Thinking reduces your reliance on unproven, untested, unverified, based purely on argument-from-authority, internally and externally contradictory belief systems.
Really?
Who'd have thought......oh, wait...
Do you mean like string theory, dark matter, dark energy and various other completely unproven and currently unprovable theories and alleged phenomenon? Don't kid yourself. If you blindly accept any of those concepts right now then you are "religious" concerning science. Science is a "tool" that can be used by anyone including believers to discover "how" the universe works.
It is really easy to convince yourself of self-serving concepts like "I'm not hurting anyone" or something similar to begin the downward spiral towards depravity. Given this, it is equally easy to engage in mental masturbation which leads to self-centred attitudes. Delusions of grander soon follow ultimately leading to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a lack of value placed on other human beings.
Humans are social animals and if you start spending too much time alone "thinking" instead of living then you are going to hurt yourself psychologically. Don't cut yourself off and start thinking that you have things figure out because that is a danger sign that you are most lost than ever.
Many of the "greats" that some of you look up to are anti-social pricks because they have replace god with their ego.
If you are a parent and sheltered your children from all danger, wouldn't you be considered a bad parent? Do you even understand the concept of free will?
It is called free will. You are not an automaton but as long as you do not think for yourself but view god through the eyes of others with prejudice, you will never understand.
Not only do you have a god given free will but you are allowed to have questions even if you were a person of faith. How many religions allow people to have doubts? How many religions allow people to question what is taught? A faith is not worth anything if it cannot stand up to questions.
Seriously, you need to deal with your self esteem issues. You seem to think that you are not of value. Believe it or not, god loves you and is willing to accept you as you are right now. That does not mean that he wants you to stay as you are but rather to grow as a person to become the person you are meant to be. God wants to see you fulfil your full potential.
I hope that one day you can experience the love and connection that I feel. I really do hope that. God is love. A loving parent is not going to coddle their child which is why we are not given all of the answers and why we are not always protected from all dangers. Without being allowed to have risk in our lives, humanity would never grow.
What does that even mean? If God is omnipotent, why does he need the glory? And why does he seems to need everyone to love him? If this dude is real, he has one serious inferiority complex.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? God is love. You are blaming god for wars? You are blaming god for the actions of human beings? Really? Are you one of those silly people who do not believe in setting any boundaries for children? Compared to god, we are children.
I'm trying to figure out how, even if you are an atheist that you could read everything so wrong. The only possibility I can see is that you had preconceived ideas about god and the role of man in the universe combined with such a low sense of esteem for humanity that it coloured your perception so profoundly. It is like you cannot see the forest for the trees. Both the old and new testaments are about god's love for humanity.
If you really want to understand how the Jewish people saw god, I suggest that you start reading the Psalms first and then read parts of the new testament before tackling the old testament. The old testament contains a lot of chronicles of "history" of past battles and other events and you need to put them in that context.
The Psalms were written by King David as songs of praise to god.
You will never be able to see the whole truth of the word of god as an atheist but you might be able to see some of it if you start with an open mind and start reading it with a goal of discovering what it is saying to "you" rather that what other people think about it.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistical probability is another way of saying "educated guess" or "pulling numbers out of your ass".
All of the so called "earth-like" planets have turned out to be either gas giants or planets that are tidally locked meaning that they could not support life.
The number of planets with life currently equals 1 which means all of the statistically probabilities are essentially based on guesses pulled out of an educated ass.
Various devices have H.264 hardware decoders such as smartphones, set top boxes and tablets. Those decoders cannot support WebM and would have to be done in software on the CPU.
WebM was designed to be accelerated by hardware which can accelerate H.264. If the decoder is a closed box that you hand a stream to then it won't work, but if you have access to the source to the driver then you can make the hardware accelerate WebM to some degree, bringing WebM support within the range of some fairly primitive hardware.
