow you to overwrite the firmware, but what's the betting your virus is going to have the right exploit for the actual USB devices the user is going to be using?
Maybe a better option would be to target the phone of the user you're trying to hack, as (I believe) Android phones would be very easy to reprogram to send malformed USB packets, if you're able to find an exploit that gives you access to root or whatever the equivalent is these days.
While this is true, it would be easy for Intel to create a hybrid licensed OS comprising of the Linux kernel and a BSD userland, and just to release source for the Kernel. As all the "interesting stuff" would be userland, there'd be absolutely nothing useful we'd glean from examining the kernel source code.
I don't know why everyone's criticizing this new Star Trek thing, I mean, I don't think Seth MacFarlane is necessarily a great choice of ship's captain, but other than that the whole thing is great.
Arial is a cheap knock off of Helvetica, it was chosen specifically because if you're not that interested in fonts it looks almost identical. MS Sans was intended to be much the same thing before Arial became standard.
Helvetica isn't associated with Apple, but Adobe, who made it one of the standard fonts shipped with PostScript. As a result all desktop publishing packages included Helvetica, and that was followed by most operating systems adopting it, or a clone, when they moved over to outline fonts in the late 1980s.
But typefaces are centuries old technology. It's a problem that has been solved and well studies. The problems that a typeface solves are not problems that change rapidly. A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
Most screens aren't retina displays, which means that fonts end up distorted in a way they wouldn't in print.
Also, FFS, suggesting that we shouldn't develop new fonts because they've known how to make them for centuries and, hey, there's probably a bunch from the 19th Century that are good enough, is like suggesting we should stop writing fiction, making movies, drawing pictures, or making sculptures for the same reason.
Good fonts are beautiful. And frankly, there are plenty of fonts from the 20th Century that are both more beautiful and easier to read than anything I've seen from the 19th.
One of which is Helvetica, funnily enough. Though I'm a bit of a Gil Sans fan myself.
SMS has nothing to do with submarines. 160 characters was used because SMS was originally a GSM feature, that used the fixed size control channel messages to transmit text. 160 was what was left when you excluded headers/etc. It's 140 for Twitter instead of 160 because Twitter reserved 20 to identify the person tweeting.
It's not called VBA, but yes, both OpenOffice and LibreOffice have supported a VBA compatible scripting environment for decades, as LibreOffice Basic or OpenOffice Basic. They also support Java ("BeanShell"), Javascript, and Python.
LCDs were a thing in the late 1980s, what on Earth are you talking about? You didn't generally buy them separately but there were quite a few computers sold with LCD screens. There were color "LCDs" by the mid-1990s (most, admittedly, pretty awful, though the technology improved rapidly), and by the late 1990s, standalone VGA-fed LCD monitors were a thing.
They're not a failure, they're just not competing in the same market you thought they were.
Five years ago, it was really, really, easy to buy a laptop with discrete graphics.
Today? Not only is it relatively hard, but the "discrete graphics" offerings are generally no better than what's built into a modern Intel Core CPU unless you go for a laptop specifically aimed at gamers.
Intel now dominates the mobile graphics space. And their GPUs are definitely better than what they once were. Games seem to have plateaued in terms of the GPU power they need, and Intel's graphics are, as a result, "good enough" for a higher and higher percentage of new games. I debated using the graphics built into my new i5 last year based on tests showing me that overall performance with both GTA V and Skyrim was no different to my older computer. (In the end, I decided to get a better graphics card, because why not? Plus GTA V needed to be specially configured at the command line level to use Intel graphics, and I figured other games may have the same problems.)
The point of that segue was that Intel is catching up. If trends continue, then my next PC build may need discrete graphics to support VR if that's still a thing, but the build afterwards won't.
This is a textbook example of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Since when did the judiciary have authority on determining what constitutes patriotism? Their role is on determining what is legal and whether certain acts full within or outside of the legal code.
I understand the point perfectly. You want to deflect attention from the Russian scandals and you're under the impression that repeating some third-hand smear about Clinton, who is irrelevant politically and deeply unpopular among Democrats, will somehow do that.
It's pathetic.
First of all, "hypocrisy" is the last defense uttered by the completely guilty. Nobody cares.
Second: the Clintons have under attack, the subject of a blatant smear campaign, now for 25 years. It is no longer possible to believe a single negative statement about them unless they cop up and own up to it themselves. Does it appear in their autobiography? Then it might be true. Did it appear in the New York Times? Sorry, but even the Times has spent most of the last 25 years robotically repeating whatever was said about them.
The situation right now is that if "Bill" or "Hillary" stood right in front of me, and straight up murdered someone, I would automatically assume that the person who did it was actually either an actor in a mask, or a robot.
