Considering Sarkozy got only 1% less of the vote than Hollande in the first round, it's far too early to call it. All the folks that voted for other candidates will pick 1 of the 2 in the next round, and considering the massive amount of votes that went to Le Pen...we might very well be seeing more of Sarkozy.
true. besides, even if hollande got to power he would pretty soon change his mind on the subject, like any and every other european leader has done. it would just take a few phone calls, if at all necessary. the only difference would be that while sarko just barks, hollande would dish out some justifying bland rethoric. these matters just float high above politics.
that not to mention that nowadays any socialist party in europe could be as socialistic as, say, us democrats. with some exceptions in scandinavia, maybe. if real political change in europe does not come from a social revolution, don't expect it before the next generation of politicians pitches in. if at all.
JavaScript is a mature technology underlying essentially all of the web now, and if you denigrate it now, you're already living in the past.
maybe he's trying to face a better future? i won't argue about js, as you say it has it's pros and cons, even beauty. but... as it stands it's making for a shitty and insecure present web.
until we somehow rethink this whole infect client/browser/cloud mess we're wading through roght now i would gladly see us head back to plain html. well, css we could keep just for eyepleasing (and keep designers on the payroll). guess what... maybe... why not ask mom? we would benefit from some more clear minded female architects after all!:D
Could someone with mod point mke the parent more visible please?
no. why?
It's definitely informative.
it's definitely bullshit. i've been in the software bizz myself since about 1983, everywhere from enterprise software to webapps, both private or public, in little shops, big corporations or startups. women have been always a minority. it's gotten better with time, specially in the last decade, but it's stil far, far from even distribution.
parent must be working on another planet. or else he limits his observationes to "dev conferences" only. in about 30 years of profession i've hardly been to a dozen of these, i tend not to like wasting my time in such selfboasting nonsensical parties (when i want to party i do it right, and not in work time). couldn't tell if femenine audience is more common in them, though. if he says so...
your brain can't possibly operate without a fair share of beliefs. you simply could not afford to systematically reason everything everytime and get a blue screen promptly. you would not even be able to survive crossing the street.
i'd say the term "magical" is misleading in the article, but it is correct in a sense. some of those beliefs are just not consistently checked against straight facts, so they are sort of magic. this obvious mechanism applies equally to more elaborate or theoretical thinking, and is central to emotional intelligence.
denying this doesn't make you appear more logical, just the contrary, it proves you belive you can somehow magically manage to be 100% skeptic.:D
Google didn't "copy" Java, Google *uses*Java. It's not a "variant". It's Java that just runs on their own vm implementation, like other developers and vendors have done. It's an open specification. The only exclusive right Oracle has is to certify that a particular vm is Java(TM) compliant or not, but then Google doesn't need nor claim such certification at all.
Seems just corporate bullying, lawyers gone utter nuts.
Motorola argued strongly against the U.S. injunction. "You are being asked to interfere with a German court," Jenner said. "It's an intolerable intrusion on another country's prerogative."
not really, it's just an extreme example of typical US bigotry. there's no intrusion whatsover possible by any american judge (only big corporations, fbi, marines and navy seals can pull that off)
In the end, the judge seems to have decided that preserving his power to rule on this issue was too important.
this makes sense, every judge has the right (and obligation) to preserve his power to rule. even if it happens to be zero it's his rightful zero power and he should stand on it. in fact, I find such a line of thought pretty amusing, and surprising from a north american, i would have rather expected this from, say, a norwegian judge.
Thanks for that link, if people have not stopped to read it.. shame on you. If you have, welcome to the real world. The only way for us to maintain some semblance of freedom is to be vocal when things are being done to stifle that freedom. Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening. Sadly, companies like Wiki and Google can't do that crap every friggin day. It's up to us, the Netizens of the world, to educate and inform everyone around us.