I don't think you understand what a hardware decoder is or what the difference is between "software" and "hardware". The whole point of a hardware decoder is to have a highly optimized chip that only does one thing which is to decode H.264. It cannot be adapted afterwards to work with WebM unless if WebM was exactly the same as H.264 which would mean that it was in violation of all of the patents in the MPEG LA patent pool. The patents related to H.264 should be part of that patent pool which means that Motorola is in violation of FRAND terms and if they are being directed by Google to sue other companies then they are in violation of anti-trust laws because they are in collusion. Until the deal goes through, Google is not allowed to direct Motorola to do anything.
It seems that we both want the same thing: a video format that can be used anywhere, without being forced to use particular software, and without software makers worrying about being sued for patent violations for implementing video codecs.
As this case shows, h.264 is not such a video format, it depends on patented technology. Of course you can embrace such a technology, and tell people to do painful things to themselves every time your favorite software maker gets sued for infringing h.264 patents. But I would argue that it's much better to choose a video format that is not liable to patent trolling (like WebM).
Dear nontechnical person, WebM is controlled by "one" company named google. Open source exists at the behest of the "copyright" owners. Open source is not substitute for a documented established "STANDARD" managed by a third party patent pool. This patent should have been included in the pool. What google is doing through motorola probably violates several anti-trust laws as well as the principles of FRAND as they are trying use a patent on a "STANDARD" licensed under the MPEGLA patent pool. Do understand the situation yet? They are violating the terms of FRAND.
Hardware decoders cannot be modified to decode another codec like WebM, consumer devices like HD cameras generally do not receive after market firmware updates. You can definitely create a decoder and flash a device to use it but the decoding will occur on the CPU rather than the decoding circuitry in the device which will mean either a sacrifice in framerate or quality/resolution.
WebM was rejected by the industry and end users because it was inferior to H.264. Why can't you understand that? You are free to use an inferior format if you wish but don't expect everyone else to do so.
The bottom line is that Motorola is in violation of FRAND terms by hiding this patent from the patent pool at the MPEG LA.
He liked to the Apple board and stole IP from Apple when he was serving on their board. He should have excused himself from the board the moment Google started working on Android.
Excuse me? This is about H.264, not phones. H.264 is used in HD video cameras, the blu-ray format and as an output format to from video editors. Various devices have H.264 hardware decoders such as smartphones, set top boxes and tablets. Those decoders cannot support WebM and would have to be done in software on the CPU.
Google picked a fight with me and other consumers around the globe with this action. I hope google goes bankrupt because I don't appreciate being ass raped by a large advertiser that have no respect for consumer privacy and rights.
A big sigh of relief from Mozilla I think. This is exactly why they wanted to keep out of h.264. It wouldn't be the patent payout for either licensing or fines, but the cost of lawyers that would cripple Mozilla.
I don't know why Mozilla didn't just "move" the development from the USA to a European country where software patents do not exist. Rich people do it with money to avoid tax, surely Mozilla could do it to avoid patents.
Right and a big huge "FUCK YOU" to consumers like me. Listen pal, I happen to like H.264 and one of the things I like about it is that there are a number hardware chipsets with built in hardware decoding support. I don't use OGG VORBIS or FLAC let alone WebM. If you want to use those formats, be my guest but don't support patent trolls like Google who are trying to take away consumers choices from them and shove WebM down their throats.
Why can't Mozilla charge for builds with H.264 baked in? What gave you the idea that software has to be "free" (gratis)? I work as a software developer but I don't work for free because I have bills to pay. If some people want to give away their software for free, that is their choice but don't try to force everyone to do the same.
Now that you mention it, it would be excellent to see troll patent standard H.264 destroyed by patents. In a perfect world.
Go fuck yourself with a red hot fireplace poker. Tablets have built-in support for H.264 decoding which saves battery life. There is no such thing and WebM hardware decoding on the market right now. You also cannot encode in WebM out of the box. It might be "OPEN SOURCE" but H.264 is a "STANDARD". I prefer standards over reading some shitty code someone else wrote while they were drunk or high.
You are against freedom of choice for consumers. Consumers did not give a shit about WebM.
I personally hope Google gets the smack down by both the US and EU governments for their abuse of FRAND patents.
Probably true, but regardless h.264 is a closed format which is excusable for a web standard. WebM is fine for now.