And you'd laugh at me and say "Hah, stupid luhbruahl leftist cuck, doesn't believe it when he sees it for himself". And then, just after you said that the robot's fucking face would fall off revealing the circuitry underneath. Because that is literally 7,281 times more likely than the Clintons actually doing it.
That's a great one because (1) the right wing media, and some of the left, including the New York Times, promoted it as a massive scandal for several days, and (2) the debunking shows how the entire thing was essentially done by removing pertinent facts known to everyone reporting the story. Which is almost certainly the underlying situation with this thread's "scandal".
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen people called racists or white supremacists purely because they're members of white supremacist groups, or consider blacks and/or hispanics and/or jews and/or muslims to be inferior people, and even because all they've done is make wild unpleasant and false accusations against non-white non-christian minorities.
It's getting ridiculous man. I mean, if you can't say "Jews do all the crime" without people calling you a racist, then what kind of society do we live in?
Well, OK, not changing the rendering engine to something other people are using. Yeah, I was aware of Quantum.
Chrome on Mobile is a completely different experience to Chrome on Desktop for both users and developers alike. The fact the two share code barely factors into anything.
If you're talking "market share", then you should provide context. Adding all versions of things called Chrome across two or three distinctly different types of technology and comparing it to a desktop browser is useless for the sake of comparison.
The reason I use Firefox instead of Chrome has nothing to do with its rendering engine, I'd still use Firefox even if it did change to Blink. I use Firefox because the UI is much better. From seperate search/URL boxes, to minimum tab sizes and the use of scrolling to handle tab overflows, the UI is just orders of magnitude better than Chrome.
Ironically, Mozilla seems to agree with you. They're changing the UI to look more and more like Chrome's with each release. But not changing the rendering engine. When they finish, I'll go over to Chrome, because Blink is better than Gecko.
Depends. Did those 300,000 people pay any money, and if so, was it implied there'd be some kind of legal immunity for what they do with the satellite?
Because, if so, there's a story here about fraud and gullibility. There is zero chance of an uninhabitable region of space being recognized as a nation, yet people are buying the claim that this has any legitimacy.
I would be bothered about the security risks of a web application written in C or C++ (as it is I'm bothered by the amount of Internet facing software we use all the time written in those languages.)
I know Java has a poor reputation, but when people have compared like with like, it's not much less efficient than C++ - what it loses in forcing programmers to avoid efficient shortcuts it gains through replacing malloc()/free() with a heap based system. C# in theory has similar efficiency (and is much, much, nicer to program in than Java!)
It'd be nice to see developers switch from PHP (because, let's be honest, all this "Python vs Perl" stuff ignores the fact most of the programmers claiming to use Python every day are actually maintaining PHP applications in RL - that's what the web is written in) to Java/C# or something similar. If the FOSS community could develop a framework similar to .NET but with Unix rather than Windows conventions, that'd be great.
I wouldn't touch C for an application where there's only 256 bytes of RAM! That's assembly territory. You'd lost 25% of that memory just having two or three functions call one another with two or three parameters.
Yep, that would do it too. The point is though it's not something you can (easily and effectively) do by creating a virus that'll target USB mass storage devices. If you were going the "untargeted virus" route, you'd have to write something that knows about a lot of exploits for a lot of different USB devices. Targeting cellphones, or just creating a custom USB stick the way you're suggesting for a specific target, is much easier.
I don't think this exploit involves booting from a USB storage device, rather it's taking advantage of the fact a USB device can send malformed packets. To exploit this, you're going to need to do more than write data to a USB storage device, you're going to have to hack the USB device's firmware.
That's a tall order - yeah, there's probably quite a few out there that have exploits that would allow you to overwrite the firmware, but what's the betting your virus is going to have the right exploit for the actual USB devices the user is going to be using?
Maybe a better option would be to target the phone of the user you're trying to hack, as (I believe) Android phones would be very easy to reprogram to send malformed USB packets, if you're able to find an exploit that gives you access to root or whatever the equivalent is these days.
There's plenty of evidence they influenced the election. You'd have been on-topic and accurate if you'd just left your blanket statement at "hacked".
While this is true, it would be easy for Intel to create a hybrid licensed OS comprising of the Linux kernel and a BSD userland, and just to release source for the Kernel. As all the "interesting stuff" would be userland, there'd be absolutely nothing useful we'd glean from examining the kernel source code.
I don't know why everyone's criticizing this new Star Trek thing, I mean, I don't think Seth MacFarlane is necessarily a great choice of ship's captain, but other than that the whole thing is great.