I know, most of you/.ers do that anyway right?
off my soap box, carry on with your day.
resistance is futile. enjoy the hilarous part of the story, which is us (ie, western, that includes me) media talking about free internet. suck my balls, now, please.
open source can't solve everything and brings its own set of problems to the table (i.e. security...etc).
sorry? can you substantiate this somehow?
security is actually one of the strongest points of open source, because it's open to public review and scrutiny as oposed to the questionable security by obscurity in closed software.
The fact it is going into the shut-down cycle this soon proves how successful Win 7 was well as how big a failure Vista ended up being.
this is quite comprensible but security updates should be definitely mantained free. limiting them now to paid subscriptions is a blatant rip-off customers shouldn't tolerate, and a risk the whole network shouldn't have to take. MS should either continue with free security patches for vista or else offer a free upgrade to w7 to all vista (l)users.
The funny thing is that Linux users still seem to be under this belief about their OS. The truth is that every OS gets malware, it's just about the market share.
Actually, the vulnerability used in OS X is also in Linux. So yes, it can infect Linux!
However, the payload only currently runs on OS X, so infecting Linux is a minor point since it does nothing.
It's a Java vulnerability. Which is interesting since Apple stopped supporting and shipping Java since what, Leopard (10.5)? Heck, we can blame Oracle for the mess...
the vulnerability was not a Mac problem but, surprise, an Oracle/Java problem. So really, attacking Apple for another vendor's flaw is dumb.
Wrong:
The trojan targets an unpatched Java vulnerability within Mac OS X. Oracle fixed the vulnerability on February 14, 2012.[5] Apple distributed the fix to Mac users on April 3, 2012, after the vulnerability had been exploited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_BackDoor.Flashback
No, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to hate Java
hate doesn't need legitimate reasons. but some of your reasons are gratuituous.
mainly because it promised things it couldn't deliver. It promised to be portable, but running it on anything that isn't one of under half a dozen blessed platforms is painful.
it is. for common platforms. more than any high level language, anyway.
That new MIPS server? Sorry, no Java for you! For a long time, even Java on *BSD on x86
like you have.net or any other development environment with the barely necessary tools for that. stop joking or at least try to be funny.
Then there's performance. Java performance is on a par with StrongTalk or Self, yet it's a much lower-level language. Performance is usually okay, but again Java promised C-like performance and then shows misleading benchmarks to demonstrate it.
that promises thing again...:D ok, i take you're an emotional type (even if i never read that promise, nor would i care) but... if you wanted C-performance and chose to believe in flying ponies, that's your problem. Java is not C, it could never be as efficient as C, apart from very restricted benchmarks. on top of that, Java developers are different animals than C/c++ developers, expect performance-insensible coding in Java as granted. like in any other high-level, business oriented language. but then again, you realize Java and C are different use cases, don't you?
Next there's the pain of interfacing Java with other languages. If I have a C library, I can trivially call it from most scripting languages, from Objective-C, from C++, from D, from Pascal, from Lisp, and so on. If I have a Java library, it's difficult to use it from anything that's not Java.
now you are being funny. there's no such thing as a Java "library". at most, you got a bunch of classes packed in a jar. you need a fucking vm for those classes to make any sense at all. it's not difficult, you simply can't, it doesn't make any sense. take it or leave it.
Conversely, it's difficult to use existing libraries from Java - JNI is a whole world of pain.
not that much, really. are you being serious? having JNIed a lot myself, I wonder what pain a skilled C programmer could have had with it.
This means that Java often involves reinventing the wheel,
this, for a change, has some truth to it. not that I like it, but Java is Java centric as much as.net is windows centric. life sucks. then again, reinventing the wheel is not the same as reimplementing the wheel, and the latter may often be not such a bad idea at all.
while other languages just provide thin (and often automatically generated) wrappers around libraries written in other languages where appropriate.
only those (and between those) which don't new some sort of vm or interpreter to run, so your point is moot. vm's are there for a reason, if you don't like them that's another story.
Then there's the incompatibilities between versions.
can you provide an example?