Fine for whom? How does an average consumer user encode in WebM out of iMovie? How does the average consumer alter the hardware decoder in modern smartphones and tablets to decode WebM format instead of H.264? I suppose you don't give a damn about the battery life of products that you cannot afford to own?
Fuck, google, fuck WebM, fuck the Patent system, fuck FOSS, fuck RMS, fuck the GPL and fuck you for being in favour of removing my freedom of choice to use H.264.
Google, as the new owners of Motorola are obviously trying to destroy the H.264 standard because nobody wanted to use their WebM format.
If they manage to do so by patent trolling, maybe it deserves to be destroyed, better sooner than later.
Tell me, how do you suggest we decode WebM format with the H.264 encoders in mobile phones and tablets? How do you suggest average consumers use their movie editor of choice to output WebM? Did you ever think how it would effect regular people who are not FOSS fanboys? No? That is the problem with FOSS, they think everyone should RTFM and learn to code.
Copyright refers to the "right" to copy or rather to copy and distribute said copies. It has nothing to do with either the left/right political spectrum or the direction.
Why not? why differentiate between clients? your pocket computer(phone) is jsut as valid a computer as a desktop as far as the network is concerned. Dont you think that at some point your 'phone' is going to be your only computer that you carry with you and then dock with at work and home?
Because it does not make sense, that's why. A smartphone likely spends a lot more time "outside" of your office than inside the office. Smartphones are not designed to be general purpose computer. Why insist on using old technology like Active Directory? To make it easier for unskilled drones with an "MCSE" to screw up smart phones too?
Yes and no. It can join exchange complete with all of the policies and the ability to wipe the device through exchange administration tools. It cannot join a domain in the sense that it would become a member on the domain but you can log into a VPN and access domain resources through Citrix receiver if you have the right xen desktop infrastructure in place.
Frankly joining a domain is not really necessary for a truly "mobile" device like the iPad. Would it make sense for a smartphone to join a domain? Not really.
These "inconvenient truths" prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.
Of course they do. But who is the intelligent designer? There are quite a few candidates so far. And there's also Me. I'll give you 73 virgins in paradise and point to point fiber. In return, you just have to donate a small portion of your savings to My Bank Account.
The god that is love. The god that does not promise sex slaves in paradise. The god that inspires man to move beyond base and selfish desires. The god that gave commandments like "Thou shall not kill", that god. That is the god that created us. We were created in his image but we fell. The image in this case refers to our creative, loving natures rather than what the result of the corruption from the fall. Whenever you help out someone in need then you are reflecting that nature god imbued in us originally.
Especially, Windows users, who are used to nasty, nasty and continual changes in their interfaces.
Don't confuse Ubuntu with Windows now.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista and Windows 7 had a pretty similar interface but Vista and Windows 7 Dumbed down the "Control Panel" too much by default. Now Windows 8 gets rid of the "Start Menu" and MSFT had ported the "ribbon" UI throughout their products.
Nothing wrong here. If a Mac user doesn't like the way Mac OS X is going, they're choices are to use old and unsupported software or bitch and complain. If a Linux user doesn't like the way things are going they can fork.
I think you are confusing users with developers and that is part of the problem with linux in general. An end "user" cannot fork a damn thing because they don't know how to program.
If a developer on OS X does not like something, they can write their own extensions/plugins or applications that publish a "service" that can be used in other programs via the services menu in any cocoa application. You can replace the "finder" with a third party replacement like Pathfinder or write one yourself and license it however you wish. Xcode is available as a free download.
The problem with linux is that there is no strong underlying framework for UI and window management other than X which is rather primitive by modern standard so you end up with multiple competing window managers with their own frameworks, APIs and controls.
Even if the USA had sane laws & law enforcement, the fact that your data is sitting on the other side of the planet adds a lot of latency.
The speed of light is the limiting factor, and we haven't figured out how to beat that one yet.
Further, the high cost of fat pipes in Australia strongly discourages cloud providers.
I cannot get into specifics to protect my identity but this is why you want to have at least a cache of your data in australia if you are a multi-national. It makes no sense whatsoever for Australian entities to store their data in the US.
