Since Amazon have kept both 3G and touch versions available alongside this, what makes you think at all that this is for you or a fuck up? Its a cheaper version with less features - they are getting right down to just the "ereader" everyone has been demanding for years, with a reduction in price to match (yup, not there yet for a really decent ereader segment of the market, the "oh, I will buy that wiht my first ebook" segment, but they are getting there slowly).
Then don't accept the GPS tracker that Walmart hands you as you walk in the door, ditch it when you exit Walmart and they will never track your Starbucks usage...
Which is basically exactly what is going on here - you accept a token from Facebook, and you give that token back whenever its asked for. All voluntarily.
And what part of my suggestion would not cover any of your scenario?
Noticing that an add-on is incompatible, and notifying you of that while also notifying you that there is an update, and offering to install it at the same time does *not* negate the ability for you to say "no" to the update. There are three possible scenarios - you want to update both, you cant update both, you dont want to update both.
If you want to update both, currently thats a load more work than it should be.
If you cant update both, and the reason is there isn't a compatible add-on update yet, why would you update the browser?
If you don't want to update both, for the reason you suggest in that the new add-on version removes features over the version you are currently on, then again why would you update the browser? You are really in no different a position than the second scenario, except with the possibility that you could get your hands messy and hack the add-on to work with the new version of the browser.
Noticing that an add-on is incompatible, and doing fuck all about it other than saying "yeah, going to disable this and leave you on your own" when the ability for the updater to do something about it fully exists already.
Fuck, even just saying "but there is a compatible version available" would be better than the current screen...
Just don't try and make excuses for a badly designed updater which just seems to not care at all, and makes you jump through more hoops than actually should be necessary.
Firefox is telling you: "hey this extension is incompatible, do you want us to check if there is a new release, maybe your are using that version because the new ones removed features you need or are not supported by another applications on your computer, we care about your opinion".
No, that is not what Firefox is telling me, its simply telling me "this add-on is incompatible". I have no idea where you are conjuring the rest of that from, because its not implied or inferred at all from that screen.
Firefox is telling me outright that it is incompatible, why the *fuck* should I have to take any more steps to see if its telling the truth or not? Why couldn't it, instead of simply saying "this is incompatible, Im disabling it", say "the current version of this is incompatible, but there is an update - I will update that at the same time"? Why should the user have to jump through yet more pointless hoops?
You have highlighted something though - just another fucking ridiculousness of Firefox. But I'm guessing that wasn't the angle you were going for...
I will take it as selective memory that you make no mention of the hugely popular Sendmail and BIND daemons, and their historically similarly hugely popular security issues...? UNIX had its problems in its day as well.
I have precisely one Firefox add-on (firebug), and the Firefox update process still bugs the fuck out of me because every time it wants to disable it as "incompatible". Every time.
One of the many reasons I switched to Chrome and Safari several months ago. Fuck Firefox.
I'm from the UK, and I think you are 10 years off on your 30-ish limit for imperial measures - I'm well over 30, and everyone my age is pretty much metric only.
The pint of beer is still a pint of beer because of an exception in the law for traditional reasons, the pint of milk isn't actually allowed to have the "1 pint" label larger than the metric label - and again the milkmans pint of milk is an exception to the law.
Height and weight depends on where you are and who is taking the measurement, same goes for the greengrocers order (I'm more likely to ask for a kilo of something - and everything is marked up in metric).
No, they had already captured the data, they were looking at interpreting it and checking delays to confirm the CERN results - no new data was to be captured.
And lets face it, CERNs experiment was not the first to track neutrinos, there is plenty of neutrino tracking data sets out there - they just need to be checked with this in mind (remember, if you aren't looking for something, the chances of you finding it when it exists is smaller than when you are actually looking for it - an unexpected discovery is less frequent than an expected discovery).
And what if the binaries are not signed in the correct manner for UEFI? Its not just a case of there needing to be keys, but the signing mechanism also needs to be supported - and I'm doubtful as to whether or not XPs entire boot chain is even signed.
And by saying that Windows XP users can run it in Windows 7s XP mode, you just forced another purchase on them...
No, OEMs are going to accommodate these users - thats pretty much guaranteed.
Really, you think it is " very likely" that manufacturers would force something on you that would not only disable 0.5% of their customer base, but also anyone wanting to run Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7, a significantly larger portion of their customer base?
Or has no one really considered that angle of this?
There will be an option to disable this, I am in no doubt as to that.
How about we wait for further information before freaking out like teenage girls when some rubbish boy band breaks up?
There has been fuck all in Microsofts announcements that suggests a motherboard manufacturer has to allow Windows and nothing else. There has been no suggestion that secure boot cannot be disabled. There has been no suggestion that the user won't be in control.