Once you've got your write-once-run-anywhere program working on your customer's machine, he installs a new version of the JRE and it stops working.
because of bugs, not because of incompatibilty issues. even c compiler releases have bugs, man.
well, there may have been some incompatibilities. i'm thinking of serialization or binary class format, for instance. but then again consider that Java is a full environment and stuff inevitably changes. C doesn't have this problem because it just doesn't evolve. anyway, backwards compatibilty has been held to very great extent, considering.
Java found it niche. JavaEE is still big, as it is a great platform for Web Services. However Java Applications have never gotten popular because they always end up looking a bit out of date (although it has greatly improved) compared to what the other platforms offer.
java is dying from success. and of course i'm referring to j2ee. java on desktop or browser is anecdotical. it's technically sound but never made it through.
if you think about it, java is the perfect tool for any medium-big size software shop. everything is available: the language is basically sound, the api is endless and rich, there are lots of good tools for building, bug finding, profiling, optimizing, deploying... you name it. java (j2ee) success in this area is indisputable (in fact, it has busted the.net monkeys thingie, that pursued exactly the same thing, to a limited captive market).
so what's the problem? well... it's all just too easy. medium-big size software shops rely on all those standards and tools, build workflows on them... so they can hire armies of clueless developers. and, obviously, produce glorious crap. throw in agile development (understood as blind running forward methodolgy) and you're pretty screwed.
java made cheap software possible. the problem is that there's no such thing as *good* cheap software, because it isn't so much about the tools, but about the brains.
throw in it is now mantained to oracle and you'll see this end in a big, big, big mess.
aims to replace a hodge-podge of digital and paper processes with purely digital workflows, helping FBI agents collaborate and "connect the dots" on investigations. The question now is how well the problem-plagued system will live up to those expectations
Facebook has a similar policy yet you manage to just use a fake name.
don't really know fb's name policy (i don't bother to read that crap. just the term "name policy" is hilarous, i'd want to know what these guys smoke). but if they have such, they sure don't enforce it. google does. i'm still banned from g+. and i don't use fake names in either of them. i don't use names at all. maybe fb hasn't noticed it's not a real name, but it should be pretty obvious that it's just a nick.
Tell them you're concerned with identity theft and that you'll provide a SSN at the appropriate time
identity theft just because someone knows your ssn?
i may seem dumb now but i'm curious about this. are ssn used in us without backing by some reasonable credentials, and isn't identity cross-checked prior to any legal transaction or process? does this mean that just by knowing someone's ssn you could impersonate him somehow? in my country i could gladly give you my ssn and it would be useless for you, since for any use you would still have to prove that you are me.
if this is the case i understand the concerns of giving away the ssn to an interviewer (apart from the fact that there is no real reason to do so unless you are actually going to be employed), but it's still sounds weird.
it is an abdication of the most important relationship they have - with their readership - if they let a third party take control of that, they are signing up to be screwed over later on, when Facebook suddenly demands money for this sort of sign-on
I'm more inclined to suspect the contrary, that fb and g+ are the ones shelling out for having the accounts linked. i'm just speculating but it makes sense given their business model.
ok, got it, linux is a kernel. this kind of an oldie. not even GNU/llinux is common nowadays. in this regard not even gnome is related. generally speaking linux is also the sheer and colorful bunch of distros out there, including the ones you can assemble all for yourself. embrace choice!:P
Feel free to say fuck here if you think it's appropriate.
thank you.
Now to the actual points: First, there are a lot of people who really like the direction GNOME is going, and that includes long time linux users / developers like me. Don't try to extrapolate from your opinions to everyone else...
thanks for the tip, I've just re-read all my contributions to this and didn't find any statement implying what you suggest. on the contrary, I've cheerfully celebrated gnome3's joyfull release, just added that I couldn't care less. if you like it I'm happy for you, as for me I'm also happy because I have a choice so it seems were quite a bunch of happy bunnies now. want some lettuce?:D
Personally I think GNOME 3 is the first time a linux UX is going somewhere, instead of just being a almost-but-not-quite competent clone of another product.
personally I think gnome has little to do with linux besides being one of multiple apps that runs on linux, and personally I think indeed gnome shell isn't at all original since it is mostly a mix of concepts borrowed from tablet and mac uis thrown on top of... wait, a linux desktop. oh my! but, as said, be my guest.
