Both IE and Chrome offer sandboxing, JIT hardening and ways to make vulnerable plug-ins less easy to exploit and gain access to system. Firefox offers none of these.
On the other hand only Firefox is checked with static analysis tools before released, meaning that there are very, very few actual flaws in the browser (IE might be, Chrome certainly isn't). For instance when Chrome added a very basic memory checker to their test servers they caught dozens of bugs -- and that's just from the most basic of runtime checks. When people have run their commercial static analyzers on Chrome they've found several hundreds of potential flaws.
What does this mean in practice? The inner sandboxed code in Chrome is wide open to attack. They aren't even using serious methods to try to protect that code and are instead relying completely on the sandbox. This is the reason why you'll get random crashes in Chrome, and why they purposely try to keep you from using too many tabs (if a process is rendering more than one tab then when it crashes more of your tabs have to reload). On the flip side, this is the reason why in a years of running Firefox nightly it has never crashed once. Yes, there are errors in Firefox, but they are complex ones not the simple mistakes that crash Chrome left and right.
Personally I've never had a malware in dozens of years, so browser stability matters a whole lot more to me than security. A sandbox would be nice, but one that is relied on and causes random page crashes is worse than not having one but having far fewer crashes.
The possible threat is from mass panic and/or social unrest. Take somebody's whole lifetime of religious belief and pull the carpet out from under it and they'll react irrationally. Do that to the majority of people on the planet and you potentially have big problems.
I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet, let alone how people in some place like the Middle East would react. You know for a certainty people would at least try to blow up the radio telescopes and cover up the knowledge. What else? Who knows, but the government having some time to plan and prepare before word got out would be valuable preparation.
Just get a USB optical drive. They use two USB ports to legitimately get enough power, although you can usually just use one plug. They're basically just a laptop optical drive in a box and work just fine for almost everything, even installing an OS from scratch usually works. And you don't need to have it inside the computer for the 99% of the time you don't need it.
Right, what he meant to say is that Android is having all sorts of patent problems because it's a complete rip-off of previous new work and designs by other companies (Apple and Sun). The real testament to Google's lack of innovation is they had to pay $12 billion for Motorola Mobility in order to get some patents of their own. If they had actually invented things themselves they wouldn't have needed to do that.
It's just sour grapes. Patents are supposed to 'skim off the top' if you're using somebody else's inventions. It's the "ripoff tax" and it's good for society.
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework
If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me) or using the respect of their office then it isn't ad hominem to attack their person -- they opened the door by using themselves as their argument. Unfortunately there aren't very many compelling arguments for religion that don't boil down to 'trust me' or 'god spoke to me', but it isn't Dawkin at fault.
because Google has never been in the mobile device market before and so didn't have a relevant patent arsenal with which to ward of the incumbents' attacks
That's not really true though, is it. Apple also hadn't really been in the mobile/cell market either, but they came out with a phone with a ton of new inventions in it. The existing players couldn't sue Apple because they needed to look and work like the iPhone. Apple invents new things.
The real problem Google had entering the mobile device market is that they didn't add anything new at all. They just copied existing phones (iPhone). Google is like Microsoft, just improving and executing on other people's ideas. Search, email, maps, phones... I can't think of any actual invention Google's made. They are opportunists not inventors and that's why they have to buy patents.
Since I don't give blanket scripting access to google.com, gstatic, etc, now that google uses instant it often happens that I try to search on google and get no results because the site is broken without either all or no scripting enabled. Whenever this happens it reminds me to search on Bing instead.
The results on Bing are fine for the most part, and I like how they improved the search UI over the old Google (most of which Google copied, Google just went too far and made their copy over the top).
Luckily for them, ATI was still good at its job, and kept up with nVidia in video HW, so AMD owned what ATI was, and no more. But their gamble on the synergy was a total bust. It cracked their financial structure and forced them to sell off their manufacturing plants, which drastically reduced their possible profitability.
And how do you think ATI was able to be so good at its job? With help from AMD's engineers, patents, and processes. ATI's cards only started getting really good after the buyout, for instance their idle power dropped by huge amounts after integrating AMD power saving tech. It was years before nVidia had any decent cards with sub-50 watt idle power (let alone less than 10 watt), and it cost them market share. Avoiding a process disaster like nVidia's recall also was no doubt influenced from being part of AMD.
AMD was plodding along with good chips, but no dominated market segment. ATI was strong but failing. Now ATI is even stronger, and AMD has at least one segment where its chips dominate the market (netbooks, cheap notebooks). I really don't see how the buyout can be interpreted as anything but a huge success.
unless any of the subscribers can provide further assistance to identify the actual parties who should be sued, I can see no reason why they should not have to pay damages here.
That's just another form of being guilty until proven innocent. Just because you can't prove somebody else did it doesn't make you guilty... it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove to some standard that you did it.
Ironically DMCA protects you as an account holder from liability for people that use the Internet Service you Provide. Basically all you need is to inform your users they they'll get the boot if they are repeat infringers and "reasonably implement" that policy. Then the most the RIAA/MPAA can legally do is subpoena you to identify the real culprit, but even that's only "to the extent such information is available to the service provider", and get an injunction to make you actually cut the person off from the service.
