You've been taken in by Slashdot's trademark selective quoting. What was actually written was:
The team is manifestly out of their depth with regards to web application security, and it is almost certainly impossible for them to gather the required expertise and still hit their timetable for public release in a month. You might believe in the powers of OSS to gather experts (or at least folks who have shipped a Rails app, like myself) to Diaspora's banner and ferret out all the issues. You might also believe in magic code-fixing fairies. Personally, I'd be praying for the fairies because if Diaspora is dependent on the OSS community their users are screwed.
(my bold) So he's not actually saying anything bad at all about OSS; he's just saying that being OSS doesn't mean that they can magically gain experience (or experienced developers) and fix their entire codebase in a month. The notion that OSS development is to blame was purely down to Slashdot (or the submitter).
So that when someone steals your laptop they don't get access to your passwords/CC numbers? The only security that Firefox's master password provides that Chrome doesn't is if you happen to leave your computer logged in, unlocked and unattended but just happen not to have entered your master password into Firefox yet.
So you don't want to play on a PC because you don't want to keep upgrading, so you want console vendors to release upgrades for you to buy. Interesting.
Well let's see: OP asked if it can "accept add-ons yet" - which it can, and that's what the reply said. He also asked if it had an ad-blocker, which it does. The fact that you choose to declare it to be not a "proper" adblocker is entirely your preference; if OP is like me he couldn't give a fuck whether the ads get downloaded but not displayed (or maybe he could; he didn't say either way).
You also dismiss the Javascript blocking because it's all-or-nothing for each site, when OP said: "or at least disable scripts on a per-site level". So you've discounted another feature even though it meets his (minimum) requirement.
If you don't want to use Chrome then fine, but why are you answering on behalf of someone else??
You may have your work cut out informing all these guys of their mistake, but I'm sure they'll be grateful of your insight. As would lexicographers in Commonwealth countries, for that matter; it did occur to you that I may not be American, right?
You missed out the bit where the article about cardiac clamps talks about how much better they are than the old-fashioned medium vascular clamp. And how every subsequent edition of JAMA has several articles all trumpeting the glory of the cardiac clamps over the now-outdated vascular clamps (although all of these articles are written by first-year med students who have never actually performed an operation - but they did once have a nose-bleed and chose to use a cardiac clamp to stop it).
Unless you really meant you have a team of people chipping away at the Windows machines (and advocates) with hammers to accelerate their loss of monetary value?
Have you enquired as to why they've implemented this policy? If so, it would be useful information for people to suggest counterarguments. If not, wouldn't that be a better starting point than posting in impotent rage?
It's entirely possible they have a good (depending on viewpoint) reason for this beyond your implication of shilling for MS.
That's useful to know. I went for the 802.11n router - is that the one you're talking about? It would be nice to stick a proper firmware on there because although the shipped one is adequate, the lack of customisable QoS is a pain when the throttling kicks in (I couldn't justify paying for 50mbit just to avoid throttling a few days per month)
Accessing servers remotely isn't a problem. However they still don't offer static IPs, which is a pain in the ass (although in practice you DHCP the same address).
Same here - I would never accuse them of not delivering exactly what they promised.
But try downloading two episodes of something in 720p and then see how close to 10mbps you get afterwards (hint: you're throttled to 2.5). And I'm unsure how exactly they accomplish the throttling, but it seems to me that once the throttling kicks in even extremely low-bandwidth tasks like simple browsing are painfully slow. 2.5mbps should be plenty fast enough, and yet somehow really isn't.
Maybe not perfect, but it has some very important sites from yesteryear. For example: this geek favourite is preserved, and it would be a true tragedy if the data were lost just because the site is now down.
"Funny" may be pushing it a bit. The odds he offered were 6/1 for yes, and 2/5 for no. If I bet £10 on yes and win, I get 6 times my stake in winnings, plus my stake returned for a total of £70. If I bet £50 on no and win, I get 2/5 times my stake in winnings, plus my stake returned, also for a total of £70. So if I bet on both yes and no, then I'm guaranteed to get £70 back, despite only having staked £60. Obviously this scales linearly with a higher stake.
This does (very) occasionally happen in real life - two different bookmakers set their own odds, so by betting yes with one bookie, and no with the other, you can guarantee a profit. Usually much smaller than the percentage offered here. It's known as arbitrage betting.
But you wouldn't use tabs for that. You would use tabs to indent to the current level, and then spaces for formatting. In the example you showed where everything is at the top level, there would be no tabs at all.