Second: "wasn't linux all about choice?" Thankfully no: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ . For those to lazy to click through to Ajax's post, I'll reference the summary: "the chain of logic from 'Linux is about choice' to 'ship everything and let the user chose how they want their sound to not work' starts with fallacy and ends with disaster."
while respecting your opinion the abstract doesn't make any sense. having choice is not the same as "pick and choose right out of the box". the point about choice is that in propietary systems (like mac or win) you basically have *none*. with linux you have lots, but it may well take you a bit of jumbling around - not necessarily, but it might. no big deal, really, or else show me another system with similar plurality (regardless of effort). there simply isn't any. thus: linux is definitely about choice, no matter what your gurus say. but thanks for the link, I'll have a look because it could actually contain some valid point to the point (which is kinda philosophical, btw) .
well I guess there's a lot more to a mac than it's ui. basically damn pretty well assembled hw, and a hw specific sw on top, and some fine ideas, polished work, you name it. at a price, of course. and I personally don't like it's ui but getting myself a macbookpro and slapping any linux on it could seem a bit weird but still would make sense to me. still, a macosish "desktop" environment doesn't make a mac, but the hype is already here: windows clearly imitates the look with 7 and even more so with 8. why shouldn't gnome too? it's lame but its understandable. it's ok for me but it's just not for me.
I find it quite a stretch to say that Gnome is a popular tablet environment.
Quick, name five tablets using Gnome. Or, name three that have sold more than five million units.
I can name none, but I already said I'm not interested in tablets. however, if it isn't for tablets, what the faq is it supposed to be for?
ok, we might say it's an overhauled gui trying to look macosish. it even might succeed at that (ask a mac user, please). again, if I'd want a mac I would use a mac. it's very ok for me if gnome3 attracts more (probably broke) mac users but... why in heaven should I degrade my own user experience? wasn't linux all about choice?
It's pretty obvious you've not seriously even tried to *use* Gnome3/Shell.
and you're pretty right about that. i very soon realized the metaphor was useles for me.
It makes pretty heavy use of the keyboard use (and, in fact, shines when you rely on your keyboard instead of a mouse).
if i'd want to rely on heavy keyboard use I always could stick to good old tty (I spend much time in that land anyway). however, if I use a gui it's for a reason. that being: having a configurable layout with fast acces to functions a click away, a configurable and stable overview of running processes and a convenient way of task switching. i really don't need much more. sadly, Gnome3/Shell only gives me the latter so it's of not much use for me.
I'm however glad you like it and can throw keystrokes at a broken ui designed for casual users all day long. and I'm particularly glad because the fact that you are enabled to experiment such glorious joy doesn't prevent at all me of using some sane and truly sophisticated gui,... like xfce for instance.
Quite right - but the GP seems to be insinuating IIS isn't successful.
from this thread I learned (with a bit of surprise) that people actually still use that crap. a full 10% according to some prospections.
if this means success I cannot judge, nor do I care, since "success" is totally subjective in this context. I guess that that 10% of sysops have their reasons and could label IIS as a successfull server, or something that helps them succeed. I can respect that but for me its still just crap. expensive crap, maybe.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering Sarkozy got only 1% less of the vote than Hollande in the first round, it's far too early to call it. All the folks that voted for other candidates will pick 1 of the 2 in the next round, and considering the massive amount of votes that went to Le Pen...we might very well be seeing more of Sarkozy.
true. besides, even if hollande got to power he would pretty soon change his mind on the subject, like any and every other european leader has done. it would just take a few phone calls, if at all necessary. the only difference would be that while sarko just barks, hollande would dish out some justifying bland rethoric. these matters just float high above politics.
that not to mention that nowadays any socialist party in europe could be as socialistic as, say, us democrats. with some exceptions in scandinavia, maybe. if real political change in europe does not come from a social revolution, don't expect it before the next generation of politicians pitches in. if at all.
