Isn't this the kind of point that's totally irrelevant? "You're as bad as / worse than us, so we're fine and there's no point in our being scrutinized"?
Yes, I know the UK (especially London) is intrusive into its citizens' lives, I am one such unfortunate individual. I never condoned any of this shit, and I plan to move to Canada ASAP.
But don't use our country's flaws as some sort of reason not to discuss other countries flaws.
But looking at the bug, the report reads: "If app.update.enabled=true, and if the update will not break any installed extensions or themes (ie: there is no reason for a user to not apply the patch)
How do thy know whether it will break any extensions? They don't know all of them. They mean *major, popular* extensions.... they think. I still want the option to opt out.
Firefox should silently download and install the update without interfering with the user's taskflow." (my emphasis). Why would anyone have issue with this?
Because I'm testing code for a website/JavaScript/extension on an older version of FF, perhaps. I still want the option to opt out.
Yes, there probably should be a "No! Don't install! I changed my mind!!" option once the update has downloaded. There should also be a check on your extensions before you download the update to advise you as to which ones will be disabled in the new version. But no software's perfect...
This is no bug that's resulted from them forgetting. Bugs that get filed about this are marked WONTFIX because they want to force you to install stuff. It sucks, Firefox is one of the only products that does this.
Yeah, that sucks if it's true. Do you have a link to verify this? Bug #334767
I hate the fact that the default Firefox update settings FORCE me to install the update once it's been downloaded. I may want to purposely test code on an older version of FF, or I may know that it breaks an extension and not want to install it. Whatsmore, there's actually no setting that lets you actually tell FF to check for updates, but not force you to install them once downloaded. Which is retarded.
And they're even planning on making this happen invisibly, without even telling you. This SUCKS! Virtually no other product in existance has covert updates like this, or forces them on you.
I'm actually very interested in seeing how a script like this works. Could you please post it for us? Or at least tell us how you determine which IPs in the headers are 'legitimate'?
An honest question here - what version of Windows is running, and what app(s), when it 'craps all over itsself'? I'm just saying that because I don't have the same experience as you, and I'm thinking it may be more of a PBKAC.
Thing is, I wouldn't mind if the criticisms made were valid now; but Apple is really clutching at straws here, as can be seen by anyone that's used Windows XP, frankly.
The point about viruses is fair enough, whilst inevitable, because Windows is vastly more popular and greater a target.
But, better networking with a Japanese digital camera?! The camera's drivers were probably designed for Windows XP. Restarting? Maybe Windows 95 did. Only comes bundles with calculator/clock? Maybe Windows 3.11 did. XP has so much bundled software, not to mention freely-downloadable software, it completely puts the Mac to shame. Presentation and integration mightn't be quite so good, but that's not quite what the ads are saying.
It's not quite correct to call these "trojan horses" because...well, it's all down there in the fine print when you install them. Call them "hidden features." Or call them Spyware, like everyone else does.
No, I'd call them trojan horses. Spyware is looking and sending, those things are inflicting things on you that change your computing experience, they're very different from spyware, and IMHO much more malicious.
It can then, assuming you have no outgoing-traffic firewall, send those keystrokes and screen captures to its masters in Florida or China or Russia or wherever.
But I do, I have Sygate. So it can't. Spyware will generally not be a separate app that you need a firewall to block anyway, it will generally be built in to an app that is untrustworthy, so my original point about using trustworthy apps for trusted data still seems to hold.
I care very much less about the privacy of my web browsing habits, etc. than the privacy of my bedroom.:-) Come on now, that was a pathetic straw man. Taking it to the other extreme,
"Here's a complete transport infrastructure for you to drive your car about on, and conveniently laid streets to allow you to easily walk around a city, as well as a police force that will make sure society it kept (relatively safe). Isn't that great?"
"Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, you're being monitored by CCTV cameras most places you go, and those police are liable to keep track of your movements and other things you do at any time."
But most people accept that because they give different levels of importance to different areas of privacy in their life.
