Since this extension only *informs* and does nothing else, such as actively disrupt Firesheep's functionality, you will still be busted if doing insecure communication on the network, see this warning suddenly pop up, and are already using Twitter/Facebook/...? And in this case, you would have to "ZOMGQUIT!!!" to have any chance of being safe.
For how long can a session be hijacked anyway? If you close your browser, is the seesion instantly invalidated? Or only after like 5 minutes? I mean, in that case, Blacksheep could scream all it wants, and you'll still be a potential victim even if it warned you and you closed your browser (or tab).
On the other hand, people LOVE to feel like they're part of something. But I do agree with you, it depends a lot on how it's executed.
I personally think this is the kind of show that'll be fairly successful for a season of six episodes, but not subsequent seasons once the novelty value has worn off.
This does suggest it's actually Windows Vista.1 but version numbers are pretty arbitrary. Still, Windows 8 doesn't have to be a complete rewrite. Simply an update.
Actually, MS has refuted this and told that they only called it a minor update in the version number for backwards compatibility reasons. MS consider Windows 7 a major kernel revision. I'm not sure I do though. I rather consider that move being MS going "Well, this OS is basically Vista architecture-wise, so ensure apps see it as that too if they only look at the major version number". In that sense, Windows 7 is a more "minor" upgrade.
I agree, this isn't a bad idea IMHO. They could use Windows 7 as a base for incremental improvements for some time. It's rare for MS to get as many things right as there after all is in Windows 7, so why not make carefully move from there?
People may say "but where's the money in that!", but if 7.1, 7.2, etc would still be paid for, and more often than the major releases, people might be *more* willing to upgrade since they'd know that they wouldn't get something huge at once, and maybe even use the old rule of wanting to wait for the first service pack. Less such risks with smaller updates. Also, smaller updates would be able to be more frequently released, and they could compensate for this somewhat by selling them for less.
If this all sounds wild & crazy -- Apple is pretty successful with their systems, and they've been doing exactly this since OS X 10.0...
Windows and Linux desktop distros are both intended to be fairly complete software packages for the desktop, and Flash is software, not hardware.
BUT... I'm not saying this in defense of Apple. I'm saying it in defense of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux. I'm saying it because it doesn't make sense to ship Flash versions with known security vulnerabilities on DVD-ROM's that have to be patched as soon as they're installed.
Nah, then it's better to not ship anything at all, and let the user download it from the sole company with responsibility for Flash -- Adobe.
MS, and now also Apple, has apparently realized this.
I am sure this will set off a whole series of arguments over benchmarks, tuning, fairness, etc. But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins.
I agree. Even IE 9 should be good enough by now, to not much JS that much of a bottleneck when loading web pages, even pretty JS heavy ones.
Also, as for tuning, there's no secret that Mozilla has tuned Firefox 4 particularly to win Sunspider and V8.
Good work, Steve. Your endless desire for control has likely just cost the Mac a lot of developers.
Huh? It's the distribution chains that should be worried, not the devs or the users.
This is the best thing since sliced bread for many of especially the smaller devs. Apple takes care of the bandwidth costs, Apple takes care of the review and feedback system, Apple takes care of the auto-updating mechanism, Apple takes care of getting your apps closer the users than ever since it's an integrated part of the forthcoming OS. The devs? Well, $99/year and 70% of the sales, and that's it. This is a killer feature for all developers who rely on their website on providing the applications, and are worried that their web host will collapse after getting Slashdotted.
No gimping here, far from it. No, rather the opposite. This will attract new developers. And the users benefit since the updating and exploration part will become a super smooth experience.
Sure, if you do special things with your apps, like installing things like system components outside the app folder, then you have to rely on the traditional means. However, if you have such special needs, your application is also of a special kind, and your users will *have* to get the functionality through your web site. There's no option. So I don't see the problem, really... Photoshop is among those apps who probably can't be shoe-horned into the Mac App Store, but that doesn't mean Adobe will suffer! Of course people will still want Photoshop if they use these kind of tools. And what about VMware? Well, for advanced virtualization software, you *have* to use other channels. And for the random tiny app that installs a driver to do [insert technical thing here], well, there'll be no competition on Mac App Store taking away your users - there's no competition since nothing there would be granted rights to be there anyway.
I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth?
The experiment in the article attempt to do so. Why do you doubt their ability to provide data sets on how the universe works on Earth?
I would think you would have to do experiments in other environments, other than on Earth.
Because photons travel differently in other enviroments than Earth?
