It seems that this is where a lot of technically-inclined people miss the point with Chrome. It's not something they necessarily wanted to replace Firefox with, despite all the talk in tech media to the contrary; it's a test-bed for new combinations of ideas in web browsers, and a launchpad for its web applications-- so they can say, "We recommend this browser, because our web app's performance sucks in IE*."
There are those who find nothing useful in it and go back to Firefox. There are those who are impressed enough with it to use it regularly on Windows. There are those who are intrigued enough to grab the code and start tweaking. The current consensus among Slashdot commenters is the first opinion, and that's perfectly okay with Google.
I think they'll see a bit more market share when the Linux port comes out, source and all.
I haven't tried uploading stuff under Chrome (and even that may depend on the website), but the Shockwave/Flash issue may depend on the environment (other processes running in the background, CPU, RAM, etc.)-- I haven't had a problem with Flash-heavy sites, and I tend to browse through a lot of them. I only ran into the "freeze when really, really low on memory" issue once and learned that Chrome doesn't really follow its "one process per tab" design strictly-- when resources get tight, it groups more tabs under fewer processes, seemingly randomly; thus, killing a process can kill off a tab I actually want to keep.
Generally, a restart of Shockwave gets it responsive again, or killing the lowest PID Chrome process and restarting. For a relatively untested program, 1 hang of the entire application and 5 or 6 Shockwave hangs in 3 weeks or so of heavy usage is actually pretty good, IMO.
Of course it's beta-- that's what they said it was. They also said they tested it on every site they could throw at it, so the only thing they haven't tested is the myriad variations of hardware and software configurations in the Windows world-- that's what an open beta is perfect for.
"I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't realize that in order to be safe it ALWAYS important to assume that your emails are immediately and fully in the hands of your worst enemies is hopelessly naive."
I'd rather that as much correspondence of public officials remain, well, public.
3) Take all of that knowledge and apply it to a programming language. I personally would choose something along the lines of python and ruby. They have enough problems and they need a quick turn around.
4) Teach them about OOP by introducing them to a programming language like C# or Java.
I'm curious, I was pretty sure you could do OO in both Python and Ruby, why the change-up mid-course to C# or Java? Are you suggesting compiled language experience, as opposed to interpreted but still OOP?
"There's no way they're spying on us, using 'terrorism' as an excuse!"
Then we found out that Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bush, McCain, Rove, and a whole host of Bush administration people lied about WMDs in Iraq, and the al Qaeda connection.
Lying, it seems, is a job requirement in the Bush administration.
Of course, most public offices require deception in some form, but do they really and regularly lie in such a blatant way?
By "that is not the rule", I'm guessing you mean it's up to the judge's discretion and whether the prevailing defendant demands attorney's fees. It's not mandated by law, but it is possible.
Surely there had to be a better way than the old "summon the lawyers" tactic. Release a new "Imagine" music video, for example, but with a refutation of the video that used the 15 seconds. Maybe she doesn't understand new technology, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to creatively express your disagreement with something without invoking copyright law.
The labels are simply trying to squeeze the market for royalties to songs that, while still great songs, are probably yielding diminishing returns by now.
1. That's been challenged, IIRC, in the courts. I think a judge ruled against it, and the details are being worked out. 2. This, along with the EU demanding removable batteries, is because of Jobs' design sense overruling some engineering decisions. Jobs loves smooth surfaces, which is why the Macbook Air, iPhone, and recent iPods are as seamless as possible. It's also borne from the fact that Apple sells electronic products as a whole, and software add-ons, rather than independent software that can install on other companies' products (aside from maybe iTunes and Safari). 3, 4. Apple is similar to the record labels in this regard: They want as much control in their hands as possible.
Ten years ago the Republican party had two things going for it, fiscal conservatism and a strong stance on freedom. What happened? (It would be easy to say, "George Bush", but I refuse to believe that he could have done it single handedly.)
Try a whole cadre of Republicans (currently or formerly) in the Bush White House and Congress. Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Rove, Gonzales, Rice, McCain (post-2002), etc. Fiscal conservatism was set aside for an ambiguous war, and "freedom" was subjugated into a desire to unilaterally and proactively ensure the progress of American interests, even where it's not wanted.
Bush probably knew about it, but was placated because Cheney told him kids would get ice cream.
Oh, you think Pelosi and Reid are responsible, too? No, they're just taking advantage of the times like any shrewd politician.
The labels were a convenient one-stop shop for artists and composers, where they can get a production, publication, and distribution package all in one, and get paid in big enticing chunks. This works great... until you deviate from the contract. Then their label demonstrates that they own them, as wealthy colonists owned the indentured servants of old.