Hell, people should be applauding the securing of the boot process - I remember it being a huge problem on the Amiga with boot sector viruses, the same on DOS and pre-Internet-connected PCs, and now we have sen a resurgence in boot sector activity... Bring secure boot on, please!
I think you need to check up on your information - the tanker scandal was the original one, where Boeing offered to lease tankers to the USAF for more money than it would have cost to buy them. Senator McCain raised this issue vigorously and managed to get the contract cancelled and put out to tender.
Airbus put in a bid, but Boeing won it - however, as it turned out, the defence contracts manager dealing with the bids moved to a position within Boeing after the contract was awarded, and further investigations revealed that she had infact passed detailed information on both the technical aspects of Airbuses offer and the financial details of it to Boeing.
Boeing had the contract removed, several people went to jail, and a large fine was levied.
What are the downsides or issues involved in building a general purpose html5 website today, for public consumption?
I'm not talking about a site which will use the canvas tag etc but something that should work fine on older browsers - how do older browsers react to doctypes developed after the browser was created?
I was looking at doing this for an upcoming project, specifically to use data annotations on tags (if you look at Facebook, they use non-standard data annotations on tags) but haven't come to a decision yet, as it hinges on what older browsers do.
An 8 week strike does not equate to an 8 week delay, because you have the "start up" time to consider - that 8 weeks probably cost Boeing double that in assembly line time.
However, I never said it was the main cause, but it most certainly was a main cause.
You seem to be going a lot out of your way there to make the Windows path seem difficult, when infact its not really any different to your Linux version of events - there is no magic reason why only MySQL databases on Linux retain compatibility between the MySQL trunk and your fabled fork, if it works for Linux, then it will work for Windows. Stop MySQL, install the fork, tell it the location of the database files and configuration files, do some testing, and then remove MySQL. Wow, that was infinitely more convoluted than your Linux steps...
Slashdot Mirror
What "public one"? The vast majority of the internet is private networks and backbones - not government owned, not public owned, private networks.
Why should anyone be able to?
Since Amazon have kept both 3G and touch versions available alongside this, what makes you think at all that this is for you or a fuck up? Its a cheaper version with less features - they are getting right down to just the "ereader" everyone has been demanding for years, with a reduction in price to match (yup, not there yet for a really decent ereader segment of the market, the "oh, I will buy that wiht my first ebook" segment, but they are getting there slowly).
Then don't accept the GPS tracker that Walmart hands you as you walk in the door, ditch it when you exit Walmart and they will never track your Starbucks usage...
Which is basically exactly what is going on here - you accept a token from Facebook, and you give that token back whenever its asked for. All voluntarily.
Hold on, so we are being punished by Slashdot for Slashdot updating to a shittier interface?
Fucking ridiculous!
Nah, I've had my fill of Android for the time being - I'm going back to the iPhone later this week.
Thanks for the suggestion tho, I hope it helps someone else reading this thread!
Problem is, you lose HTC Sense, which is one of the best UIs for Android.
And what part of my suggestion would not cover any of your scenario?
Noticing that an add-on is incompatible, and notifying you of that while also notifying you that there is an update, and offering to install it at the same time does *not* negate the ability for you to say "no" to the update. There are three possible scenarios - you want to update both, you cant update both, you dont want to update both.
If you want to update both, currently thats a load more work than it should be.
If you cant update both, and the reason is there isn't a compatible add-on update yet, why would you update the browser?
If you don't want to update both, for the reason you suggest in that the new add-on version removes features over the version you are currently on, then again why would you update the browser? You are really in no different a position than the second scenario, except with the possibility that you could get your hands messy and hack the add-on to work with the new version of the browser.
Noticing that an add-on is incompatible, and doing fuck all about it other than saying "yeah, going to disable this and leave you on your own" when the ability for the updater to do something about it fully exists already.
Fuck, even just saying "but there is a compatible version available" would be better than the current screen...
Just don't try and make excuses for a badly designed updater which just seems to not care at all, and makes you jump through more hoops than actually should be necessary.
Firefox is telling you: "hey this extension is incompatible, do you want us to check if there is a new release, maybe your are using that version because the new ones removed features you need or are not supported by another applications on your computer, we care about your opinion".
No, that is not what Firefox is telling me, its simply telling me "this add-on is incompatible". I have no idea where you are conjuring the rest of that from, because its not implied or inferred at all from that screen.
Think Flash....
Firefox is telling me outright that it is incompatible, why the *fuck* should I have to take any more steps to see if its telling the truth or not? Why couldn't it, instead of simply saying "this is incompatible, Im disabling it", say "the current version of this is incompatible, but there is an update - I will update that at the same time"? Why should the user have to jump through yet more pointless hoops?