JavaScript is a mature technology underlying essentially all of the web now, and if you denigrate it now, you're already living in the past.
maybe he's trying to face a better future? i won't argue about js, as you say it has it's pros and cons, even beauty. but ... as it stands it's making for a shitty and insecure present web.
until we somehow rethink this whole infect client/browser/cloud mess we're wading through roght now i would gladly see us head back to plain html. well, css we could keep just for eyepleasing (and keep designers on the payroll). guess what ... maybe ... why not ask mom? we would benefit from some more clear minded female architects after all! :D
Could someone with mod point mke the parent more visible please?
no. why?
It's definitely informative.
it's definitely bullshit. i've been in the software bizz myself since about 1983, everywhere from enterprise software to webapps, both private or public, in little shops, big corporations or startups. women have been always a minority. it's gotten better with time, specially in the last decade, but it's stil far, far from even distribution.
parent must be working on another planet. or else he limits his observationes to "dev conferences" only. in about 30 years of profession i've hardly been to a dozen of these, i tend not to like wasting my time in such selfboasting nonsensical parties (when i want to party i do it right, and not in work time). couldn't tell if femenine audience is more common in them, though. if he says so ...
your brain can't possibly operate without a fair share of beliefs. you simply could not afford to systematically reason everything everytime and get a blue screen promptly. you would not even be able to survive crossing the street.
i'd say the term "magical" is misleading in the article, but it is correct in a sense. some of those beliefs are just not consistently checked against straight facts, so they are sort of magic. this obvious mechanism applies equally to more elaborate or theoretical thinking, and is central to emotional intelligence.
denying this doesn't make you appear more logical, just the contrary, it proves you belive you can somehow magically manage to be 100% skeptic. :D
If Java is copyrighted or not is irrelevant.
Google didn't "copy" Java, Google *uses*Java. It's not a "variant". It's Java that just runs on their own vm implementation, like other developers and vendors have done. It's an open specification. The only exclusive right Oracle has is to certify that a particular vm is Java(TM) compliant or not, but then Google doesn't need nor claim such certification at all.
Seems just corporate bullying, lawyers gone utter nuts.
Oracle would just zap a wand of litigation.
correct, your only escape is dropping massive amounts of zorkmids, then teleport.
Motorola argued strongly against the U.S. injunction. "You are being asked to interfere with a German court," Jenner said. "It's an intolerable intrusion on another country's prerogative."
not really, it's just an extreme example of typical US bigotry. there's no intrusion whatsover possible by any american judge (only big corporations, fbi, marines and navy seals can pull that off)
In the end, the judge seems to have decided that preserving his power to rule on this issue was too important.
this makes sense, every judge has the right (and obligation) to preserve his power to rule. even if it happens to be zero it's his rightful zero power and he should stand on it. in fact, I find such a line of thought pretty amusing, and surprising from a north american, i would have rather expected this from, say, a norwegian judge.
Thanks for that link, if people have not stopped to read it.. shame on you. If you have, welcome to the real world. The only way for us to maintain some semblance of freedom is to be vocal when things are being done to stifle that freedom. Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening. Sadly, companies like Wiki and Google can't do that crap every friggin day. It's up to us, the Netizens of the world, to educate and inform everyone around us.
I know, most of you /.ers do that anyway right?
off my soap box, carry on with your day.
resistance is futile.
enjoy the hilarous part of the story, which is us (ie, western, that includes me) media talking about free internet. suck my balls, now, please.
open source can't solve everything and brings its own set of problems to the table (i.e. security...etc).
sorry? can you substantiate this somehow?
security is actually one of the strongest points of open source, because it's open to public review and scrutiny as oposed to the questionable security by obscurity in closed software.