Was the summary written by an American by any chance? Canada embraced debit card transitions under the name "Interac" long before the US started experimenting with visa debit/check cards. I have a Interac bank card that I can use almost anywhere in Canada for making purchases which also works as a "visa debit" card in the US and as a visa that is tied to my checking account on some US online sites. We have been largely cashless for some time but I still like to have cash as a backup in case the interac network goes down which has happened quite a few times.
I remember one time going to the movies and I was one of a handful of people who actually had enough cash in the wallet to buy movie tickets and concession snacks while almost everyone else were up the creek without a paddle when the network went down in the entire city.
Translation: I am a happy Apple customer. I do not want and never would want anything non-approved from outside my walled garden. By definition, anything non-approved is bad, and not only do I not want it, nobody else should want it or have any means of getting it.
Well done, you are a *good* consumer and will get a gold star (cost $0.99, has been billed to your account).
No, translation, means that I don't want mozilla code running on my iPhone based on the bad experiences that I have had on OS X and recently on Windows 7 at work. The firefox development team is far too undisciplined to be trusted with security. I should not be getting completely rewritten versions every month or so. They should focus on stability and security. Firefox 10 is vulnerable to "drive by downloads" with trojan payloads that require no actions from the user other than accidentally browsing to a compromised site from a google search.
Don't remember telling you if you should care or not. Question was asked and I provided the answer. If that offended your fanboyism I apologize.
But while on the topic - We all know how well only having one Web browser (IE6) worked out for everyone. And if you're providing anecdotes - Safari runs like crap on Windows.
Safari runs fine on windows for me so perhaps you are doing something wrong? I was an avid firefox user until I upgraded to Firefox 10 and then had my work laptop compromised by a "drive by download" flaw that apparently reappeared in Firefox 10 thanks to some careless "refactoring" done by some developer. So now, I use Safari and IE since Safari has had its "drive by download" flaws patched for some time. Firefox is way too unstable now.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking reduces your reliance on unproven, untested, unverified, based purely on argument-from-authority, internally and externally contradictory belief systems.
Really?
Who'd have thought... ...oh, wait...
Do you mean like string theory, dark matter, dark energy and various other completely unproven and currently unprovable theories and alleged phenomenon? Don't kid yourself. If you blindly accept any of those concepts right now then you are "religious" concerning science. Science is a "tool" that can be used by anyone including believers to discover "how" the universe works.
It is really easy to convince yourself of self-serving concepts like "I'm not hurting anyone" or something similar to begin the downward spiral towards depravity. Given this, it is equally easy to engage in mental masturbation which leads to self-centred attitudes. Delusions of grander soon follow ultimately leading to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a lack of value placed on other human beings.
Humans are social animals and if you start spending too much time alone "thinking" instead of living then you are going to hurt yourself psychologically. Don't cut yourself off and start thinking that you have things figure out because that is a danger sign that you are most lost than ever.
Many of the "greats" that some of you look up to are anti-social pricks because they have replace god with their ego.
If you are a parent and sheltered your children from all danger, wouldn't you be considered a bad parent? Do you even understand the concept of free will?
It is called free will. You are not an automaton but as long as you do not think for yourself but view god through the eyes of others with prejudice, you will never understand.
Not only do you have a god given free will but you are allowed to have questions even if you were a person of faith. How many religions allow people to have doubts? How many religions allow people to question what is taught? A faith is not worth anything if it cannot stand up to questions.
Seriously, you need to deal with your self esteem issues. You seem to think that you are not of value. Believe it or not, god loves you and is willing to accept you as you are right now. That does not mean that he wants you to stay as you are but rather to grow as a person to become the person you are meant to be. God wants to see you fulfil your full potential.
I hope that one day you can experience the love and connection that I feel. I really do hope that. God is love. A loving parent is not going to coddle their child which is why we are not given all of the answers and why we are not always protected from all dangers. Without being allowed to have risk in our lives, humanity would never grow.
Given that the universe is made for God's glory
What does that even mean? If God is omnipotent, why does he need the glory? And why does he seems to need everyone to love him? If this dude is real, he has one serious inferiority complex.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? God is love. You are blaming god for wars? You are blaming god for the actions of human beings? Really? Are you one of those silly people who do not believe in setting any boundaries for children? Compared to god, we are children.
