Apple is the same if not considerably WORSE than Google in pretty much every aspect of end user privacy
I'm calling you out on this. For one, apple is BETTER than google in pretty much every aspect of end user privacy. It doesn't earn billions of dollars from tracking everything that people do and search for. Can you provide any examples to support your point?
Chromium is open source so if you don't like it, fork you own copy and get whatever useless toolbars that install without permission that you want.
don't be a fuck twit. how will you side load extensions when there are no extensions to install? no sane programmer will make a new windows extension that doesn't go through the chrome store.
Look, you can spin it any way you want, but his is pretty obviously a step to protect non-technical Chrome users from malware. It's not aimed at people who have the know-how to manage their own plugins/apps.
Oh come on. This is obviously phase 2 of google's plan to consolidate its hold on the internet. Note that if the extensions are in the chrome store then all the data flows through google, which is all they want anyway.
responding to self, I would not be surprised if future AAA titles were only released to PC through OnLive style services. this approach cuts out all the pirates.
I wonder why AAA games are designed primarily for consoles? can you think of any reasons why a AAA studio would not want to invest in the PC market? I'm stumped.
the something you're missing is that this is the first third person adventure game (not an action game) designed for both next-gen consoles.* Assassin's creed IV was ported to next gen, but designed for prior gen. Thus it takes advantage of the added processing power not just for pretty scenery but to make a more complex, more interactive game. I'm looking forward to it. I'm not one of those completionistas who has to wander the whole world doing every side mission. I play for the main story. Considering all the reviews say that the main story is awesome but the external Chicago world can be a little dry, I think I'm in for a treat.
*Infamous second son was designed only for PS4, so xbone players have been out in the cold)
Let's not forget that what most people dislike (or hate) about the U.S. government is something outside the intentions it was founded upon. It wasn't supposed to become a rich man's club running at the behest of other rich people.
America was founded for rich white men with the intent that it be governed by rich white men. To the extent it was democratic it was to protect the freedoms of other white men, forget about women or minorities.
I think the most important thing here is to not reuse your passwords. Otherwise breaches at one site can spill over into breaches at more important sites (like for your iphone, or your bank). the best thing to do is to have an easy approach to remember, so you end up with passwords like slashdotsucks666 and yahoosucks666.
No, that is not what i am saying. I am saying it is Economically Feasible to make a $75k electric car that compares with a $75K gas car than to make a $35K car that compares with a $35K car because of unscalable costs.
But that has nothing to do with Chrysler vs. Tesla. Chrystler's not looking to make money here, they're just looking to sell N units. And $$75k is a luxury niche, while at $35k there's the necessary demand.
fine, I'll delete the pics, but I'm keeping the boudoir oil paintings!
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand the big deal about the ribbon. I'm an "advanced" MS Office user (the term itself is somewhat of an oxymoron) and I can find all the functionality I need on the ribbon. And Office 2007+ has many many advantages over Office 2003.
still, all you're saying is that a $70k car is nicer than a $35k car. Captain Obvious! Remember, the goal here is for Chrystler to sell X units of electric car, while losing as little money as possible. If they made a $70k car for a niche audience maybe it would be nice but it wouldn't sell enough units.
On the other hand, enough with the whining and make a car that is worth what it costs to manufacture. Tesla makes a genuinely good car and sells it for a price that should bring a profit (eventually). The Fiat 500e is rather pathetic by comparison. It's a little runabout with a short range rather than a serious attempt to build an electric car. Regulations are not to blame for their inability to make a profit with an electric car. Their lack of engineering prowess and lack of commitment to the technology is why they are where they are.
I cannot bear this attitude. I hear it in the bay area all the time, and it makes my blood boil. I'll spell it out: the Fiat 500e is $36k. The Model S starts at $70k. The Model S is twice as expensive as the 500e! Do I really need to explain to you why the $70k car is nicer than the $36k car?? OF COURSE the Model S is fancier and has better range and better performance. Duh. There's too much Tesla fanboyism around here.
you made this up. this is a troll lie. The truth is, they can't raise the price because they're trying to sell a certain quota of "compliance cars". They chose $32,450 as the price because that's the most they could charge but still meet the quota.