A little education on the power of the special interest:
Naval R&D ROI isn't always quantified, although invaluable. Doubtless someone with insufficient sense or short-sighted priorities will cut their budget, further weakening their ability to do research. Recording industry lobbyists contribute millions of dollars to campaigns and national committees in order to "encourage" the passage of ever-draconian laws to increase the scope of government, even to the point of having the DOJ serve as their counsel by proxy in civil suits.
That, my friend, is the difference, and is the reason why "crimes" against the private sector are punished much more severely. They don't prove a single figure of damages and they get thousands of dollars' worth of damages per infringing song.
I think the CRB boosted rates to kill off as many online outlets of music as possible. Apple has been a thorn in the labels' sides because of their low price leveraging them against any sort of manipulation from the music cartel.
Again, it's not about money, it's about complete control of the production and distribution chains. That's the only way they can fix prices at $25 +- $10. In fact, I expect them to raise the baseline to $30, citing the current economic downturn and dollar weakness.
I wish they could, but the ISPs there agreed to monitor their users for P2P transmissions of copyrighted stuff.
Dunno if they will allow the content companies there to actually bully their customers, but given that they've taken to mimicking the US in a lot of ways...
Thought of another potential flaw: Some banks are really terrible at discarding you when you leave them. So if you change banks and re-register under a different institution, you might be denied because your old bank insists you're still with them.
Some banks, for whatever reason, make it really painful to try to leave them.
That doesn't solve the problem of voter fraud by faked identities. Include the requirement of "1 vote per person per issue/office", and you plug the "multiple vote" fraud.
Of course, the work involved in pulling off voter fraud by forging a bunch of false identities, as well as the risk of being discovered, arrested, etc., probably outweighs the 'benefit' of getting your buddy in office.
On the other hand, this doesn't rely on a verifiable residence, so this method will be resistant to caging.
Republicans* will never go for it.;)
* Along with the "tax and spend" accusation, I've discovered that Republicans love to accuse Democrats of cheating by using multiple addresses, while using very questionable caging tactics on the other hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. These buckets of bolts only fly for a few seconds, tops, and only if you take a speed bump at 80 mph.
He was born in Hawaii, after its statehood was approved/ratified, to an American citizen. Get over it, troll.
It seems that this is where a lot of technically-inclined people miss the point with Chrome. It's not something they necessarily wanted to replace Firefox with, despite all the talk in tech media to the contrary; it's a test-bed for new combinations of ideas in web browsers, and a launchpad for its web applications-- so they can say, "We recommend this browser, because our web app's performance sucks in IE*."
There are those who find nothing useful in it and go back to Firefox. There are those who are impressed enough with it to use it regularly on Windows. There are those who are intrigued enough to grab the code and start tweaking. The current consensus among Slashdot commenters is the first opinion, and that's perfectly okay with Google.
I think they'll see a bit more market share when the Linux port comes out, source and all.
I haven't tried uploading stuff under Chrome (and even that may depend on the website), but the Shockwave/Flash issue may depend on the environment (other processes running in the background, CPU, RAM, etc.)-- I haven't had a problem with Flash-heavy sites, and I tend to browse through a lot of them. I only ran into the "freeze when really, really low on memory" issue once and learned that Chrome doesn't really follow its "one process per tab" design strictly-- when resources get tight, it groups more tabs under fewer processes, seemingly randomly; thus, killing a process can kill off a tab I actually want to keep.
Generally, a restart of Shockwave gets it responsive again, or killing the lowest PID Chrome process and restarting. For a relatively untested program, 1 hang of the entire application and 5 or 6 Shockwave hangs in 3 weeks or so of heavy usage is actually pretty good, IMO.
Of course it's beta-- that's what they said it was. They also said they tested it on every site they could throw at it, so the only thing they haven't tested is the myriad variations of hardware and software configurations in the Windows world-- that's what an open beta is perfect for.
I suspect that the regenerative braking systems found on hybrids is also a big part of their efficiency boost.
"I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't realize that in order to be safe it ALWAYS important to assume that your emails are immediately and fully in the hands of your worst enemies is hopelessly naive."
I'd rather that as much correspondence of public officials remain, well, public.
Why? Two words: Dick Cheney.
I'm curious, I was pretty sure you could do OO in both Python and Ruby, why the change-up mid-course to C# or Java? Are you suggesting compiled language experience, as opposed to interpreted but still OOP?
Upon reflection, McCain was probably a "me too!" man back then, when everyone still trusted Bush with a visceral paranoia.
("they" being Bushies)
"There's no way they're spying on us, using 'terrorism' as an excuse!"
Then we found out that Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bush, McCain, Rove, and a whole host of Bush administration people lied about WMDs in Iraq, and the al Qaeda connection.
Lying, it seems, is a job requirement in the Bush administration.