I'm trying to figure out how, even if you are an atheist that you could read everything so wrong. The only possibility I can see is that you had preconceived ideas about god and the role of man in the universe combined with such a low sense of esteem for humanity that it coloured your perception so profoundly. It is like you cannot see the forest for the trees. Both the old and new testaments are about god's love for humanity.
If you really want to understand how the Jewish people saw god, I suggest that you start reading the Psalms first and then read parts of the new testament before tackling the old testament. The old testament contains a lot of chronicles of "history" of past battles and other events and you need to put them in that context.
The Psalms were written by King David as songs of praise to god.
You will never be able to see the whole truth of the word of god as an atheist but you might be able to see some of it if you start with an open mind and start reading it with a goal of discovering what it is saying to "you" rather that what other people think about it.
It's statistical probability, you Philistine!
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Statistical probability is another way of saying "educated guess" or "pulling numbers out of your ass".
All of the so called "earth-like" planets have turned out to be either gas giants or planets that are tidally locked meaning that they could not support life.
The number of planets with life currently equals 1 which means all of the statistically probabilities are essentially based on guesses pulled out of an educated ass.
Various devices have H.264 hardware decoders such as smartphones, set top boxes and tablets. Those decoders cannot support WebM and would have to be done in software on the CPU.
WebM was designed to be accelerated by hardware which can accelerate H.264. If the decoder is a closed box that you hand a stream to then it won't work, but if you have access to the source to the driver then you can make the hardware accelerate WebM to some degree, bringing WebM support within the range of some fairly primitive hardware.
I don't think you understand what a hardware decoder is or what the difference is between "software" and "hardware". The whole point of a hardware decoder is to have a highly optimized chip that only does one thing which is to decode H.264. It cannot be adapted afterwards to work with WebM unless if WebM was exactly the same as H.264 which would mean that it was in violation of all of the patents in the MPEG LA patent pool. The patents related to H.264 should be part of that patent pool which means that Motorola is in violation of FRAND terms and if they are being directed by Google to sue other companies then they are in violation of anti-trust laws because they are in collusion. Until the deal goes through, Google is not allowed to direct Motorola to do anything.
Dear dude,
It seems that we both want the same thing: a video format that can be used anywhere, without being forced to use particular software, and without software makers worrying about being sued for patent violations for implementing video codecs.
As this case shows, h.264 is not such a video format, it depends on patented technology. Of course you can embrace such a technology, and tell people to do painful things to themselves every time your favorite software maker gets sued for infringing h.264 patents. But I would argue that it's much better to choose a video format that is not liable to patent trolling (like WebM).
Dear nontechnical person,
WebM is controlled by "one" company named google. Open source exists at the behest of the "copyright" owners. Open source is not substitute for a documented established "STANDARD" managed by a third party patent pool. This patent should have been included in the pool. What google is doing through motorola probably violates several anti-trust laws as well as the principles of FRAND as they are trying use a patent on a "STANDARD" licensed under the MPEGLA patent pool. Do understand the situation yet? They are violating the terms of FRAND.
Hardware decoders cannot be modified to decode another codec like WebM, consumer devices like HD cameras generally do not receive after market firmware updates. You can definitely create a decoder and flash a device to use it but the decoding will occur on the CPU rather than the decoding circuitry in the device which will mean either a sacrifice in framerate or quality/resolution.
WebM was rejected by the industry and end users because it was inferior to H.264. Why can't you understand that? You are free to use an inferior format if you wish but don't expect everyone else to do so.
The bottom line is that Motorola is in violation of FRAND terms by hiding this patent from the patent pool at the MPEG LA.
He liked to the Apple board and stole IP from Apple when he was serving on their board. He should have excused himself from the board the moment Google started working on Android.
It wasn't Google who picked a fight.
Excuse me? This is about H.264, not phones. H.264 is used in HD video cameras, the blu-ray format and as an output format to from video editors. Various devices have H.264 hardware decoders such as smartphones, set top boxes and tablets. Those decoders cannot support WebM and would have to be done in software on the CPU.