I said this before and I will say this again. Google, just like MS, is playing the version game so they make an immature browser seem equal to other browser, at least to the unsophisticated portion of the customer base.
How is Chrome immature?
Google's explanation is that shorter development cycles mean that they won't have to wait as long if some new feature missed the feature freeze.
Why isn't it 6.x? Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0? Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?
They already are. They sometime issue security fixes (and, more rarely, urgent bug fixes) as only bumping the build number.
As for the 6.0/7.0/8.0, well, it's simply Google's way of doing it. For what it's worth, Google use to refer their releases as "milestones".
I don't think they look at version numbers as you do.
I agree; this may sound like a shallow idea of why Apple is so popular, but there is little disagreement that women care more for style and fashion than men. I think this has been a driving force for several thousand years during evolution, in order to maintain healthy homes and so on (evolution doesn't care for the current trends in gender equality politics). Heck, the biological differences go so far as to make women more sensitive to smells. So it's not just esthetics.
So I also think that Apple gain a quite clear edge here. It's not that many men are disinterested in fashionable products, it's just that even more women are, and the competitors don't see (or care?) for this fact as much.
Slashdot Mirror
If I do, I'll have a neck strain in a matter of an hour.
Much, much better solution than this "Blacksheep" tool if you ask me. Blacksheep simply isn't doing this right.
Since this extension only *informs* and does nothing else, such as actively disrupt Firesheep's functionality, you will still be busted if doing insecure communication on the network, see this warning suddenly pop up, and are already using Twitter/Facebook/...? And in this case, you would have to "ZOMGQUIT!!!" to have any chance of being safe.
For how long can a session be hijacked anyway? If you close your browser, is the seesion instantly invalidated? Or only after like 5 minutes? I mean, in that case, Blacksheep could scream all it wants, and you'll still be a potential victim even if it warned you and you closed your browser (or tab).
Can we say that not every download is a loss of sale, but some losses of sale can be attributed to downloading?
Yes, and some gains in sales from the added recognition and exposure from downloads being available.
How these two weigh up each other or not is matter of the current debate.
On the other hand, people LOVE to feel like they're part of something. But I do agree with you, it depends a lot on how it's executed.
I personally think this is the kind of show that'll be fairly successful for a season of six episodes, but not subsequent seasons once the novelty value has worn off.
What if Zynga had done this, do you think FB would have banned them for months?
Zynga DID do this, but yeah, FB doesn't have the balls for that.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104556-Zynga-Sued-Over-Facebook-Leak
my girlfriends 3gs (running iOS 4.x) had the same bug this morning.
Fortunately, my $99 android phone woke us up at the right time
Thank God you have such a cheap but still powerful Android phone. God I hate Apple with their time zone bug. /chimes in ;)
This does suggest it's actually Windows Vista.1 but version numbers are pretty arbitrary. Still, Windows 8 doesn't have to be a complete rewrite. Simply an update.
Actually, MS has refuted this and told that they only called it a minor update in the version number for backwards compatibility reasons. MS consider Windows 7 a major kernel revision. I'm not sure I do though. I rather consider that move being MS going "Well, this OS is basically Vista architecture-wise, so ensure apps see it as that too if they only look at the major version number". In that sense, Windows 7 is a more "minor" upgrade.
I agree, this isn't a bad idea IMHO. They could use Windows 7 as a base for incremental improvements for some time. It's rare for MS to get as many things right as there after all is in Windows 7, so why not make carefully move from there?
People may say "but where's the money in that!", but if 7.1, 7.2, etc would still be paid for, and more often than the major releases, people might be *more* willing to upgrade since they'd know that they wouldn't get something huge at once, and maybe even use the old rule of wanting to wait for the first service pack. Less such risks with smaller updates. Also, smaller updates would be able to be more frequently released, and they could compensate for this somewhat by selling them for less.
If this all sounds wild & crazy -- Apple is pretty successful with their systems, and they've been doing exactly this since OS X 10.0...
Wow, how did you come up with that joke!
I'm not sure how hardware comes into play here.
Windows and Linux desktop distros are both intended to be fairly complete software packages for the desktop, and Flash is software, not hardware.
BUT... I'm not saying this in defense of Apple. I'm saying it in defense of Microsoft, Apple, and Linux. I'm saying it because it doesn't make sense to ship Flash versions with known security vulnerabilities on DVD-ROM's that have to be patched as soon as they're installed.
Nah, then it's better to not ship anything at all, and let the user download it from the sole company with responsibility for Flash -- Adobe.
MS, and now also Apple, has apparently realized this.
Windows doesn't include it either.
Maybe some Linux distros (?), but in that case, it would be pretty ironic.