The fact it is going into the shut-down cycle this soon proves how successful Win 7 was well as how big a failure Vista ended up being.
this is quite comprensible but security updates should be definitely mantained free. limiting them now to paid subscriptions is a blatant rip-off customers shouldn't tolerate, and a risk the whole network shouldn't have to take. MS should either continue with free security patches for vista or else offer a free upgrade to w7 to all vista (l)users.
Actually, the vulnerability used in OS X is also in Linux. So yes, it can infect Linux!
However, the payload only currently runs on OS X, so infecting Linux is a minor point since it does nothing.
It's a Java vulnerability. Which is interesting since Apple stopped supporting and shipping Java since what, Leopard (10.5)? Heck, we can blame Oracle for the mess...
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2767979&cid=39611671
the vulnerability was not a Mac problem but, surprise, an Oracle/Java problem. So really, attacking Apple for another vendor's flaw is dumb.
Wrong:
The trojan targets an unpatched Java vulnerability within Mac OS X. Oracle fixed the vulnerability on February 14, 2012.[5] Apple distributed the fix to Mac users on April 3, 2012, after the vulnerability had been exploited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_BackDoor.Flashback
Oracle dropped JVM support for Mac long ago.
No, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to hate Java
hate doesn't need legitimate reasons. but some of your reasons are gratuituous.
mainly because it promised things it couldn't deliver. It promised to be portable, but running it on anything that isn't one of under half a dozen blessed platforms is painful.
it is. for common platforms. more than any high level language, anyway.
That new MIPS server? Sorry, no Java for you! For a long time, even Java on *BSD on x86
like you have .net or any other development environment with the barely necessary tools for that. stop joking or at least try to be funny.
Then there's performance. Java performance is on a par with StrongTalk or Self, yet it's a much lower-level language. Performance is usually okay, but again Java promised C-like performance and then shows misleading benchmarks to demonstrate it.
that promises thing again ... :D ok, i take you're an emotional type (even if i never read that promise, nor would i care) but ... if you wanted C-performance and chose to believe in flying ponies, that's your problem. Java is not C, it could never be as efficient as C, apart from very restricted benchmarks. on top of that, Java developers are different animals than C/c++ developers, expect performance-insensible coding in Java as granted. like in any other high-level, business oriented language. but then again, you realize Java and C are different use cases, don't you?
Next there's the pain of interfacing Java with other languages. If I have a C library, I can trivially call it from most scripting languages, from Objective-C, from C++, from D, from Pascal, from Lisp, and so on. If I have a Java library, it's difficult to use it from anything that's not Java.
now you are being funny. there's no such thing as a Java "library". at most, you got a bunch of classes packed in a jar. you need a fucking vm for those classes to make any sense at all. it's not difficult, you simply can't, it doesn't make any sense. take it or leave it.
Conversely, it's difficult to use existing libraries from Java - JNI is a whole world of pain.
not that much, really. are you being serious? having JNIed a lot myself, I wonder what pain a skilled C programmer could have had with it.
This means that Java often involves reinventing the wheel,
this, for a change, has some truth to it. not that I like it, but Java is Java centric as much as .net is windows centric. life sucks. then again, reinventing the wheel is not the same as reimplementing the wheel, and the latter may often be not such a bad idea at all.
while other languages just provide thin (and often automatically generated) wrappers around libraries written in other languages where appropriate.
only those (and between those) which don't new some sort of vm or interpreter to run, so your point is moot. vm's are there for a reason, if you don't like them that's another story.
Then there's the incompatibilities between versions.
can you provide an example?
