So, you're happy losing 14 visitors out of every 100 you would otherwise have had if you had not ignored the 14% of people using Safari, Opera, and the various other small browsers out there? Granted, 14 of 100 doesn't sound bad, until you scale it up and realize that you are giving up 14k of every 100k visitors. If even 10% of those 14k spent 50$, you're leaving 70k$ on the table just from those people.
That's a completely phoney argument, and it's pretty much the same exact claim the RIAA/MPAA/BSA makes when they say they are losing gazillions of dollars. You can't "lose" something you never had in the first place.
I found many online cameras 3-4 years ago, but things seem to have changed. For example, the Ars Technica article, referenced earlier, says "Change the search to “intitle: ‘Live View / - AXIS 206M,’” though, and Google returns 3 pages of links to 206Ms that are online and viewable." But when I try this, I only get spam websites and articles telling you "how to use Google to find online cameras".
Tim cook streamlined Apple's supply chain and increased profit margins considerably. Although he is not a designer, he is a great choice to replace Steve Jobs. (In saying this, I obviously hope that the iPod, iPhone, iPod were not solely motivated by Steve Jobs, but by Apple's design team. If not, we as consumers are screwed)
Given all his health problems, Steve Jobs needs to retire and enjoy life a little. One of weird things is I keep reading all these articles that say Apple doesn't have anyone who can replace Jobs and Microsoft doesn't have anyone who can replace Steve Ballmer. I find that very hard to believe. But, even worse, it it's really true, they're pretty well screwed.
How about you remove all of your posts, pictures and delete your account immediately?.
You're assuming that closing your account actually deletes all your information and Facebook no longer sells it to advertisers. This is not necessarily a valid assumption.
Facebook is no longer just a website run by a couple of college kids. It is a business - a big business - and like any business their number one priority is making as much money as possible. This is especially true now that Goldman-Sachs has invested $500 million and is trying to get others to invest another Billion or so. No matter how much lip service is given to "privacy" it is no accident that their privacy settings are hard to figure out, don't really do anything and completely deleting a profile is difficult, assuming that they actually delete anything at all. This is by deliberate design because Facebook's business model demands that they must be able to sell your personal information to advertisers.
The more it copies Chrome, the less reason there is to use it, and more motivation to switch to Chrome instead.
Unfortunately, Chrome is still too bare-bones and missing too many features. However, I remain hopeful that by the time they totally fuck up Firefox and make it unusable, Chrome will be an adequate replacement. The guy who created the AdBlock extension for Firefox is now working on a Chrome version (the other AdBlock for Chrome sucked pretty bad) so hopefull it will be just as good as the Firefox version and that will make any future change to Chrome a little easier, since that's the only real "must have" extension for me.
but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?
YES!! Why? Because the Firefox Developers said so!! That's all you need to know. They will NEVER NEVER EVER admit that one of their ideas wasn't so great.
Now up to Firefox 4.0b9 and STILL you can't watch Flash videos with 64-bit Flash on 64-bit Firefox on Mac OS X. It's been two or three betas now since they broke this, and they just refuse to fix it..
In November 2010 they fixed a bug that was originally submitted in November 2000. That's Not a typo. 10 years ago. So just get in line and wait your turn.
The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing. Fortunately there's an extension that adds the status bar back in. Of course it's horrendously stupid that you now have to resort to extensions in order to get back things, like the status bar, that have existed in every browser ever made since the beginning of time. The issue here is not resistance to change. The issue here is removing functionality and actually making things less useful.
Fortunately the stupid and pointless "Tabs on Top" and equally stupid and useless big orange Firefox button in place of the normal menu bar are both optional. However, I have a bad feeling about this, given all the other stupid changes they've made, and I wonder how long it be be until they are forced on us and we will have to rely on yet more extensions in order to have a decent browser.
When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.
Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!
I'm not aware of MySpace ever owning any data centers. They almost certainly paid someone else to handle that and had a few employees monitoring things. And it certainly doesn't take a thousand people to code a shitty site and make a few deals with bands and mine data and create marketing campaigns. Unless of course somebody gave you a butt load of money and you aren't the least bit concerned with how you spend it. We see how well THAT worked out.
Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.
And hiring a thousand people you don't actually need must be an "upper-class" thing. LOL. Let me know how that's working out for you.
it has laid off 500 employees, 47% of its total staff.