I'm all for this approach.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
the point is, in Win 3.1 and win 95 the power button was like a circuit breaker. it just turned all the power off. there would be no safe shutdown, whether to sleep, or hibernate, or deep sleep, or power off, or whatever.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
the point is, on all computers from DOS to win 3.1 to win 95 the power button was a dumb switch, like throwing a circuit breaker. if the OS was in the middle of writing to your autoexec.bat? too bad, you're effed, who knows what will happen when you turn it on. The only safe way was to do a software power down from the start menu, then turn your computer off. Only in the late 90s did the power buttons connect with the OS, so pressing the power button activated the OS shutdown process, and the OS could turn off the computer. Maybe the software functionality was introduced in Win 95, but it took time for the hardware features to arrive because I didn't see it for a long time.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
the problem is if you attempt this work flow: you open up a file, make some edits, and decide you want to save the edited version as a new file and leave the original file unchanged. Before Mavericks, this was no problem because this was exactly what the Save As button was for. In Mavericks you need to jump through all the hoops that GP describes.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
you got some heat for your comments, but you're spot on. Apple's method breaks when a user edits a file and decides he wants to save the new version as a new file leave the original file unchanged. It would seem that it's impossible to just open a file without it being updated as well. It's like some weird Heisenberg steve jobs uncertainty principle.
That being said, now that you explained it clearly, I understand the issue better and also what my hang ups were.
Re:Never used this keystroke
on
Goodbye, Ctrl-S
·
· Score: 1
related to this thought, I read an article that Microsoft got rid of the start->shutdown button to turn off your computer. This freaked people out, even though for 15 years you've been able to just hit the power button and it would turn off properly. Article supposed that people's behavior had been burned in during the win 3.1/win 95 "it's now safe to turn off your computer" era. Article further speculated that it's hopeless to change any of these behaviors that have been so ingrained.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is the same if not considerably WORSE than Google in pretty much every aspect of end user privacy
I'm calling you out on this. For one, apple is BETTER than google in pretty much every aspect of end user privacy. It doesn't earn billions of dollars from tracking everything that people do and search for. Can you provide any examples to support your point?
Chromium is open source so if you don't like it, fork you own copy and get whatever useless toolbars that install without permission that you want.
don't be a fuck twit. how will you side load extensions when there are no extensions to install? no sane programmer will make a new windows extension that doesn't go through the chrome store.
Look, you can spin it any way you want, but his is pretty obviously a step to protect non-technical Chrome users from malware. It's not aimed at people who have the know-how to manage their own plugins/apps.
Oh come on. This is obviously phase 2 of google's plan to consolidate its hold on the internet. Note that if the extensions are in the chrome store then all the data flows through google, which is all they want anyway.
responding to self, I would not be surprised if future AAA titles were only released to PC through OnLive style services. this approach cuts out all the pirates.
I wonder why AAA games are designed primarily for consoles? can you think of any reasons why a AAA studio would not want to invest in the PC market? I'm stumped.
the something you're missing is that this is the first third person adventure game (not an action game) designed for both next-gen consoles.* Assassin's creed IV was ported to next gen, but designed for prior gen. Thus it takes advantage of the added processing power not just for pretty scenery but to make a more complex, more interactive game. I'm looking forward to it. I'm not one of those completionistas who has to wander the whole world doing every side mission. I play for the main story. Considering all the reviews say that the main story is awesome but the external Chicago world can be a little dry, I think I'm in for a treat.
*Infamous second son was designed only for PS4, so xbone players have been out in the cold)
Let's not forget that what most people dislike (or hate) about the U.S. government is something outside the intentions it was founded upon. It wasn't supposed to become a rich man's club running at the behest of other rich people.
America was founded for rich white men with the intent that it be governed by rich white men. To the extent it was democratic it was to protect the freedoms of other white men, forget about women or minorities.
I think the most important thing here is to not reuse your passwords. Otherwise breaches at one site can spill over into breaches at more important sites (like for your iphone, or your bank). the best thing to do is to have an easy approach to remember, so you end up with passwords like slashdotsucks666 and yahoosucks666.
why don't you just... look at the screens? also, shouldn't you own the screens already?