But seriously, what is spyware? No, I'm not asking, that's rhetorical, read below.
All these articles (especially on Slashdot, but increasingly in the mainstream media) automatically seem to associate 'spyware' with negative connotations, like with viruses. Even the word 'spy' makes it sound a bit sinister.
But I'm going to argue that I generally don't mind spyware, and if it can fund a product and make it free, it's a pretty good thing. 90% of my activity on the web I don't mind going to a third party. I'm thinking hard about this, and the stuff I really do care about being private, like my usernames/passwords, e-mails (actually they're unencrypted so that's pretty bad, why dont people complain about that insecurity??), bank information, and the like is handled by applications/protocols that ARE secure and AREN'T spied on. As for the rest, my browsing habits... what music I listen to... peh; it's yours! Take it!
I'll never quite understand why people get so worked up about it. Just make sure you use apps you know to be trustworthy for stuff you care about keeping private? Is that so hard?
What are us customers going to about it? Verizon is an entrenched monopoly. It owns the lines. Except in some very rare cases, our only choice is to suck it down.
That's why you Americans need regulation, not de-regulation. Get a proper regulator who will bitchslap the incumbent monopoly when they suck, and force them to allow competition over the lines they supervise, but don't own. Like ours does.
Re:That's an okay idea, but...
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 1
I just disagree. Emulation, by nature, is intended to offer the *exact same experience*, or as close as is possible, to the original one.
We have access to the original code - the machine code. That's code too. Graphics and sounds, same; albeit in the way they were encoded to interface with the game engine.
A rewrite is just that - a rewrite. It's like saying 'The question is whether I want to exist or not!' for a rather well-known Shakespeare phrase. Things like the Bible are indeed rewrites, to an extent. Maybe your poetry is too; it's hard to translate without rewriting a little. If anything, emulation is a better, more authentic way to carry forward antiquity than translation to modern language.
Re:Most game companies . . .
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 1
Simcity was OK. However, Simcity 2000 was about a 1000% improvement on it. I couldn't believe how addicted I was to it when I first played it.:-)
'Lotoya'. The city where no single square on the entire map isn't used for something. Great fun. Time to start eliminating all residential zones and using archeologies for population so I can use all that other space to cram in more commercial and industrial.:-P
Re:That's an okay idea, but...
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 1
Can you read the old Greek, Arabic, Latin poetry in Green, Arabic and Latin? What about some even more exotic languages? They've been translated, that's how you're "reading" it.
Emulation is the equivalent of translation; translation to today's architectures.
Amazing what people can do with Photoshop, isn't it?
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 1
In addition to this, add that it puts the high-bandwidth inputs -- audio, and particularly vision -- on dedicated "buses" rather than trying to run them through the same system bus (spinal cord) that handles the low-bandwidth signals for muscles. And allows direct connection to the higher brain structures, rather than routing through all that antique brain-stem nonsense.
Wow, that sounds like a really efficient system. Who designed it again...?
Except that IE7's standards support improvement on IE6 is VERY weak and minor. I didn't realise just how minor until I looked at this.
Fuck Microsoft. The vast majority of their work in IE7 has been to change the interface so now the browser looks as ugly (yes, ugly) as its latest Media Player, and implement tabbed browsing so some people will say "ooh, cool".
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't be bothered to pay a measly $50/yr for a domain you don't deserve to have it. Hand it over to someone who will make more active use of it, or PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE of owning it. People like you are the reason all these domain squatters exist.
I'd personally raise the price of a.com to $100/year minimum. Who is it the registrars have to pay, ICANN? Why can't they forcibly raise the price? Fewer domain registrations I suppose, but a lot more money per-domain.
The best thing for them to do, I think, is to turn the prisons into the free areas. The country is jail, except the prisons, which are free. They need to adopt a 'whitelist' approach to tackling crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this the kind of point that's totally irrelevant? "You're as bad as / worse than us, so we're fine and there's no point in our being scrutinized"?