Which means it had 1064 employees before the layoff. What in the world could they possible need more than a thousand people for? And why are now able to run with only half that many? If you can't run MySpace with 100 people -- and that's being generous -- there's something seriously wrong. This is another case of "Somebody (in this case Rupert Murdoch) gave us a lot of money, so we can afford to hire a shit load of people regardless of whether or not we actually need them.
I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively.
Why does Firefox (or any browser) have to "support h.264 natively"? Why can't Firefox support h.264 through the use of a plugin just like they currently do for all video formats? I ask this as a serious question because the whole HTML 5/h.264 debate doesn't seem to make any sense.
i7 is overkill and over the price reasonableness curve
I recently bought a laptop with an i7 in it and it's really great. And, the price was good too. But, if you are building your own computer, the retail price of an i7 is insane (maybe that's what the "i" means). The retail price of an i7 alone is about one third the price of my entire laptop.
At the end of the article, it is revealed that the exploits are Adobe Reader problems that are going to be addressed starting with Adobe Reader 10.
From TFA: "Adobe plans to remedy the situation in version 10 of its Reader product by introducing a sandbox". In other words, they aren't going to actually fix any of the problems, they're just going to try to hide them behind a wall.
I'm amazed the pop-under problem still hasn't been addressed in MSIE nor, more surprisingly, in Firefox - even at the highest security settings, pop-unders, such as the Netflix and screensaver ones, still get through - a potential security flaw.
I've search the bug reports for Firefox in the past and pop-unders ranks high on problems that people want fixed, and yet still isn't - seems to me if pop-up windows can be blocked, why can't pop-under windows?
Pop-up windows are still a problem in Firefox. Websites have devised new ways to pop up annoying windows that Firefox apparently isn't able to block (as of FF4 beta 8).
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason? Such as:
1) They'd just make Manning look even worse to a lot of people without adding anything new or newsworthy? 2) They contain state secrets that would get Wired in trouble if they released them? 3) They're simply not relevant to the discussion?
If the stuff is important to understanding Manning, I'm sure his defense counsel will subpoena it from Wired because it'll be useful in his defense. If it's not useful in his defense, then it's not newsworthy because the public already knows enough from what's been released to have a clear idea of what he is accused of doing.
You have completely missed the point. Just like Wired completely avoided the point in their lengthy response.
Adrian Lamo has made many public statements about what was said by Bradley Manning in their chats. But many of the things Lamo claims do not appear in any of the chat logs that Wired has published. No one is asking Wired to publish "state secrets" or information that is "not relevant" or "not newsworthy". What people DO what to see is the portions of the chat logs which are referenced by Adrian Lamo in the public statements he has made.. A little confirmation that maybe what he is saying is true, especially since he has made some contradictory statements.
Not only has Wired refused to publish those portions of the chat logs which relate to public statements made by Lamo, they refuse to answer a simple question, like "Adrian Lamo said _________ . Is that actually in chat logs. Yes or No."
Where is this $1 billion price tag coming from? I've seen facotries go up twice that size for under $20 million, so unless the thing is filled with solid gold doorknobs I'm doubting that pricetag. To me that looks like your standard manufacturing plant, look at the water towers... why would you need those in a data center?.
The price does seem way too high. But the water towers actually make sense. They are a backup water supply (for cooling) in case something happens to the main water supply.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML Gold
HTML Premium
HTML Elite
HTML Deluxe
HTML Pro
You forgot HTML Pro Gold
So, you're happy losing 14 visitors out of every 100 you would otherwise have had if you had not ignored the 14% of people using Safari, Opera, and the various other small browsers out there? Granted, 14 of 100 doesn't sound bad, until you scale it up and realize that you are giving up 14k of every 100k visitors. If even 10% of those 14k spent 50$, you're leaving 70k$ on the table just from those people.
That's a completely phoney argument, and it's pretty much the same exact claim the RIAA/MPAA/BSA makes when they say they are losing gazillions of dollars. You can't "lose" something you never had in the first place.
I found many online cameras 3-4 years ago, but things seem to have changed. For example, the Ars Technica article, referenced earlier, says "Change the search to “intitle: ‘Live View / - AXIS 206M,’” though, and Google returns 3 pages of links to 206Ms that are online and viewable." But when I try this, I only get spam websites and articles telling you "how to use Google to find online cameras".