I am sure this will set off a whole series of arguments over benchmarks, tuning, fairness, etc. But from this article I will just take this: I don't care which one is fastest to the few dozen milliseconds, they are probably all in the same "class" now. Everybody wins.
I agree. Even IE 9 should be good enough by now, to not much JS that much of a bottleneck when loading web pages, even pretty JS heavy ones.
Also, as for tuning, there's no secret that Mozilla has tuned Firefox 4 particularly to win Sunspider and V8.
Good work, Steve. Your endless desire for control has likely just cost the Mac a lot of developers.
Huh? It's the distribution chains that should be worried, not the devs or the users.
This is the best thing since sliced bread for many of especially the smaller devs. Apple takes care of the bandwidth costs, Apple takes care of the review and feedback system, Apple takes care of the auto-updating mechanism, Apple takes care of getting your apps closer the users than ever since it's an integrated part of the forthcoming OS. The devs? Well, $99/year and 70% of the sales, and that's it. This is a killer feature for all developers who rely on their website on providing the applications, and are worried that their web host will collapse after getting Slashdotted.
No gimping here, far from it. No, rather the opposite. This will attract new developers.
And the users benefit since the updating and exploration part will become a super smooth experience.
Sure, if you do special things with your apps, like installing things like system components outside the app folder, then you have to rely on the traditional means. However, if you have such special needs, your application is also of a special kind, and your users will *have* to get the functionality through your web site. There's no option. So I don't see the problem, really... Photoshop is among those apps who probably can't be shoe-horned into the Mac App Store, but that doesn't mean Adobe will suffer! Of course people will still want Photoshop if they use these kind of tools. And what about VMware? Well, for advanced virtualization software, you *have* to use other channels. And for the random tiny app that installs a driver to do [insert technical thing here], well, there'll be no competition on Mac App Store taking away your users - there's no competition since nothing there would be granted rights to be there anyway.
Its a damn netbook, and not even a full year after Steve claimed at the iPad keynote that netbooks have no use...
It's twice as fast than an Atom-based netbook on the CPU alone, not counting the SSD, with (at least) 2 GB RAM...
Netbooks are sluggish things often running XP because they can't even run Windows 7 well.
It has one thing in common though: Screen size.
But netbooks got their names because they can basically only surf the web, unlike this one.
iOS != OS X...
I'm not saying that research like this shouldn't be done, but will anyone ever be able to provide solid 'data' about the universe conducting experiments on Earth?
The experiment in the article attempt to do so.
Why do you doubt their ability to provide data sets on how the universe works on Earth?
I would think you would have to do experiments in other environments, other than on Earth.
Because photons travel differently in other enviroments than Earth?
t's Chrome's fault because scripts can't run before page content is loaded.
Chrome supports onbeforeload, but yes, there are some limitations remaining that are being worked on.
I said this before and I will say this again. Google, just like MS, is playing the version game so they make an immature browser seem equal to other browser, at least to the unsophisticated portion of the customer base.
How is Chrome immature?
Google's explanation is that shorter development cycles mean that they won't have to wait as long if some new feature missed the feature freeze.
Why isn't it 6.x? Does this mean in 6 weeks they'll give us 8.0? Whatever happened to using the numbers AFTER the decimal point, especially for releases that concentrate mostly on bug-fixes?
They already are. They sometime issue security fixes (and, more rarely, urgent bug fixes) as only bumping the build number.
As for the 6.0/7.0/8.0, well, it's simply Google's way of doing it. For what it's worth, Google use to refer their releases as "milestones".
I don't think they look at version numbers as you do.
Sounds like its time to find a new social media website.
Why?
How about video chat that works with the iPhone as well?
I hope so too, but I fear that there's a penis size contest about to begin here. :-(
I'm afraid Google would feel that following the FaceTime standard would risk giving away users to Apple.
I find it hilarious that we aren't over those size limits yet. :-D
A history lesson here:
http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_drives/hard_drive_size_barriers.htm
You simply don't win an argument with a group of trolls by feeding them.
I agree; this may sound like a shallow idea of why Apple is so popular, but there is little disagreement that women care more for style and fashion than men. I think this has been a driving force for several thousand years during evolution, in order to maintain healthy homes and so on (evolution doesn't care for the current trends in gender equality politics). Heck, the biological differences go so far as to make women more sensitive to smells. So it's not just esthetics.
So I also think that Apple gain a quite clear edge here. It's not that many men are disinterested in fashionable products, it's just that even more women are, and the competitors don't see (or care?) for this fact as much.