Yes, I know the UK (especially London) is intrusive into its citizens' lives, I am one such unfortunate individual. I never condoned any of this shit, and I plan to move to Canada ASAP.
But don't use our country's flaws as some sort of reason not to discuss other countries flaws.
But looking at the bug, the report reads: "If app.update.enabled=true, and if the update will not break any installed extensions or themes (ie: there is no reason for a user to not apply the patch)
How do thy know whether it will break any extensions? They don't know all of them. They mean *major, popular* extensions.... they think. I still want the option to opt out.
Firefox should silently download and install the update without interfering with the user's taskflow." (my emphasis). Why would anyone have issue with this?
Because I'm testing code for a website/JavaScript/extension on an older version of FF, perhaps. I still want the option to opt out.
This is no bug that's resulted from them forgetting. Bugs that get filed about this are marked WONTFIX because they want to force you to install stuff. It sucks, Firefox is one of the only products that does this.
Yeah, that sucks if it's true. Do you have a link to verify this?
Bug #334767(I remembered that direct links from Slashdot aren't allowed)
No doubt I'll get flamed for this, but...
I hate the fact that the default Firefox update settings FORCE me to install the update once it's been downloaded. I may want to purposely test code on an older version of FF, or I may know that it breaks an extension and not want to install it. Whatsmore, there's actually no setting that lets you actually tell FF to check for updates, but not force you to install them once downloaded. Which is retarded.
And they're even planning on making this happen invisibly, without even telling you. This SUCKS! Virtually no other product in existance has covert updates like this, or forces them on you.
Let me guess..... Zen Internet or Freedom2surf?
I'm actually very interested in seeing how a script like this works. Could you please post it for us? Or at least tell us how you determine which IPs in the headers are 'legitimate'?
An honest question here - what version of Windows is running, and what app(s), when it 'craps all over itsself'? I'm just saying that because I don't have the same experience as you, and I'm thinking it may be more of a PBKAC.
Thing is, I wouldn't mind if the criticisms made were valid now; but Apple is really clutching at straws here, as can be seen by anyone that's used Windows XP, frankly.
The point about viruses is fair enough, whilst inevitable, because Windows is vastly more popular and greater a target.
But, better networking with a Japanese digital camera?! The camera's drivers were probably designed for Windows XP. Restarting? Maybe Windows 95 did. Only comes bundles with calculator/clock? Maybe Windows 3.11 did. XP has so much bundled software, not to mention freely-downloadable software, it completely puts the Mac to shame. Presentation and integration mightn't be quite so good, but that's not quite what the ads are saying.
It certainly doesn't work if you can't see the ads.
:-(
Yeah, I go to their site and I hear the sound, but my wonderful Quicktime plugin doesn't show the goddamn video. I'm annoyed now.
"Reason number 1 to get a Mac - it just works."
Yeah, is that because Apple purposely makes broken software for Windows?
I don't think even you can deny that the name is getting the piss taken out of it.
It's not quite correct to call these "trojan horses" because...well, it's all down there in the fine print when you install them. Call them "hidden features." Or call them Spyware, like everyone else does.
No, I'd call them trojan horses. Spyware is looking and sending, those things are inflicting things on you that change your computing experience, they're very different from spyware, and IMHO much more malicious.
It can then, assuming you have no outgoing-traffic firewall, send those keystrokes and screen captures to its masters in Florida or China or Russia or wherever.
But I do, I have Sygate. So it can't. Spyware will generally not be a separate app that you need a firewall to block anyway, it will generally be built in to an app that is untrustworthy, so my original point about using trustworthy apps for trusted data still seems to hold.
Very easy counter here:
:-) Come on now, that was a pathetic straw man. Taking it to the other extreme,
I care very much less about the privacy of my web browsing habits, etc. than the privacy of my bedroom.
"Here's a complete transport infrastructure for you to drive your car about on, and conveniently laid streets to allow you to easily walk around a city, as well as a police force that will make sure society it kept (relatively safe). Isn't that great?"
"Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, you're being monitored by CCTV cameras most places you go, and those police are liable to keep track of your movements and other things you do at any time."
But most people accept that because they give different levels of importance to different areas of privacy in their life.
But seriously, what is spyware? No, I'm not asking, that's rhetorical, read below.
All these articles (especially on Slashdot, but increasingly in the mainstream media) automatically seem to associate 'spyware' with negative connotations, like with viruses. Even the word 'spy' makes it sound a bit sinister.
But I'm going to argue that I generally don't mind spyware, and if it can fund a product and make it free, it's a pretty good thing. 90% of my activity on the web I don't mind going to a third party. I'm thinking hard about this, and the stuff I really do care about being private, like my usernames/passwords, e-mails (actually they're unencrypted so that's pretty bad, why dont people complain about that insecurity??), bank information, and the like is handled by applications/protocols that ARE secure and AREN'T spied on. As for the rest, my browsing habits... what music I listen to... peh; it's yours! Take it!
I'll never quite understand why people get so worked up about it. Just make sure you use apps you know to be trustworthy for stuff you care about keeping private? Is that so hard?
What are us customers going to about it? Verizon is an entrenched monopoly. It owns the lines. Except in some very rare cases, our only choice is to suck it down.
That's why you Americans need regulation, not de-regulation. Get a proper regulator who will bitchslap the incumbent monopoly when they suck, and force them to allow competition over the lines they supervise, but don't own. Like ours does.
I just disagree. Emulation, by nature, is intended to offer the *exact same experience*, or as close as is possible, to the original one.
We have access to the original code - the machine code. That's code too. Graphics and sounds, same; albeit in the way they were encoded to interface with the game engine.
A rewrite is just that - a rewrite. It's like saying 'The question is whether I want to exist or not!' for a rather well-known Shakespeare phrase. Things like the Bible are indeed rewrites, to an extent. Maybe your poetry is too; it's hard to translate without rewriting a little. If anything, emulation is a better, more authentic way to carry forward antiquity than translation to modern language.
Why do you hate America?
Simcity was OK. However, Simcity 2000 was about a 1000% improvement on it. I couldn't believe how addicted I was to it when I first played it. :-)
:-P
'Lotoya'. The city where no single square on the entire map isn't used for something. Great fun. Time to start eliminating all residential zones and using archeologies for population so I can use all that other space to cram in more commercial and industrial.
Can you read the old Greek, Arabic, Latin poetry in Green, Arabic and Latin? What about some even more exotic languages? They've been translated, that's how you're "reading" it.
Emulation is the equivalent of translation; translation to today's architectures.
Amazing what people can do with Photoshop, isn't it?
In addition to this, add that it puts the high-bandwidth inputs -- audio, and particularly vision -- on dedicated "buses" rather than trying to run them through the same system bus (spinal cord) that handles the low-bandwidth signals for muscles. And allows direct connection to the higher brain structures, rather than routing through all that antique brain-stem nonsense.
Wow, that sounds like a really efficient system. Who designed it again...?
Was that in the days before they'd invented the volume control?
Except that IE7's standards support improvement on IE6 is VERY weak and minor. I didn't realise just how minor until I looked at this.
Fuck Microsoft. The vast majority of their work in IE7 has been to change the interface so now the browser looks as ugly (yes, ugly) as its latest Media Player, and implement tabbed browsing so some people will say "ooh, cool".
But standards-support wise, it is still Crap.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't be bothered to pay a measly $50/yr for a domain you don't deserve to have it. Hand it over to someone who will make more active use of it, or PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE of owning it. People like you are the reason all these domain squatters exist.
.com to $100/year minimum. Who is it the registrars have to pay, ICANN? Why can't they forcibly raise the price? Fewer domain registrations I suppose, but a lot more money per-domain.
I'd personally raise the price of a
The best thing for them to do, I think, is to turn the prisons into the free areas. The country is jail, except the prisons, which are free. They need to adopt a 'whitelist' approach to tackling crime.
So you read through the GP's entire comment then.