Tim cook streamlined Apple's supply chain and increased profit margins considerably. Although he is not a designer, he is a great choice to replace Steve Jobs. (In saying this, I obviously hope that the iPod, iPhone, iPod were not solely motivated by Steve Jobs, but by Apple's design team. If not, we as consumers are screwed)
Given all his health problems, Steve Jobs needs to retire and enjoy life a little. One of weird things is I keep reading all these articles that say Apple doesn't have anyone who can replace Jobs and Microsoft doesn't have anyone who can replace Steve Ballmer. I find that very hard to believe. But, even worse, it it's really true, they're pretty well screwed.
Actually I used to have my contact info in my profile because I trust my friends
My friends already know my name, address, phone number, e-mail address, where I work, etc...... There would be no need to ever put it on Facebook.
How about you remove all of your posts, pictures and delete your account immediately?.
You're assuming that closing your account actually deletes all your information and Facebook no longer sells it to advertisers. This is not necessarily a valid assumption.
And you trust FB to honor your choice of options?
Which is the real problem.
Facebook is no longer just a website run by a couple of college kids. It is a business - a big business - and like any business their number one priority is making as much money as possible. This is especially true now that Goldman-Sachs has invested $500 million and is trying to get others to invest another Billion or so. No matter how much lip service is given to "privacy" it is no accident that their privacy settings are hard to figure out, don't really do anything and completely deleting a profile is difficult, assuming that they actually delete anything at all. This is by deliberate design because Facebook's business model demands that they must be able to sell your personal information to advertisers.
The more it copies Chrome, the less reason there is to use it, and more motivation to switch to Chrome instead.
Unfortunately, Chrome is still too bare-bones and missing too many features. However, I remain hopeful that by the time they totally fuck up Firefox and make it unusable, Chrome will be an adequate replacement. The guy who created the AdBlock extension for Firefox is now working on a Chrome version (the other AdBlock for Chrome sucked pretty bad) so hopefull it will be just as good as the Firefox version and that will make any future change to Chrome a little easier, since that's the only real "must have" extension for me.
but are five or ten pixels so valuable that it's worth rendering one of the best features of Windows useless?
YES!! Why? Because the Firefox Developers said so!! That's all you need to know. They will NEVER NEVER EVER admit that one of their ideas wasn't so great.
Now up to Firefox 4.0b9 and STILL you can't watch Flash videos with 64-bit Flash on 64-bit Firefox on Mac OS X. It's been two or three betas now since they broke this, and they just refuse to fix it..
In November 2010 they fixed a bug that was originally submitted in November 2000. That's Not a typo. 10 years ago. So just get in line and wait your turn.
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all*? .
Don't crush that dwarf, hand me the pliers.
Does it have a status bar at the bottom?
If not, then it's still EPIC FAIL.
The status bar is gone for good. Why? Because the developers said so, and like many other decisions, they couldn't care less what the users think and apparently have so much free time on their hands that they constantly look for ways to fix things that don't need fixing. Fortunately there's an extension that adds the status bar back in. Of course it's horrendously stupid that you now have to resort to extensions in order to get back things, like the status bar, that have existed in every browser ever made since the beginning of time. The issue here is not resistance to change. The issue here is removing functionality and actually making things less useful.
Fortunately the stupid and pointless "Tabs on Top" and equally stupid and useless big orange Firefox button in place of the normal menu bar are both optional. However, I have a bad feeling about this, given all the other stupid changes they've made, and I wonder how long it be be until they are forced on us and we will have to rely on yet more extensions in order to have a decent browser.
When I first saw it, I remember thinking that it *only* has 1000 employees? I find that pretty amazing to have so *little* employees.
Think about it. It at one time (only 2-3 years ago) was one of the most popular, most trafficked sites around. All those those data centers, servers, coding (yes it was awful but code doesn't create itself), arrangements with bands and music licenses. Hell its bread and butter was to need data mining analysts and advertising campaign analysts. They should have a department of 100 each!
I'm not aware of MySpace ever owning any data centers. They almost certainly paid someone else to handle that and had a few employees monitoring things. And it certainly doesn't take a thousand people to code a shitty site and make a few deals with bands and mine data and create marketing campaigns. Unless of course somebody gave you a butt load of money and you aren't the least bit concerned with how you spend it. We see how well THAT worked out.