Arial is a cheap knock off of Helvetica, it was chosen specifically because if you're not that interested in fonts it looks almost identical. MS Sans was intended to be much the same thing before Arial became standard.
Helvetica isn't associated with Apple, but Adobe, who made it one of the standard fonts shipped with PostScript. As a result all desktop publishing packages included Helvetica, and that was followed by most operating systems adopting it, or a clone, when they moved over to outline fonts in the late 1980s.
Most screens aren't retina displays, which means that fonts end up distorted in a way they wouldn't in print.
Also, FFS, suggesting that we shouldn't develop new fonts because they've known how to make them for centuries and, hey, there's probably a bunch from the 19th Century that are good enough, is like suggesting we should stop writing fiction, making movies, drawing pictures, or making sculptures for the same reason.
Good fonts are beautiful. And frankly, there are plenty of fonts from the 20th Century that are both more beautiful and easier to read than anything I've seen from the 19th.
One of which is Helvetica, funnily enough. Though I'm a bit of a Gil Sans fan myself.
Wow, Hollywood has actually been accurately portraying the state of security in Linux for years, and nobody realized!
More here
SMS has nothing to do with submarines. 160 characters was used because SMS was originally a GSM feature, that used the fixed size control channel messages to transmit text. 160 was what was left when you excluded headers/etc. It's 140 for Twitter instead of 160 because Twitter reserved 20 to identify the person tweeting.
It's not called VBA, but yes, both OpenOffice and LibreOffice have supported a VBA compatible scripting environment for decades, as LibreOffice Basic or OpenOffice Basic. They also support Java ("BeanShell"), Javascript, and Python.
Miss the Ribbon huh?
LCDs were a thing in the late 1980s, what on Earth are you talking about? You didn't generally buy them separately but there were quite a few computers sold with LCD screens. There were color "LCDs" by the mid-1990s (most, admittedly, pretty awful, though the technology improved rapidly), and by the late 1990s, standalone VGA-fed LCD monitors were a thing.
They're not a failure, they're just not competing in the same market you thought they were.
Five years ago, it was really, really, easy to buy a laptop with discrete graphics.
Today? Not only is it relatively hard, but the "discrete graphics" offerings are generally no better than what's built into a modern Intel Core CPU unless you go for a laptop specifically aimed at gamers.
Intel now dominates the mobile graphics space. And their GPUs are definitely better than what they once were. Games seem to have plateaued in terms of the GPU power they need, and Intel's graphics are, as a result, "good enough" for a higher and higher percentage of new games. I debated using the graphics built into my new i5 last year based on tests showing me that overall performance with both GTA V and Skyrim was no different to my older computer. (In the end, I decided to get a better graphics card, because why not? Plus GTA V needed to be specially configured at the command line level to use Intel graphics, and I figured other games may have the same problems.)
The point of that segue was that Intel is catching up. If trends continue, then my next PC build may need discrete graphics to support VR if that's still a thing, but the build afterwards won't.
This is a textbook example of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. Since when did the judiciary have authority on determining what constitutes patriotism? Their role is on determining what is legal and whether certain acts full within or outside of the legal code.
I understand the point perfectly. You want to deflect attention from the Russian scandals and you're under the impression that repeating some third-hand smear about Clinton, who is irrelevant politically and deeply unpopular among Democrats, will somehow do that.
It's pathetic.
First of all, "hypocrisy" is the last defense uttered by the completely guilty. Nobody cares.
Second: the Clintons have under attack, the subject of a blatant smear campaign, now for 25 years. It is no longer possible to believe a single negative statement about them unless they cop up and own up to it themselves. Does it appear in their autobiography? Then it might be true. Did it appear in the New York Times? Sorry, but even the Times has spent most of the last 25 years robotically repeating whatever was said about them.
The situation right now is that if "Bill" or "Hillary" stood right in front of me, and straight up murdered someone, I would automatically assume that the person who did it was actually either an actor in a mask, or a robot.
And you'd laugh at me and say "Hah, stupid luhbruahl leftist cuck, doesn't believe it when he sees it for himself". And then, just after you said that the robot's fucking face would fall off revealing the circuitry underneath. Because that is literally 7,281 times more likely than the Clintons actually doing it.
I don't have a debunking for this particular thing at hand yet because I can't be bothered to Google one, but let's take last week's Uranium bullshit and run it through the filter of a journalist who does her job for once (alas, it's MSNBC, but bear with her, she actually does it.) [Caution: Video]
That's a great one because (1) the right wing media, and some of the left, including the New York Times, promoted it as a massive scandal for several days, and (2) the debunking shows how the entire thing was essentially done by removing pertinent facts known to everyone reporting the story. Which is almost certainly the underlying situation with this thread's "scandal".