Google picked a fight with me and other consumers around the globe with this action. I hope google goes bankrupt because I don't appreciate being ass raped by a large advertiser that have no respect for consumer privacy and rights.
A big sigh of relief from Mozilla I think. This is exactly why they wanted to keep out of h.264. It wouldn't be the patent payout for either licensing or fines, but the cost of lawyers that would cripple Mozilla.
I don't know why Mozilla didn't just "move" the development from the USA to a European country where software patents do not exist. Rich people do it with money to avoid tax, surely Mozilla could do it to avoid patents.
Right and a big huge "FUCK YOU" to consumers like me. Listen pal, I happen to like H.264 and one of the things I like about it is that there are a number hardware chipsets with built in hardware decoding support. I don't use OGG VORBIS or FLAC let alone WebM. If you want to use those formats, be my guest but don't support patent trolls like Google who are trying to take away consumers choices from them and shove WebM down their throats.
Why can't Mozilla charge for builds with H.264 baked in? What gave you the idea that software has to be "free" (gratis)? I work as a software developer but I don't work for free because I have bills to pay. If some people want to give away their software for free, that is their choice but don't try to force everyone to do the same.
Now that you mention it, it would be excellent to see troll patent standard H.264 destroyed by patents. In a perfect world.
Go fuck yourself with a red hot fireplace poker. Tablets have built-in support for H.264 decoding which saves battery life. There is no such thing and WebM hardware decoding on the market right now. You also cannot encode in WebM out of the box. It might be "OPEN SOURCE" but H.264 is a "STANDARD". I prefer standards over reading some shitty code someone else wrote while they were drunk or high.
You are against freedom of choice for consumers. Consumers did not give a shit about WebM.
I personally hope Google gets the smack down by both the US and EU governments for their abuse of FRAND patents.
Probably true, but regardless h.264 is a closed format which is excusable for a web standard. WebM is fine for now.
Fine for whom? How does an average consumer user encode in WebM out of iMovie? How does the average consumer alter the hardware decoder in modern smartphones and tablets to decode WebM format instead of H.264? I suppose you don't give a damn about the battery life of products that you cannot afford to own?
Fuck, google, fuck WebM, fuck the Patent system, fuck FOSS, fuck RMS, fuck the GPL and fuck you for being in favour of removing my freedom of choice to use H.264.
Google, as the new owners of Motorola are obviously trying to destroy the H.264 standard because nobody wanted to use their WebM format.
If they manage to do so by patent trolling, maybe it deserves to be destroyed, better sooner than later.
Tell me, how do you suggest we decode WebM format with the H.264 encoders in mobile phones and tablets? How do you suggest average consumers use their movie editor of choice to output WebM? Did you ever think how it would effect regular people who are not FOSS fanboys? No? That is the problem with FOSS, they think everyone should RTFM and learn to code.
Copyright refers to the "right" to copy or rather to copy and distribute said copies. It has nothing to do with either the left/right political spectrum or the direction.
Why not? why differentiate between clients? your pocket computer(phone) is jsut as valid a computer as a desktop as far as the network is concerned. Dont you think that at some point your 'phone' is going to be your only computer that you carry with you and then dock with at work and home?
Because it does not make sense, that's why. A smartphone likely spends a lot more time "outside" of your office than inside the office. Smartphones are not designed to be general purpose computer. Why insist on using old technology like Active Directory? To make it easier for unskilled drones with an "MCSE" to screw up smart phones too?
iPad can join domains? (real question)
Yes and no. It can join exchange complete with all of the policies and the ability to wipe the device through exchange administration tools. It cannot join a domain in the sense that it would become a member on the domain but you can log into a VPN and access domain resources through Citrix receiver if you have the right xen desktop infrastructure in place.
Frankly joining a domain is not really necessary for a truly "mobile" device like the iPad. Would it make sense for a smartphone to join a domain? Not really.
These "inconvenient truths" prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.
Of course they do. But who is the intelligent designer? There are quite a few candidates so far. And there's also Me. I'll give you 73 virgins in paradise and point to point fiber. In return, you just have to donate a small portion of your savings to My Bank Account.