Of course, most public offices require deception in some form, but do they really and regularly lie in such a blatant way?
By "that is not the rule", I'm guessing you mean it's up to the judge's discretion and whether the prevailing defendant demands attorney's fees. It's not mandated by law, but it is possible.
Surely there had to be a better way than the old "summon the lawyers" tactic. Release a new "Imagine" music video, for example, but with a refutation of the video that used the 15 seconds. Maybe she doesn't understand new technology, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to creatively express your disagreement with something without invoking copyright law.
The labels are simply trying to squeeze the market for royalties to songs that, while still great songs, are probably yielding diminishing returns by now.
Some comments on your comments:
1. That's been challenged, IIRC, in the courts. I think a judge ruled against it, and the details are being worked out.
2. This, along with the EU demanding removable batteries, is because of Jobs' design sense overruling some engineering decisions. Jobs loves smooth surfaces, which is why the Macbook Air, iPhone, and recent iPods are as seamless as possible.
It's also borne from the fact that Apple sells electronic products as a whole, and software add-ons, rather than independent software that can install on other companies' products (aside from maybe iTunes and Safari).
3, 4. Apple is similar to the record labels in this regard: They want as much control in their hands as possible.
Try a whole cadre of Republicans (currently or formerly) in the Bush White House and Congress. Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Wolfowitz, Rove, Gonzales, Rice, McCain (post-2002), etc. Fiscal conservatism was set aside for an ambiguous war, and "freedom" was subjugated into a desire to unilaterally and proactively ensure the progress of American interests, even where it's not wanted.
Bush probably knew about it, but was placated because Cheney told him kids would get ice cream.
Oh, you think Pelosi and Reid are responsible, too? No, they're just taking advantage of the times like any shrewd politician.
The labels were a convenient one-stop shop for artists and composers, where they can get a production, publication, and distribution package all in one, and get paid in big enticing chunks. This works great... until you deviate from the contract. Then their label demonstrates that they own them, as wealthy colonists owned the indentured servants of old.
A little education on the power of the special interest:
Naval R&D ROI isn't always quantified, although invaluable. Doubtless someone with insufficient sense or short-sighted priorities will cut their budget, further weakening their ability to do research.
Recording industry lobbyists contribute millions of dollars to campaigns and national committees in order to "encourage" the passage of ever-draconian laws to increase the scope of government, even to the point of having the DOJ serve as their counsel by proxy in civil suits.
That, my friend, is the difference, and is the reason why "crimes" against the private sector are punished much more severely. They don't prove a single figure of damages and they get thousands of dollars' worth of damages per infringing song.
Screwed up, or planned all along?
I think the CRB boosted rates to kill off as many online outlets of music as possible. Apple has been a thorn in the labels' sides because of their low price leveraging them against any sort of manipulation from the music cartel.
Again, it's not about money, it's about complete control of the production and distribution chains. That's the only way they can fix prices at $25 +- $10. In fact, I expect them to raise the baseline to $30, citing the current economic downturn and dollar weakness.
And they were told OOXML wouldn't work, because despite its ISO blessing, there was no reference implementation of ISO OOXML.
So Microsoft is going the other route: subvert and gain control of ODF.
Test it out by putting a constipated cat into a microwave.
Then sue Panasonic*.
* Obscure Weird Al reference.
I tried that, and I got this response:
Isn't that a bit like the "Interviewer" sketch with Rowan Atkinson and John Cleese?
Sh. Most laughs I've had all my lifeWAACK!
I wish they could, but the ISPs there agreed to monitor their users for P2P transmissions of copyrighted stuff.
Dunno if they will allow the content companies there to actually bully their customers, but given that they've taken to mimicking the US in a lot of ways...
Thought of another potential flaw: Some banks are really terrible at discarding you when you leave them. So if you change banks and re-register under a different institution, you might be denied because your old bank insists you're still with them.
Some banks, for whatever reason, make it really painful to try to leave them.
That doesn't solve the problem of voter fraud by faked identities. Include the requirement of "1 vote per person per issue/office", and you plug the "multiple vote" fraud.
Of course, the work involved in pulling off voter fraud by forging a bunch of false identities, as well as the risk of being discovered, arrested, etc., probably outweighs the 'benefit' of getting your buddy in office.
On the other hand, this doesn't rely on a verifiable residence, so this method will be resistant to caging.
Republicans* will never go for it. ;)
* Along with the "tax and spend" accusation, I've discovered that Republicans love to accuse Democrats of cheating by using multiple addresses, while using very questionable caging tactics on the other hand.
I'm for the entire process being online, but one would have to guard the system against things like man-in-the-middle and phishing attacks.
Filtering content online is going to be an exercise in futility, not to mention an arms race.