Microsoft's bad reputation is entirely their own fault, so it's no surprise that people flame MS.
And if people *still* like Firefox dispite some security leaks, then that should say a lot about Firefox's quality.
I agree. MS has done a good bit to earn the distaste that they receive. And if people do *still* like FireFox, despite its flaws, then more power to it.
but...
If people like FireFox simply because they weren't made aware of its short comings, well then that's a problem. Suggesting that there is something wrong with reporting equally on both IE and FireFox flaws, as I was suggesting, is supporting censorship, to be quite honest.
True, but compound on that the fact that not every firefox user will visit the exploit sites, (and its possible every firefox user will be vulnerable to them,) and your target group is shrinking quickly. Compare that with the payoff of just going straight for IE.
We hear about it every time IE has an exploit - and most people flame MS like it hasn't already gone out of style. Why should Mozilla be immune to such treatment?
That's called fraud. The only way MS can send the software to you is to get your name and address. If you report to them a fake retailer, they'll figure it out and come back to you looking for answers.
2. The card will be overpriced because this group doesn't have the manufacturing clout of NVidia or ATI
Consider that, as a piece of open hardware, NVidia, ATI, etc. are free to begin manufacturing it themselves, so long as they stick to whatever license it has. It might even make for a good base for them to add their own tweaks and customizations - marketing it as their own card.
Agreed, so say that:P I guess I'm just annoyed that someone would think this is a troll though. Just because someone is wrong doesn't make them trolling to flaming. This was written by someone who was trying to apply critical thinking to the situation.
How on Earth is it even close to being a troll? The piece is an insightful commentary on the case (regardless of whether or not your agree with it - which I don't.) This is what's wrong with slashdot - people moderate down valid but opposing viewpoints.
Interesting points, but I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls. We still don't know entirely how trust rank works, mind you.
Do you want to be the state-registered Computer Inspector? Note also that computers break down a lot faster than a car. Cars wear out over time, with some exceptions. Computers work (in theory) perfectly until one or two mistakes are made that bring the system to its knees - be it crash it, or zombify it, etc.
I do entirely agree with the idea of passive analyzers and filters, as long as they don't inhibit legit traffic. Put the burden on the ISP in this case.
I've seen a few HD coolers. This seems to work alright.
My question is - why? I guess I've never really heard of anyone over-cloking there hd's. Do they really overheat? How can you tell? When should you worry about it?
Believe it or not, I do know what "raw" means. I know encrypting it doesn't technically change the fat that it's raw data. I guess I was just trying to be dramatic. Evidently it worked.
Who cares? Customers buy on a price/performance scale. If Dell doesn't meet there needs, they'll go somewhere else. Yes, brand names are important, but Dell isn't the only big gun out there - just the only one without AMD support.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's bad reputation is entirely their own fault, so it's no surprise that people flame MS. And if people *still* like Firefox dispite some security leaks, then that should say a lot about Firefox's quality.
I agree. MS has done a good bit to earn the distaste that they receive. And if people do *still* like FireFox, despite its flaws, then more power to it.
but...
If people like FireFox simply because they weren't made aware of its short comings, well then that's a problem. Suggesting that there is something wrong with reporting equally on both IE and FireFox flaws, as I was suggesting, is supporting censorship, to be quite honest.
True, but compound on that the fact that not every firefox user will visit the exploit sites, (and its possible every firefox user will be vulnerable to them,) and your target group is shrinking quickly. Compare that with the payoff of just going straight for IE.
I guess that's all I was really getting it.
We hear about it every time IE has an exploit - and most people flame MS like it hasn't already gone out of style. Why should Mozilla be immune to such treatment?
Perhaps there has been no rush to exploit it due to the fact there with 10% market share, it would not effect a wide enough user base?
Try it if you want, but it's still fraud. If you do get caught, you'll be taking your fake retailers place in the court room.
whoops, forgot to put the / in my ...
That's called fraud. The only way MS can send the software to you is to get your name and address. If you report to them a fake retailer, they'll figure it out and come back to you looking for answers.
Agreed, so say that :P I guess I'm just annoyed that someone would think this is a troll though. Just because someone is wrong doesn't make them trolling to flaming. This was written by someone who was trying to apply critical thinking to the situation.
How on Earth is it even close to being a troll? The piece is an insightful commentary on the case (regardless of whether or not your agree with it - which I don't.) This is what's wrong with slashdot - people moderate down valid but opposing viewpoints.
Interesting points, but I find it hard to believe that Google, (or any other competent company implementing something like this,) hasn't had the forethought to avoid these pitfalls. We still don't know entirely how trust rank works, mind you.
He's not saying that Apple is doing anything wrong. He's simply pointing out that there exists no cooperation, as many people would like to think.
Someone else already responded to this critique. The site explicitly says they added bad CSS that a compliant browser should ignore.
Someone else already responded to this critique. The site explicitly says they added bad CSS that a compliant browser should ignore.
Do you want to be the state-registered Computer Inspector? Note also that computers break down a lot faster than a car. Cars wear out over time, with some exceptions. Computers work (in theory) perfectly until one or two mistakes are made that bring the system to its knees - be it crash it, or zombify it, etc.
I do entirely agree with the idea of passive analyzers and filters, as long as they don't inhibit legit traffic. Put the burden on the ISP in this case.
You don't?
I've seen a few HD coolers. This seems to work alright.
My question is - why? I guess I've never really heard of anyone over-cloking there hd's. Do they really overheat? How can you tell? When should you worry about it?
If it helps at all, opt out at the top of the page. You'll still have a cookie, but, in theory, it instructs them not to track you.
I did read the article. I guess I'm just dissappointed.
Believe it or not, I do know what "raw" means. I know encrypting it doesn't technically change the fat that it's raw data. I guess I was just trying to be dramatic. Evidently it worked.
Thanks for the flame.
Why is it encrypted in the first place? That doesn't sound very much like raw data to me.
screen shots here
Who cares? Customers buy on a price/performance scale. If Dell doesn't meet there needs, they'll go somewhere else. Yes, brand names are important, but Dell isn't the only big gun out there - just the only one without AMD support.
It's not the RIAA's job, but that wasn't what I was pointing out.