Plenty of wealthy people aren't rulers, just wealthy fucktards.
I'd love to try one. The only problem is you can only play games licensed to playstation, so there won't be any vr pr0n.
The shackles of wealth, then?
Heavy is the head that bears the crown.
That refers to the burden of being a ruler. Has nothing to do with wealth.
What does BTC stand for?
No, that is not what i am saying. I am saying it is Economically Feasible to make a $75k electric car that compares with a $75K gas car than to make a $35K car that compares with a $35K car because of unscalable costs.
But that has nothing to do with Chrysler vs. Tesla. Chrystler's not looking to make money here, they're just looking to sell N units. And $$75k is a luxury niche, while at $35k there's the necessary demand.
fine, I'll delete the pics, but I'm keeping the boudoir oil paintings!
I don't understand the big deal about the ribbon. I'm an "advanced" MS Office user (the term itself is somewhat of an oxymoron) and I can find all the functionality I need on the ribbon. And Office 2007+ has many many advantages over Office 2003.
still, all you're saying is that a $70k car is nicer than a $35k car. Captain Obvious! Remember, the goal here is for Chrystler to sell X units of electric car, while losing as little money as possible. If they made a $70k car for a niche audience maybe it would be nice but it wouldn't sell enough units.
+1 that made me chuckle.
On the other hand, enough with the whining and make a car that is worth what it costs to manufacture. Tesla makes a genuinely good car and sells it for a price that should bring a profit (eventually). The Fiat 500e is rather pathetic by comparison. It's a little runabout with a short range rather than a serious attempt to build an electric car. Regulations are not to blame for their inability to make a profit with an electric car. Their lack of engineering prowess and lack of commitment to the technology is why they are where they are.
I cannot bear this attitude. I hear it in the bay area all the time, and it makes my blood boil. I'll spell it out: the Fiat 500e is $36k. The Model S starts at $70k. The Model S is twice as expensive as the 500e! Do I really need to explain to you why the $70k car is nicer than the $36k car?? OF COURSE the Model S is fancier and has better range and better performance. Duh. There's too much Tesla fanboyism around here.
you made this up. this is a troll lie. The truth is, they can't raise the price because they're trying to sell a certain quota of "compliance cars". They chose $32,450 as the price because that's the most they could charge but still meet the quota.
I'm all for this approach.
the point is, in Win 3.1 and win 95 the power button was like a circuit breaker. it just turned all the power off. there would be no safe shutdown, whether to sleep, or hibernate, or deep sleep, or power off, or whatever.
the point is, on all computers from DOS to win 3.1 to win 95 the power button was a dumb switch, like throwing a circuit breaker. if the OS was in the middle of writing to your autoexec.bat? too bad, you're effed, who knows what will happen when you turn it on. The only safe way was to do a software power down from the start menu, then turn your computer off. Only in the late 90s did the power buttons connect with the OS, so pressing the power button activated the OS shutdown process, and the OS could turn off the computer. Maybe the software functionality was introduced in Win 95, but it took time for the hardware features to arrive because I didn't see it for a long time.
the problem is if you attempt this work flow: you open up a file, make some edits, and decide you want to save the edited version as a new file and leave the original file unchanged. Before Mavericks, this was no problem because this was exactly what the Save As button was for. In Mavericks you need to jump through all the hoops that GP describes.
you got some heat for your comments, but you're spot on. Apple's method breaks when a user edits a file and decides he wants to save the new version as a new file leave the original file unchanged. It would seem that it's impossible to just open a file without it being updated as well. It's like some weird Heisenberg steve jobs uncertainty principle. That being said, now that you explained it clearly, I understand the issue better and also what my hang ups were.
related to this thought, I read an article that Microsoft got rid of the start->shutdown button to turn off your computer. This freaked people out, even though for 15 years you've been able to just hit the power button and it would turn off properly. Article supposed that people's behavior had been burned in during the win 3.1/win 95 "it's now safe to turn off your computer" era. Article further speculated that it's hopeless to change any of these behaviors that have been so ingrained.