You have highlighted something though - just another fucking ridiculousness of Firefox. But I'm guessing that wasn't the angle you were going for...
I will take it as selective memory that you make no mention of the hugely popular Sendmail and BIND daemons, and their historically similarly hugely popular security issues...? UNIX had its problems in its day as well.
I just opened Firefox, and it nagged me about updating to FF7...
And once again I cancelled it as it claimed Firebug (my only addon) is incompatible and must be disabled.
Bullshit. The Firefox developers are not magicians.
I have precisely one Firefox add-on (firebug), and the Firefox update process still bugs the fuck out of me because every time it wants to disable it as "incompatible". Every time.
One of the many reasons I switched to Chrome and Safari several months ago. Fuck Firefox.
I'm from the UK, and I think you are 10 years off on your 30-ish limit for imperial measures - I'm well over 30, and everyone my age is pretty much metric only.
The pint of beer is still a pint of beer because of an exception in the law for traditional reasons, the pint of milk isn't actually allowed to have the "1 pint" label larger than the metric label - and again the milkmans pint of milk is an exception to the law.
Height and weight depends on where you are and who is taking the measurement, same goes for the greengrocers order (I'm more likely to ask for a kilo of something - and everything is marked up in metric).
No, they had already captured the data, they were looking at interpreting it and checking delays to confirm the CERN results - no new data was to be captured.
And lets face it, CERNs experiment was not the first to track neutrinos, there is plenty of neutrino tracking data sets out there - they just need to be checked with this in mind (remember, if you aren't looking for something, the chances of you finding it when it exists is smaller than when you are actually looking for it - an unexpected discovery is less frequent than an expected discovery).
And what if the binaries are not signed in the correct manner for UEFI? Its not just a case of there needing to be keys, but the signing mechanism also needs to be supported - and I'm doubtful as to whether or not XPs entire boot chain is even signed.
And by saying that Windows XP users can run it in Windows 7s XP mode, you just forced another purchase on them...
No, OEMs are going to accommodate these users - thats pretty much guaranteed.
Really, you think it is " very likely" that manufacturers would force something on you that would not only disable 0.5% of their customer base, but also anyone wanting to run Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7, a significantly larger portion of their customer base?
Or has no one really considered that angle of this?
There will be an option to disable this, I am in no doubt as to that.
Can you find the anti-sign link?
How about we wait for further information before freaking out like teenage girls when some rubbish boy band breaks up?
There has been fuck all in Microsofts announcements that suggests a motherboard manufacturer has to allow Windows and nothing else. There has been no suggestion that secure boot cannot be disabled. There has been no suggestion that the user won't be in control.
Hell, people should be applauding the securing of the boot process - I remember it being a huge problem on the Amiga with boot sector viruses, the same on DOS and pre-Internet-connected PCs, and now we have sen a resurgence in boot sector activity... Bring secure boot on, please!
I think you need to check up on your information - the tanker scandal was the original one, where Boeing offered to lease tankers to the USAF for more money than it would have cost to buy them. Senator McCain raised this issue vigorously and managed to get the contract cancelled and put out to tender.
Airbus put in a bid, but Boeing won it - however, as it turned out, the defence contracts manager dealing with the bids moved to a position within Boeing after the contract was awarded, and further investigations revealed that she had infact passed detailed information on both the technical aspects of Airbuses offer and the financial details of it to Boeing.
Boeing had the contract removed, several people went to jail, and a large fine was levied.
It definitely involved Airbus.
What are the downsides or issues involved in building a general purpose html5 website today, for public consumption?
I'm not talking about a site which will use the canvas tag etc but something that should work fine on older browsers - how do older browsers react to doctypes developed after the browser was created?
I was looking at doing this for an upcoming project, specifically to use data annotations on tags (if you look at Facebook, they use non-standard data annotations on tags) but haven't come to a decision yet, as it hinges on what older browsers do.
Agreed on the middle image, I had a generic one for my MS Pocket PC back in 2004 and it looked basically identical to both of those.
An 8 week strike does not equate to an 8 week delay, because you have the "start up" time to consider - that 8 weeks probably cost Boeing double that in assembly line time.
However, I never said it was the main cause, but it most certainly was a main cause.
You seem to be going a lot out of your way there to make the Windows path seem difficult, when infact its not really any different to your Linux version of events - there is no magic reason why only MySQL databases on Linux retain compatibility between the MySQL trunk and your fabled fork, if it works for Linux, then it will work for Windows. Stop MySQL, install the fork, tell it the location of the database files and configuration files, do some testing, and then remove MySQL. Wow, that was infinitely more convoluted than your Linux steps...