The god that is love. The god that does not promise sex slaves in paradise. The god that inspires man to move beyond base and selfish desires. The god that gave commandments like "Thou shall not kill", that god. That is the god that created us. We were created in his image but we fell. The image in this case refers to our creative, loving natures rather than what the result of the corruption from the fall. Whenever you help out someone in need then you are reflecting that nature god imbued in us originally.
Especially, Windows users, who are used to nasty, nasty and continual changes in their interfaces.
Don't confuse Ubuntu with Windows now.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista and Windows 7 had a pretty similar interface but Vista and Windows 7 Dumbed down the "Control Panel" too much by default. Now Windows 8 gets rid of the "Start Menu" and MSFT had ported the "ribbon" UI throughout their products.
Nothing wrong here. If a Mac user doesn't like the way Mac OS X is going, they're choices are to use old and unsupported software or bitch and complain. If a Linux user doesn't like the way things are going they can fork.
I think you are confusing users with developers and that is part of the problem with linux in general. An end "user" cannot fork a damn thing because they don't know how to program.
If a developer on OS X does not like something, they can write their own extensions/plugins or applications that publish a "service" that can be used in other programs via the services menu in any cocoa application. You can replace the "finder" with a third party replacement like Pathfinder or write one yourself and license it however you wish. Xcode is available as a free download.
The problem with linux is that there is no strong underlying framework for UI and window management other than X which is rather primitive by modern standard so you end up with multiple competing window managers with their own frameworks, APIs and controls.
Even if the USA had sane laws & law enforcement, the fact that your data is sitting on the other side of the planet adds a lot of latency.
The speed of light is the limiting factor, and we haven't figured out how to beat that one yet.
Further, the high cost of fat pipes in Australia strongly discourages cloud providers.
I cannot get into specifics to protect my identity but this is why you want to have at least a cache of your data in australia if you are a multi-national. It makes no sense whatsoever for Australian entities to store their data in the US.
between the DOJ and Amazon. The latter wants their monopoly back and to be able to use predatory pricing to force other resellers out of business.
The question I would like an answer to is what sort of "favours" did Jeff Bezos offer to the DOJ investigators?
Who watches the watchers?
Was the summary written by an American by any chance? Canada embraced debit card transitions under the name "Interac" long before the US started experimenting with visa debit/check cards. I have a Interac bank card that I can use almost anywhere in Canada for making purchases which also works as a "visa debit" card in the US and as a visa that is tied to my checking account on some US online sites. We have been largely cashless for some time but I still like to have cash as a backup in case the interac network goes down which has happened quite a few times.
I remember one time going to the movies and I was one of a handful of people who actually had enough cash in the wallet to buy movie tickets and concession snacks while almost everyone else were up the creek without a paddle when the network went down in the entire city.
Translation: I am a happy Apple customer. I do not want and never would want anything non-approved from outside my walled garden. By definition, anything non-approved is bad, and not only do I not want it, nobody else should want it or have any means of getting it.
Well done, you are a *good* consumer and will get a gold star (cost $0.99, has been billed to your account).
No, translation, means that I don't want mozilla code running on my iPhone based on the bad experiences that I have had on OS X and recently on Windows 7 at work. The firefox development team is far too undisciplined to be trusted with security. I should not be getting completely rewritten versions every month or so. They should focus on stability and security. Firefox 10 is vulnerable to "drive by downloads" with trojan payloads that require no actions from the user other than accidentally browsing to a compromised site from a google search.
Don't remember telling you if you should care or not. Question was asked and I provided the answer. If that offended your fanboyism I apologize.
But while on the topic - We all know how well only having one Web browser (IE6) worked out for everyone. And if you're providing anecdotes - Safari runs like crap on Windows.
Safari runs fine on windows for me so perhaps you are doing something wrong? I was an avid firefox user until I upgraded to Firefox 10 and then had my work laptop compromised by a "drive by download" flaw that apparently reappeared in Firefox 10 thanks to some careless "refactoring" done by some developer. So now, I use Safari and IE since Safari has had its "drive by download" flaws patched for some time. Firefox is way too unstable now.