Once you've got your write-once-run-anywhere program working on your customer's machine, he installs a new version of the JRE and it stops working.
because of bugs, not because of incompatibilty issues. even c compiler releases have bugs, man.
well, there may have been some incompatibilities. i'm thinking of serialization or binary class format, for instance. but then again consider that Java is a full environment and stuff inevitably changes. C doesn't have this problem because it just doesn't evolve. anyway, backwards compatibilty has been held to very great extent, considering.
I think Java is just maturing not dying.
Java found it niche. JavaEE is still big, as it is a great platform for Web Services. However Java Applications have never gotten popular because they always end up looking a bit out of date (although it has greatly improved) compared to what the other platforms offer.
java is dying from success. and of course i'm referring to j2ee. java on desktop or browser is anecdotical. it's technically sound but never made it through.
if you think about it, java is the perfect tool for any medium-big size software shop. everything is available: the language is basically sound, the api is endless and rich, there are lots of good tools for building, bug finding, profiling, optimizing, deploying ... you name it. java (j2ee) success in this area is indisputable (in fact, it has busted the .net monkeys thingie, that pursued exactly the same thing, to a limited captive market).
so what's the problem? well ... it's all just too easy. medium-big size software shops rely on all those standards and tools, build workflows on them ... so they can hire armies of clueless developers. and, obviously, produce glorious crap. throw in agile development (understood as blind running forward methodolgy) and you're pretty screwed.
java made cheap software possible. the problem is that there's no such thing as *good* cheap software, because it isn't so much about the tools, but about the brains.
throw in it is now mantained to oracle and you'll see this end in a big, big, big mess.
aims to replace a hodge-podge of digital and paper processes with purely digital workflows, helping FBI agents collaborate and "connect the dots" on investigations. The question now is how well the problem-plagued system will live up to those expectations
... but i know i have seen this before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YeY1dxlC7Sg#t=109s
Facebook has a similar policy yet you manage to just use a fake name.
don't really know fb's name policy (i don't bother to read that crap. just the term "name policy" is hilarous, i'd want to know what these guys smoke).
but if they have such, they sure don't enforce it. google does. i'm still banned from g+.
and i don't use fake names in either of them. i don't use names at all. maybe fb hasn't noticed it's not a real name, but it should be pretty obvious that it's just a nick.
not everyone who is supposed to 'verify' that information is as vigilant as you'd hope
understood, thank you.
Tell them you're concerned with identity theft and that you'll provide a SSN at the appropriate time
identity theft just because someone knows your ssn?
i may seem dumb now but i'm curious about this. are ssn used in us without backing by some reasonable credentials, and isn't identity cross-checked prior to any legal transaction or process? does this mean that just by knowing someone's ssn you could impersonate him somehow? in my country i could gladly give you my ssn and it would be useless for you, since for any use you would still have to prove that you are me.
if this is the case i understand the concerns of giving away the ssn to an interviewer (apart from the fact that there is no real reason to do so unless you are actually going to be employed), but it's still sounds weird.
it is an abdication of the most important relationship they have - with their readership - if they let a third party take control of that, they are signing up to be screwed over later on, when Facebook suddenly demands money for this sort of sign-on
I'm more inclined to suspect the contrary, that fb and g+ are the ones shelling out for having the accounts linked. i'm just speculating but it makes sense given their business model.
Thankfully no: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ [islinuxaboutchoice.com]
lol, good one :-)
ok, got it, linux is a kernel. this kind of an oldie. not even GNU/llinux is common nowadays. in this regard not even gnome is related. generally speaking linux is also the sheer and colorful bunch of distros out there, including the ones you can assemble all for yourself. embrace choice! :P
Feel free to say fuck here if you think it's appropriate.
thank you.