Sometimes, one of your luxuries is being able to employ more people than is necessary. The absolute focus on the bottom line is a middle/lower-class thing.
And hiring a thousand people you don't actually need must be an "upper-class" thing. LOL. Let me know how that's working out for you.
Which means it had 1064 employees before the layoff. What in the world could they possible need more than a thousand people for? And why are now able to run with only half that many?
If you can't run MySpace with 100 people -- and that's being generous -- there's something seriously wrong. This is another case of "Somebody (in this case Rupert Murdoch) gave us a lot of money, so we can afford to hire a shit load of people regardless of whether or not we actually need them.
Verizon will offer unlimited data, until they don't want to anymore.
*A non-profit organisation paying millions every year?
Mozilla takes IN millions every year. What's wrong with paying OUT money when necessary?
I call bullshit on your claim that Mozilla "enables" Flash in any way. Flash supports the general plugin architecture Mozilla and other browsers inherited from Netscape 4, which predates the existence of Flash entirely. The problem with the h.264 thing is that using it for HTML5 implies that the browser would have to support it natively. Mozilla does NOT support Flash natively.
Why does Firefox (or any browser) have to "support h.264 natively"? Why can't Firefox support h.264 through the use of a plugin just like they currently do for all video formats? I ask this as a serious question because the whole HTML 5 /h.264 debate doesn't seem to make any sense.
I recently bought a laptop with an i7 in it and it's really great. And, the price was good too. But, if you are building your own computer, the retail price of an i7 is insane (maybe that's what the "i" means). The retail price of an i7 alone is about one third the price of my entire laptop.
No. THIS is the REAL frist !!
f i r s t
This is the REAL frist post!!
At the end of the article, it is revealed that the exploits are Adobe Reader problems that are going to be addressed starting with Adobe Reader 10.
From TFA: "Adobe plans to remedy the situation in version 10 of its Reader product by introducing a sandbox". In other words, they aren't going to actually fix any of the problems, they're just going to try to hide them behind a wall.
I'm amazed the pop-under problem still hasn't been addressed in MSIE nor, more surprisingly, in Firefox - even at the highest security settings, pop-unders, such as the Netflix and screensaver ones, still get through - a potential security flaw.
I've search the bug reports for Firefox in the past and pop-unders ranks high on problems that people want fixed, and yet still isn't - seems to me if pop-up windows can be blocked, why can't pop-under windows?
Pop-up windows are still a problem in Firefox. Websites have devised new ways to pop up annoying windows that Firefox apparently isn't able to block (as of FF4 beta 8).
That they might actually be withholding them for a good reason? Such as:
1) They'd just make Manning look even worse to a lot of people without adding anything new or newsworthy?
2) They contain state secrets that would get Wired in trouble if they released them?
3) They're simply not relevant to the discussion?
If the stuff is important to understanding Manning, I'm sure his defense counsel will subpoena it from Wired because it'll be useful in his defense. If it's not useful in his defense, then it's not newsworthy because the public already knows enough from what's been released to have a clear idea of what he is accused of doing.
You have completely missed the point. Just like Wired completely avoided the point in their lengthy response.
Adrian Lamo has made many public statements about what was said by Bradley Manning in their chats. But many of the things Lamo claims do not appear in any of the chat logs that Wired has published. No one is asking Wired to publish "state secrets" or information that is "not relevant" or "not newsworthy". What people DO what to see is the portions of the chat logs which are referenced by Adrian Lamo in the public statements he has made.. A little confirmation that maybe what he is saying is true, especially since he has made some contradictory statements.
Not only has Wired refused to publish those portions of the chat logs which relate to public statements made by Lamo, they refuse to answer a simple question, like "Adrian Lamo said _________ . Is that actually in chat logs. Yes or No."
Where is this $1 billion price tag coming from? I've seen facotries go up twice that size for under $20 million, so unless the thing is filled with solid gold doorknobs I'm doubting that pricetag. To me that looks like your standard manufacturing plant, look at the water towers... why would you need those in a data center?.
The price does seem way too high. But the water towers actually make sense. They are a backup water supply (for cooling) in case something happens to the main water supply.