I've tried in in Chrome/WinXP, and the HTML5 version is absolute crap. No significant difference in CPU usage (but as both never get above about 5% it's hard to tell), but the HTML5 version looks awful. The video is completely blocky - small blocks, mind, but so sharply defined that it looks like the video has been painted on canvas.
I suspect the actual amount of detail in the pictures is the same, but the way it's smoothed in the Flash version looks a hell of a lot better than how Chrome handles it. It's even worse in motion, because the size and type of artifact changes depending on whether areas are moving, unlike the Flash version which is consistent.
Presumably it's just different options being passed to the 264 codec, but without any obvious way for me to change them it's verging on painful to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
...and why exactly would they want to use Google's private key instead of, say, the one they just created a signed certificate with?
(my bold) So he's not actually saying anything bad at all about OSS; he's just saying that being OSS doesn't mean that they can magically gain experience (or experienced developers) and fix their entire codebase in a month. The notion that OSS development is to blame was purely down to Slashdot (or the submitter).
So that when someone steals your laptop they don't get access to your passwords/CC numbers? The only security that Firefox's master password provides that Chrome doesn't is if you happen to leave your computer logged in, unlocked and unattended but just happen not to have entered your master password into Firefox yet.
You told a 13 year old girl to show boobs?
Dude, Nethack fucking SCREAMS. As long as you install the proprietary binary drivers.
So you don't want to play on a PC because you don't want to keep upgrading, so you want console vendors to release upgrades for you to buy. Interesting.
You also dismiss the Javascript blocking because it's all-or-nothing for each site, when OP said: "or at least disable scripts on a per-site level". So you've discounted another feature even though it meets his (minimum) requirement.
If you don't want to use Chrome then fine, but why are you answering on behalf of someone else??
Had I lived in London I would have voted for him solely for his appearances on Have I Got News For You. And I am not in any way ashamed of this fact.
You may have your work cut out informing all these guys of their mistake, but I'm sure they'll be grateful of your insight. As would lexicographers in Commonwealth countries, for that matter; it did occur to you that I may not be American, right?
Who the fuck wrote that article? The spelling, grammar and flow would suggest it was a retarded foetus.
Analogies are FUN!
I'm never happy with the way my browser handles line-breaking, so I'm eternally grateful to you for taking the initiative and doing it yourself.
Unless you really meant you have a team of people chipping away at the Windows machines (and advocates) with hammers to accelerate their loss of monetary value?
It's entirely possible they have a good (depending on viewpoint) reason for this beyond your implication of shilling for MS.
How can you have a double-blind study measuring the effects of a particular type of game? I think you're setting impossible standards.
Thanks for the info. A project for the weekend.
That's useful to know. I went for the 802.11n router - is that the one you're talking about? It would be nice to stick a proper firmware on there because although the shipped one is adequate, the lack of customisable QoS is a pain when the throttling kicks in (I couldn't justify paying for 50mbit just to avoid throttling a few days per month)
Accessing servers remotely isn't a problem. However they still don't offer static IPs, which is a pain in the ass (although in practice you DHCP the same address).
Same here - I would never accuse them of not delivering exactly what they promised. But try downloading two episodes of something in 720p and then see how close to 10mbps you get afterwards (hint: you're throttled to 2.5). And I'm unsure how exactly they accomplish the throttling, but it seems to me that once the throttling kicks in even extremely low-bandwidth tasks like simple browsing are painfully slow. 2.5mbps should be plenty fast enough, and yet somehow really isn't.
Maybe not perfect, but it has some very important sites from yesteryear. For example: this geek favourite is preserved, and it would be a true tragedy if the data were lost just because the site is now down.
This does (very) occasionally happen in real life - two different bookmakers set their own odds, so by betting yes with one bookie, and no with the other, you can guarantee a profit. Usually much smaller than the percentage offered here. It's known as arbitrage betting.
I'll put £10,000 on yes, and £50,000 on no, please.
But you wouldn't use tabs for that. You would use tabs to indent to the current level, and then spaces for formatting. In the example you showed where everything is at the top level, there would be no tabs at all.
I suspect the actual amount of detail in the pictures is the same, but the way it's smoothed in the Flash version looks a hell of a lot better than how Chrome handles it. It's even worse in motion, because the size and type of artifact changes depending on whether areas are moving, unlike the Flash version which is consistent.
Presumably it's just different options being passed to the 264 codec, but without any obvious way for me to change them it's verging on painful to watch.
As another home user I too find it illuminating which FS benchmarks best for Google's workload.