Of course if you are a parent then while you won't be liable for infringement, if your children are found to have infringed copyright then you may be liable for their actions as their guardian. Or if you prove yourself as the infringer, like using your online banking username/password for kazaa...
but there is no way ARM is going to emulate x86 apps at a usable speed.
When people usually talk about emulater speeds it's running the whole OS, virtual box style. But in this case the Windows OS and all the standard APIs would be running native ARM so it would only be the application code itself that was emulated. There are plenty of apps written in say Python that are maybe 1/30th the speed of a native app but still plenty usable.
Combine a native OS with the experts they have on JIT tech (CLR is really hard to JIT, so you know these people are wicked good) and tons of cores on future ARMs so each thread gets its own core... I don't know man I think it's totally possible.
The important part is indeed that Bing is essentially using Google results to boost its own accuracy. It doesn't matter that it comes through a user clicking on the first result of a Google search and opting to send that action to Microsoft
Of course it matters. User feedback is extremely valuable input for a search engine, because knowing what users actually want from a couple search terms is an impossible task for an AI or data mining algorithm. Bing is getting this info from all searches (on their site, Google, portals specific search engines, etc), whereas Google is getting it mostly from their own site. This is the real issue Google is upset about, not the 'copying'.
Google is upset because Bing is doing a much better job of getting this valuable information, and the results are showing. Bing is a real competitor. If Bing were merely 'copying off the test' then Google would be ecstatic... Bing would be forever behind on the treadmill, always with out of date lesser results. But instead Google is worried that Bing will have better results, because what's valuable is not the URLs themselves but the user choices.
If that's not the ultimate admission of "We don't know what the fuck we're doing, and have resorted to copying other people's results", I don't know what is.
First you ignored Bing, now you're laughing at them.... profit?
As usual, it seems to trace back to Microsoft astro-turfers and lobby groups of various kinds.
The question is not whether there is an astroturfing campaign on, because that's a given (Microsoft plays hardball). The question is, why is it working? For astroturfing to work there has to be some fire to fan.
For me, this campaign is working because over the last year or so google results for highly specific technical terms have gotten much, much worse. There's nothing more frustrating than searching for something related to some particular field name in a struct used in STREAMS in Solaris for instance and getting results without the specific terms I'm looking for. I put the term in quotes, say yes I really did mean this "misspelling", and then the cached page results say the term isn't even present. If you don't have anything in the database with that keyword then don't give any search results... then I can at least try something else instead of wasting time reading useless results.
So even though Google results overall may be better than before (how would you know?) they've been changing things a lot, and all the people who's searches used to work and now are frustrated are prime targets for an astroturfing campaign like this. And since it seems to be working so well I'd say Google has pissed off a lot of users.
For tasks that relied on heavy memory, Atom of course, won out. But for tasks that were more CPU-bound (Dhrystone), a Cortex A8 achieved somewhere around 1.47 DMIPS/MHz compared to Atom 330's 1.17.
And it was destroyed 10-to-1 by Atom on CPU-bound floating point (Whetstone, LINPACK). Of course A8 will be a simpler more power efficient design when it leaves off floating point.
The A9 should significantly improve on this and at 1GHz, will likely be as fast if not faster than a 1.6GHz Atom at less than half the power. The A15 should close the gap even further and rival low-tier Core CPU's. I'm not sure what nVidia's going to make.
Atom will be old news this year... ARM will need to be able to compete with AMD CPUs.
Unless the screen technology changes (one of the biggest power draws) I really don't see ARM's traditional strength of low power being a big deal. And with transistor sizes shrinking, having a simple design is of little benefit. I think they are in for a lot more competition than they are used to. The question is really how well RISC instructions scale to very complicated chips, and the history (all high-performance CPUs left are CISC) and parallels point to CISC scaling better the more complicated the chip is.
Also interestingly, the most expensive desktop part will start at $317, putting the screws to AMD yet again.
When has Intel ever lowered prices without needing to?
It's more likely that instead of putting the screws to AMD, Intel is worried about Bobcat and Bulldozer coming out pretty soon and factoring that into their prices (to gain market share before AMD chips get out). On merit Bobcat CPUs should dominate the low-end laptop/netbook market with low power use and real integrated graphics. Bulldozer should do well in the high-end server market again with low-power and more cores... basically where intel CPUs have hyperthreading, Bulldozer has another actual core (for integer instructions).
The really funny thing is that in practice all generics really need to do is prevent you from having to repeat casts everywhere, catch errors moderately soon, and aid in documentation. Which is what these do. The real 'trap' here is thinking that something has to be theoretically perfect to be useful or convenient.
Go to the local mass-market store like Lowes or even Target and look for a CFL bulb with the most lumens per watt. Also look for bulbs that have a curiously long life rating since these will not have any circuitry to use more power at startup to warm the bulb up. It doesn't matter if it says "instant on" or not (all slow-starting CFLs say "instant on")... in fact if the packaging is really loud about being "instant on!!!" then that's a good one to buy since it's guaranteed to take forever to get fully bright.
Now you have a bulb that will take 5+ minutes to reach full brightness even pointed upward. