To me the most likely and simplest explanation of the strange canary-like behavior is to assume a warrant canary is indeed what we are seeing. Which probably means that 7.1a has not been compromised, but that a compromised version of 7.1a will eventually be introduced into the wild. Hence the need for a trusted repo for windows.
Nevertheless are the changes between 7.0 and 7.1 so significant that it is worth the additional risk of a more recent release? I'm thinking of using my 7.0 download from 2011 instead. A 2 year delay and then suddenly an update might in itself seem suspicious to a sufficiently paranoid individual given what we now know about the aggressive behavior of the NSA. The drawback is that the code verification process is based on 7.1a. Until the verification/cryptanalysis process is complete downgrading to 7.0 temporarily might be worthwhile.
FWIW here are some md5sums for my Windows copies. 5.0a: 4ec2b386f5d786b3017727aaecf28aa8 6.0: ec0827315825a035ff9a4203ddddfef7 6.1a: c413ecd820d2f912996ae86327b0d622 7.0: eadd4ae48541b830638f279d83938497 7.0a: 354e280c4bb56704e3925770f282588f 7.1a: 7a23ac83a0856c352025a6f7c9cc1526
If you're worried about memory loss, stay away from all alcohol use.
Thanks for the advice. I do. I keep well away.
Placebo? LOL! There is no such placebo. However, millions of people have used it long-term with no ill effects so no such study is needed.
Really. Have a cite for that?
Studies have shown, however, that smoking pot before adulthood can indeed have a negative affect on the brain, so young folks ought to stay away from it.
Define 'adulthood'. And if it can damage a younger brain that makes damage to adult brains a hell of a lot more plausible. Excellent reason for anyone who values whatever intelligence they have to stay far away until or unless long term use has been proven to be safe.
>LOL...we're talking about a much much safer alternative to alcohol, not something that needs placebo controlled studies.
What does alcohol have to do with anything? That's just a question of legality. I support the legalization of all drugs including heroin. So that's irrelevant to me. What I care about is whether Cannabis/THC has been proven to be safe. I don't care if it's safer than driving your car into a bridge support at 50 mph or downing huge quantities of Everclear every waking moment or sniffing acetone all day long or whatever. The question is whether or not regular use of the drug has any negative effects on memory or cognition. AFAIK long term effects have not been studied properly. Based on what I have seen personally in my own life I remain concerned.
think that's a myth, and again, these would be people who are the equivalent of alcoholics.
I don't think it is easy to draw a particular line between a frequency of use that is harmful and one that is not. If it is harmful at all and obviously such harm has not been demonstrated scientifically (which again does not prove that it is not harmful) then it may be that the harm is proportional to the frequency of use. The relationship may be linear or nonlinear or there may be no harm at any frequency of use. It's impossible to say at this point because I don't think you can legally do such studies outside of Uruguay or Colorado and in any case none have been done AFAIK. I have personally seen anecdotal evidence of such memory decline that seems to follow taking up pot smoking. While that doesn't prove anything. It may just be coincidence, but I'm not rushing out to start smoking myself. I'm not willing to take the risk of my memory getting even worse than it is now.
I think that's a myth, and again, these would be people who are the equivalent of alcoholics.
It's also almost certainly safer than putting a sawn off shotgun against your head and pulling the trigger or dowsing yourself in salt water and then sticking your fingers in a light socket. The amount of harm that alcohol may or may not cause is not relevant except for legalization arguments. Not to belabor the obvious but just because something is legal does not mean it is an intelligent thing to do.
I guess it's a damn good thing you're a smart person who doesn't smoke weed!
Please cite the part where I claimed to be intelligent. I made no such claim. But I value whatever intelligence I do have. Which is why I give drugs with any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of mental decline a very wide berth.
Enjoy your beer, coffee and/or cigarettes, at least the government and their hand-picked research buddies have determined those to be far safer than weed
They have? You have a cite for that? Are you seriously claiming the government has done placebo controlled studies comparing marijuana or THC and alcohol, cigarettes and coffee/caffiene?
Actually I have personally read studies that show caffeine and other stimulants like amphetamines to improve the outcome following brain damage. I have also seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that stimulants in general can increase mental performance. So that much is plausible.
Incidentally I don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes and I drink coffee only rarely.
Now that my sarcasm reserves have been fully depleted, can you please tell me how I'm capable of remembering my humongous password, which is ~128 bits of entropy large and ten words long, despite my handicap of having been a daily cannabis user for over 10 years?
If you are referring to a diceware password then 10 words is not particularly impressive. I have a truly awful memory and I also have a ten word diceware password memorized. In any case how good your memory may or may not be at the moment isn't the point. The question is how does it compare to before you started smoking regularly.
How am I even capable of using Linux, which demands a large portion of the brain's memory be dedicated to a plethora of commands, syntax and philosophies?
It demands no such thing. I run Arch Linux and again I have a terrible memory. I just look up commands when (not if) I forget them. Also this does not speak at all to the question of whether smoking marijuana affects memory. All it proves is it doesn't cause actual brain death or mental retardation. But it still could drop your functional IQ by 10 points for every 3 years of 'wake and bake' or something similar. Since peoples' IQs tend to drop every year after their 18th birthdays in any case this would not be simple to demonstrate.
I assume you meant to use the past tense since he was talking about the late 70s to early 80s and my experience was quite different.
Smart people experiment, and quickly realize that marijuana is the safest recreational drug we've ever found.
Smart people don't use themselves as guinea pigs on an unstudied drug which may or may not have long term negative affects on memory. Anecdotal experience seems to support some memory decline with long term marijuana use. I wouldn't go near the stuff for that reason alone. Until it has been proven to be safe through long term placebo controlled studies I would hope that most intelligent people would give it a wide berth.
As far as the late 70s to early 80s I have to agree with the observation of potheads and geeks not mixing and that geeks who spent most of their time either playing computer games or Dungeons and Dragons or writing computer games generally did not smoke pot.
This is Slashdot where all corporations are evil and should be denied corporate personhood
Not every corporation is evil, but most of them are. As individuals they would be sociopaths. I don't consider the encouragement of sociopathic behavior to be a particularly good idea. Corporate personhood should be abolished. Oh and I'm a Libertarian.
C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.
Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.
If you are going to vote for someone at least vote for someone who makes specific promises about how he would vote in this sort of critical law and what he promises to do to himself if he votes the wrong way. Suicide would be a good start. That would apply to Obama because he has broken most of his promises. Fucking liar. I'd probably only vote for someone with zero experience in politics because all experienced politicians are liars. Most lawyers too. So no lawyers either. And if both options are bad then don't fucking vote. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Or vote for a Libertarian or a Socialist or someone else idealistic. At least you'll get more predictable votes from someone who actually believes in something other than making lots of money for themselves in bribes.
Neither US nor USA is the name of the country in question. It is an acronym. One does not extend acronyms. Perhaps you could come up with even a single example to the contrary? Would you call someone from the UK a UKian or someone from the former USSR a USSRian.
If you are going to add an extension you have to use the actual name which is technically The United States of America or at least The United States or United States for short. The fact that the US is a two word country and one that ends in an 's' makes this rather awkward unfortunately.
Since the full name of the country is 'The United States of America". You could properly refer to someone from that country as an "United States of American" I suppose. That would be the standard rule to apply for most countries that end in 'a'. Just add an 'n'. Since there is an easy rule to apply there isn't much point in talking further about usage of the complete name. Probably the only reason not to follow that simple rule is laziness. If you object to 'American' as being imprecise then just use 'United States of American' instead.
If you think United States of American is too long then you could try using just United States as the name and try to apply one of the usual rules to that as a country name. United States is one of the relatively few two word countries so I'll use examples from that domain.
Sri Lanka ends in an 'a' so the result is obvious. Just add an 'n'. The same rule can be applied to Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia and South/North Korea.
To New Zealand an -er is added probably because it ends in 'land' which is similar to island and -er is usually applied in such cases. United States would become United Stateser.
The Philippines -> Philippine. In that case you just drop the 's'. So someone from the United States would be called a United State.
Belarus -> Balarusian. There's an example of your prefered 'ian' ending. In that case you would call someone from the US a United Stateian or maybe you could drop the 'e' resulting in United Statian.
Cyprus -> Cypriot. So United Statiot I suppose if you drop the 'e'.
Honduras -> Honduran. The 's' is dropped and then the usual rule is applied to countries ending in 'a'. Just add an 'n'. So to follow this rule United States would become United Staten if you ignore the fact that you have an 'e' instead of an 'a' at the end.
If you follow the rule for countries that end in 'e' then you might follow the rule applied to Chile and just add an 'an'. So you'd have United Statean. I kind of like that one.
I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.
Yep. It will also be part of a forced upgrade for Windows users. I've already decided to switch to Pale Moon anyway. I don't like or trust the Mozilla team anymore.
and some private individuals avoiding paying for the services they agreed to pay for?
Agreed to pay for? Somehow I doubt the fare dodgers ever signed some kind of agreement to pay. Although I suppose I could be wrong. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
You seem to be confused. Breaking laws is not wrong. I break as many laws as I can. I take pride in breaking the law. And yet I am a very moral person who cares about others and believes in putting others before myself. What is 'extremely American' is basing your actions on philosophy. That's what the Founding Terrorists did. They broke the law, defied The King, but they did what they thought was right and based their actions on a well thought out philosophy. Now that is what is American. Following either the letter or the spirit ofthe law is something I associate more with say Germans.
Interesting. I suppose that must happen to me on Reddit. I'm middle aged and the vast majority of the posters on Reddit are teens to early 20s and it just seems like we cannot relate to each other at all. We just don't discuss issues the same way at all.
On Slashdot I have pretty good karma and rarely get downmodded, but on Reddit every single post I make gets downvoted. Every one. I kid you not. Often by as much as 10-15 points.
It may just be that I have a lot of enemies over there, but I think it is also a generational thing. When I post at some level I think it must feel to them like their parent or something and they have to downvote it.
What I find strange is that because every one of my posts is downvoted I just ignore it. It doesn't cause me to post less. I haven't found the negative moderation to have any real negative effect. I suppose it does mean that there are fewer people who can read what I write because I would guess that not everyone changes the default visibility preference to something more sensible as I do. I can still see posts that have been downvoted to like -30 or so. Since I still find posts at like -15 or -20 to have value it seems that unlike Slashdot, the moderation system over there just isn't effective. Well at least if its purpose was just to censor obvious trolls and spam. But then I don't find any serious discussions over there at all.
No. It's the same car. He just keeps telling you it's new. He's lied to you about everything so far and is actively trying to trick you. So should you trust him this time?
And do you consider the fact that no matter what you say he makes the change anyway no matter how much you protest. He says it's for your own good. He tells you he's done studies. And besides Ford is paying him to do all this. If he stops he'll lose all that cash.
This is a good point. I'd consider downgrading to a version that my favorite theme worked with and just stick with that. Especially in Linux which doesn't have Pale Moon.
Re:Poor Firefox what have they done to you?
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 1
Yes. That would be Google. And they pay quite well.
You're right. They should have stopped at the previous version. Damn progression!
They should have stopped before they decided to stop improving an existing browser and start just blindly copying everything Chrome does. I'm guessing you are not old enough to remember this, but before version 4.0 every release was not about complaining. Admittedly slashdot posts about a new firefox version were a lot less interesting and had fewer comments, but the changes tended to be relatively sane and if there was a bit of craziness thrown in at least it wasn't the sort that utterly destroys the browser so that Chrome users can have the option of a very slightly different browser that works just like they are used to. It's almost like Google is paying for these changes.
Actually a better analogy would be some smartypants removing your gearshift lever entirely and putting it in random places. Every. Fucking. Night. Why? Because he can and because he likes fucking with you.
It still puzzles me how people who claim to be more technically minded hate change more than my computer illiterate grandmother.
Strawman. We only hate change when it makes things worse or when it is just random redesign which is change just for the sake of change. If I get a can of fluorescent yellow spray paint and paint your car with it one night while you sleep and you see your red car turn yellow the next day are you going to embrace change?
Clearly the Mozilla devs have a design target in mind though: Chrome. If you like Google's browser then you will like the direction Firefox has been headed in for years. If you don't then you will probably find yourself switching to Pale Moon, Seamonkey, or Waterfox right about now. Or for Linux just never upgrading to version 29 since they cannot force upgrades in Linux.
I am. Probably the only reason I've been able to stick with Firefox since the Rapid Release madness began. Since Firefox wanted nothing more than to be a Chrome clone. But it only delays the inevitable. The shit UX UIs eventually make it into the ESR too. No. I think I'm going to switch to Pale Moon or Waterfox now and preempt this shit before they shove it down the throats of the ESR people too.
In Linux you could just not upgrade since they cannot force upgrade you (at least not in Arch Linux), but obviously then you don't get security fixes. The writing has been on the wall for years now. I think it's about time to abandon ship.
To deal with developers who have never seen or heard of a change they didn't like. Who don't need a reason to make a change other than it being different or rather MORE LIKE CHROME. Or just to give the original user base who liked the original UI design the finger.
Actually, I quite like the task bar in 7. It's flexible and I really like pinned apps and Areo peak.
I don't, but Microsoft allows you to change it so that the task bar performs its original task. The Mozilla team of assholes however insists that it is their way or the highway. I even have the quick launch bar restored. It's not because I don't like change. I just don't like change for the worse and that is how I see a mixed function bar. I find separate bars for separate functions to be more logical and usable. I launch from the launch bar and monitor, control, and choose running apps from the task bar. Makes perfect sense to me. It didn't need any 'streamlining'.
Is it a badge of honor to be willing to change for no reason other than you want to change? Because that is what this is about. And of course dumbing down the UI so that people with an IQ of 15 can still at least think they can use it except that they won't be able to find anything because it is all so cleverly hidden in the name of 'cleanliness'.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are implying that LUKS + dm-crypt is more secure in practice I might mention that hidden containers have not been implemented AFAIK.
To me the most likely and simplest explanation of the strange canary-like behavior is to assume a warrant canary is indeed what we are seeing. Which probably means that 7.1a has not been compromised, but that a compromised version of 7.1a will eventually be introduced into the wild. Hence the need for a trusted repo for windows.
Nevertheless are the changes between 7.0 and 7.1 so significant that it is worth the additional risk of a more recent release? I'm thinking of using my 7.0 download from 2011 instead. A 2 year delay and then suddenly an update might in itself seem suspicious to a sufficiently paranoid individual given what we now know about the aggressive behavior of the NSA. The drawback is that the code verification process is based on 7.1a. Until the verification/cryptanalysis process is complete downgrading to 7.0 temporarily might be worthwhile.
FWIW here are some md5sums for my Windows copies.
5.0a: 4ec2b386f5d786b3017727aaecf28aa8
6.0: ec0827315825a035ff9a4203ddddfef7
6.1a: c413ecd820d2f912996ae86327b0d622
7.0: eadd4ae48541b830638f279d83938497
7.0a: 354e280c4bb56704e3925770f282588f
7.1a: 7a23ac83a0856c352025a6f7c9cc1526
If you're worried about memory loss, stay away from all alcohol use.
Thanks for the advice. I do. I keep well away.
Placebo? LOL! There is no such placebo. However, millions of people have used it long-term with no ill effects so no such study is needed.
Really. Have a cite for that?
Studies have shown, however, that smoking pot before adulthood can indeed have a negative affect on the brain, so young folks ought to stay away from it.
Define 'adulthood'. And if it can damage a younger brain that makes damage to adult brains a hell of a lot more plausible. Excellent reason for anyone who values whatever intelligence they have to stay far away until or unless long term use has been proven to be safe.
>LOL...we're talking about a much much safer alternative to alcohol, not something that needs placebo controlled studies.
What does alcohol have to do with anything? That's just a question of legality. I support the legalization of all drugs including heroin. So that's irrelevant to me. What I care about is whether Cannabis/THC has been proven to be safe. I don't care if it's safer than driving your car into a bridge support at 50 mph or downing huge quantities of Everclear every waking moment or sniffing acetone all day long or whatever. The question is whether or not regular use of the drug has any negative effects on memory or cognition. AFAIK long term effects have not been studied properly. Based on what I have seen personally in my own life I remain concerned.
think that's a myth, and again, these would be people who are the equivalent of alcoholics.
I don't think it is easy to draw a particular line between a frequency of use that is harmful and one that is not. If it is harmful at all and obviously such harm has not been demonstrated scientifically (which again does not prove that it is not harmful) then it may be that the harm is proportional to the frequency of use. The relationship may be linear or nonlinear or there may be no harm at any frequency of use. It's impossible to say at this point because I don't think you can legally do such studies outside of Uruguay or Colorado and in any case none have been done AFAIK. I have personally seen anecdotal evidence of such memory decline that seems to follow taking up pot smoking. While that doesn't prove anything. It may just be coincidence, but I'm not rushing out to start smoking myself. I'm not willing to take the risk of my memory getting even worse than it is now.
I think that's a myth, and again, these would be people who are the equivalent of alcoholics.
It's also almost certainly safer than putting a sawn off shotgun against your head and pulling the trigger or dowsing yourself in salt water and then sticking your fingers in a light socket. The amount of harm that alcohol may or may not cause is not relevant except for legalization arguments. Not to belabor the obvious but just because something is legal does not mean it is an intelligent thing to do.
I guess it's a damn good thing you're a smart person who doesn't smoke weed!
Please cite the part where I claimed to be intelligent. I made no such claim. But I value whatever intelligence I do have. Which is why I give drugs with any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of mental decline a very wide berth.
Enjoy your beer, coffee and/or cigarettes, at least the government and their hand-picked research buddies have determined those to be far safer than weed
They have? You have a cite for that? Are you seriously claiming the government has done placebo controlled studies comparing marijuana or THC and alcohol, cigarettes and coffee/caffiene?
Actually I have personally read studies that show caffeine and other stimulants like amphetamines to improve the outcome following brain damage. I have also seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that stimulants in general can increase mental performance. So that much is plausible.
Incidentally I don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes and I drink coffee only rarely.
Now that my sarcasm reserves have been fully depleted, can you please tell me how I'm capable of remembering my humongous password, which is ~128 bits of entropy large and ten words long, despite my handicap of having been a daily cannabis user for over 10 years?
If you are referring to a diceware password then 10 words is not particularly impressive. I have a truly awful memory and I also have a ten word diceware password memorized. In any case how good your memory may or may not be at the moment isn't the point. The question is how does it compare to before you started smoking regularly.
How am I even capable of using Linux, which demands a large portion of the brain's memory be dedicated to a plethora of commands, syntax and philosophies?
It demands no such thing. I run Arch Linux and again I have a terrible memory. I just look up commands when (not if) I forget them. Also this does not speak at all to the question of whether smoking marijuana affects memory. All it proves is it doesn't cause actual brain death or mental retardation. But it still could drop your functional IQ by 10 points for every 3 years of 'wake and bake' or something similar. Since peoples' IQs tend to drop every year after their 18th birthdays in any case this would not be simple to demonstrate.
The combination is very common in my experience.
I assume you meant to use the past tense since he was talking about the late 70s to early 80s and my experience was quite different.
Smart people experiment, and quickly realize that marijuana is the safest recreational drug we've ever found.
Smart people don't use themselves as guinea pigs on an unstudied drug which may or may not have long term negative affects on memory. Anecdotal experience seems to support some memory decline with long term marijuana use. I wouldn't go near the stuff for that reason alone. Until it has been proven to be safe through long term placebo controlled studies I would hope that most intelligent people would give it a wide berth.
As far as the late 70s to early 80s I have to agree with the observation of potheads and geeks not mixing and that geeks who spent most of their time either playing computer games or Dungeons and Dragons or writing computer games generally did not smoke pot.
This is Slashdot where all corporations are evil and should be denied corporate personhood
Not every corporation is evil, but most of them are. As individuals they would be sociopaths. I don't consider the encouragement of sociopathic behavior to be a particularly good idea. Corporate personhood should be abolished. Oh and I'm a Libertarian.
C'mon folks, no matter who is currently in office, D or R, please this time around vote for anyone other than the incumbent, and let's sweep the house and senate clean over the next couple years and start from scratch.
Oh god. Not this again. What makes you think the replacements will be any better? This whole "vote for change because change is good" is such bullshit. If you are going to vote at least do it intelligently. It's voting blindly without thought that has gotten us into this situation in the first place.
If you are going to vote for someone at least vote for someone who makes specific promises about how he would vote in this sort of critical law and what he promises to do to himself if he votes the wrong way. Suicide would be a good start. That would apply to Obama because he has broken most of his promises. Fucking liar. I'd probably only vote for someone with zero experience in politics because all experienced politicians are liars. Most lawyers too. So no lawyers either. And if both options are bad then don't fucking vote. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
Or vote for a Libertarian or a Socialist or someone else idealistic. At least you'll get more predictable votes from someone who actually believes in something other than making lots of money for themselves in bribes.
Neither US nor USA is the name of the country in question. It is an acronym. One does not extend acronyms. Perhaps you could come up with even a single example to the contrary? Would you call someone from the UK a UKian or someone from the former USSR a USSRian.
If you are going to add an extension you have to use the actual name which is technically The United States of America or at least The United States or United States for short. The fact that the US is a two word country and one that ends in an 's' makes this rather awkward unfortunately.
Since the full name of the country is 'The United States of America". You could properly refer to someone from that country as an "United States of American" I suppose. That would be the standard rule to apply for most countries that end in 'a'. Just add an 'n'. Since there is an easy rule to apply there isn't much point in talking further about usage of the complete name. Probably the only reason not to follow that simple rule is laziness. If you object to 'American' as being imprecise then just use 'United States of American' instead.
If you think United States of American is too long then you could try using just United States as the name and try to apply one of the usual rules to that as a country name. United States is one of the relatively few two word countries so I'll use examples from that domain.
Sri Lanka ends in an 'a' so the result is obvious. Just add an 'n'. The same rule can be applied to Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia and South/North Korea.
To New Zealand an -er is added probably because it ends in 'land' which is similar to island and -er is usually applied in such cases. United States would become United Stateser.
The Philippines -> Philippine. In that case you just drop the 's'. So someone from the United States would be called a United State.
Belarus -> Balarusian. There's an example of your prefered 'ian' ending. In that case you would call someone from the US a United Stateian or maybe you could drop the 'e' resulting in United Statian.
Cyprus -> Cypriot. So United Statiot I suppose if you drop the 'e'.
Honduras -> Honduran. The 's' is dropped and then the usual rule is applied to countries ending in 'a'. Just add an 'n'. So to follow this rule United States would become United Staten if you ignore the fact that you have an 'e' instead of an 'a' at the end.
If you follow the rule for countries that end in 'e' then you might follow the rule applied to Chile and just add an 'an'. So you'd have United Statean. I kind of like that one.
Avoiding Australis is not nearly enough to make it worth the risk of using.
I disagree.
I'm pretty sure the endgame for the major content providers is to close that loophole.
Yep. It will also be part of a forced upgrade for Windows users. I've already decided to switch to Pale Moon anyway. I don't like or trust the Mozilla team anymore.
These people are parasites, and leeches, whose evasion is helping to drive UP the cost for everybody else.
Although you call them names you haven't offered any sort of moral argument as to why what they are doing is wrong. How exactly do they raise costs?
and some private individuals avoiding paying for the services they agreed to pay for?
Agreed to pay for? Somehow I doubt the fare dodgers ever signed some kind of agreement to pay. Although I suppose I could be wrong. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
You seem to be confused. Breaking laws is not wrong. I break as many laws as I can. I take pride in breaking the law. And yet I am a very moral person who cares about others and believes in putting others before myself. What is 'extremely American' is basing your actions on philosophy. That's what the Founding Terrorists did. They broke the law, defied The King, but they did what they thought was right and based their actions on a well thought out philosophy. Now that is what is American. Following either the letter or the spirit ofthe law is something I associate more with say Germans.
Interesting. I suppose that must happen to me on Reddit. I'm middle aged and the vast majority of the posters on Reddit are teens to early 20s and it just seems like we cannot relate to each other at all. We just don't discuss issues the same way at all.
On Slashdot I have pretty good karma and rarely get downmodded, but on Reddit every single post I make gets downvoted. Every one. I kid you not. Often by as much as 10-15 points.
It may just be that I have a lot of enemies over there, but I think it is also a generational thing. When I post at some level I think it must feel to them like their parent or something and they have to downvote it.
What I find strange is that because every one of my posts is downvoted I just ignore it. It doesn't cause me to post less. I haven't found the negative moderation to have any real negative effect. I suppose it does mean that there are fewer people who can read what I write because I would guess that not everyone changes the default visibility preference to something more sensible as I do. I can still see posts that have been downvoted to like -30 or so. Since I still find posts at like -15 or -20 to have value it seems that unlike Slashdot, the moderation system over there just isn't effective. Well at least if its purpose was just to censor obvious trolls and spam. But then I don't find any serious discussions over there at all.
No. It's the same car. He just keeps telling you it's new. He's lied to you about everything so far and is actively trying to trick you. So should you trust him this time?
And do you consider the fact that no matter what you say he makes the change anyway no matter how much you protest. He says it's for your own good. He tells you he's done studies. And besides Ford is paying him to do all this. If he stops he'll lose all that cash.
This is a good point. I'd consider downgrading to a version that my favorite theme worked with and just stick with that. Especially in Linux which doesn't have Pale Moon.
Yes. That would be Google. And they pay quite well.
You're right. They should have stopped at the previous version. Damn progression!
They should have stopped before they decided to stop improving an existing browser and start just blindly copying everything Chrome does. I'm guessing you are not old enough to remember this, but before version 4.0 every release was not about complaining. Admittedly slashdot posts about a new firefox version were a lot less interesting and had fewer comments, but the changes tended to be relatively sane and if there was a bit of craziness thrown in at least it wasn't the sort that utterly destroys the browser so that Chrome users can have the option of a very slightly different browser that works just like they are used to. It's almost like Google is paying for these changes.
Actually a better analogy would be some smartypants removing your gearshift lever entirely and putting it in random places. Every. Fucking. Night. Why? Because he can and because he likes fucking with you.
It still puzzles me how people who claim to be more technically minded hate change more than my computer illiterate grandmother.
Strawman. We only hate change when it makes things worse or when it is just random redesign which is change just for the sake of change. If I get a can of fluorescent yellow spray paint and paint your car with it one night while you sleep and you see your red car turn yellow the next day are you going to embrace change?
Clearly the Mozilla devs have a design target in mind though: Chrome. If you like Google's browser then you will like the direction Firefox has been headed in for years. If you don't then you will probably find yourself switching to Pale Moon, Seamonkey, or Waterfox right about now. Or for Linux just never upgrading to version 29 since they cannot force upgrades in Linux.
Or just use the esr release.
I am. Probably the only reason I've been able to stick with Firefox since the Rapid Release madness began. Since Firefox wanted nothing more than to be a Chrome clone. But it only delays the inevitable. The shit UX UIs eventually make it into the ESR too. No. I think I'm going to switch to Pale Moon or Waterfox now and preempt this shit before they shove it down the throats of the ESR people too.
In Linux you could just not upgrade since they cannot force upgrade you (at least not in Arch Linux), but obviously then you don't get security fixes. The writing has been on the wall for years now. I think it's about time to abandon ship.
To deal with developers who have never seen or heard of a change they didn't like. Who don't need a reason to make a change other than it being different or rather MORE LIKE CHROME. Or just to give the original user base who liked the original UI design the finger.
Actually, I quite like the task bar in 7. It's flexible and I really like pinned apps and Areo peak.
I don't, but Microsoft allows you to change it so that the task bar performs its original task. The Mozilla team of assholes however insists that it is their way or the highway. I even have the quick launch bar restored. It's not because I don't like change. I just don't like change for the worse and that is how I see a mixed function bar. I find separate bars for separate functions to be more logical and usable. I launch from the launch bar and monitor, control, and choose running apps from the task bar. Makes perfect sense to me. It didn't need any 'streamlining'.
Is it a badge of honor to be willing to change for no reason other than you want to change? Because that is what this is about. And of course dumbing down the UI so that people with an IQ of 15 can still at least think they can use it except that they won't be able to find anything because it is all so cleverly hidden in the name of 'cleanliness'.