Now to the actual points: First, there are a lot of people who really like the direction GNOME is going, and that includes long time linux users / developers like me. Don't try to extrapolate from your opinions to everyone else...
thanks for the tip, I've just re-read all my contributions to this and didn't find any statement implying what you suggest. on the contrary, I've cheerfully celebrated gnome3's joyfull release, just added that I couldn't care less. if you like it I'm happy for you, as for me I'm also happy because I have a choice so it seems were quite a bunch of happy bunnies now. want some lettuce? :D
Personally I think GNOME 3 is the first time a linux UX is going somewhere, instead of just being a almost-but-not-quite competent clone of another product.
personally I think gnome has little to do with linux besides being one of multiple apps that runs on linux, and personally I think indeed gnome shell isn't at all original since it is mostly a mix of concepts borrowed from tablet and mac uis thrown on top of ... wait, a linux desktop. oh my! but, as said, be my guest.
Second: "wasn't linux all about choice?" Thankfully no: http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ . For those to lazy to click through to Ajax's post, I'll reference the summary: "the chain of logic from 'Linux is about choice' to 'ship everything and let the user chose how they want their sound to not work' starts with fallacy and ends with disaster."
while respecting your opinion the abstract doesn't make any sense. having choice is not the same as "pick and choose right out of the box". the point about choice is that in propietary systems (like mac or win) you basically have *none*. with linux you have lots, but it may well take you a bit of jumbling around - not necessarily, but it might. no big deal, really, or else show me another system with similar plurality (regardless of effort). there simply isn't any. thus: linux is definitely about choice, no matter what your gurus say. but thanks for the link, I'll have a look because it could actually contain some valid point to the point (which is kinda philosophical, btw) .
well I guess there's a lot more to a mac than it's ui. basically damn pretty well assembled hw, and a hw specific sw on top, and some fine ideas, polished work, you name it. at a price, of course. and I personally don't like it's ui but getting myself a macbookpro and slapping any linux on it could seem a bit weird but still would make sense to me. still, a macosish "desktop" environment doesn't make a mac, but the hype is already here: windows clearly imitates the look with 7 and even more so with 8. why shouldn't gnome too? it's lame but its understandable. it's ok for me but it's just not for me.
I find it quite a stretch to say that Gnome is a popular tablet environment.
Quick, name five tablets using Gnome. Or, name three that have sold more than five million units.
I can name none, but I already said I'm not interested in tablets.
however, if it isn't for tablets, what the faq is it supposed to be for?
ok, we might say it's an overhauled gui trying to look macosish. it even might succeed at that (ask a mac user, please). again, if I'd want a mac I would use a mac. it's very ok for me if gnome3 attracts more (probably broke) mac users but ... why in heaven should I degrade my own user experience? wasn't linux all about choice?
These comments give me a chuckle.
you're welcome!
It's pretty obvious you've not seriously even tried to *use* Gnome3/Shell.
and you're pretty right about that. i very soon realized the metaphor was useles for me.
It makes pretty heavy use of the keyboard use (and, in fact, shines when you rely on your keyboard instead of a mouse).
if i'd want to rely on heavy keyboard use I always could stick to good old tty (I spend much time in that land anyway). however, if I use a gui it's for a reason. that being: having a configurable layout with fast acces to functions a click away, a configurable and stable overview of running processes and a convenient way of task switching. i really don't need much more. sadly, Gnome3/Shell only gives me the latter so it's of not much use for me.
I'm however glad you like it and can throw keystrokes at a broken ui designed for casual users all day long. and I'm particularly glad because the fact that you are enabled to experiment such glorious joy doesn't prevent at all me of using some sane and truly sophisticated gui, ... like xfce for instance.
so let's chuckle together, bro :-)
"The popular GNOME tablet environment has just ..."
i'm using a real desktop and have no use for tablets, so gnome made itself irrelevant as of 3.0 already.
happy new release day anyway!
Quite right - but the GP seems to be insinuating IIS isn't successful.
from this thread I learned (with a bit of surprise) that people actually still use that crap. a full 10% according to some prospections.
if this means success I cannot judge, nor do I care, since "success" is totally subjective in this context. I guess that that 10% of sysops have their reasons and could label IIS as a successfull server, or something that helps them succeed. I can respect that but for me its still just crap. expensive crap, maybe.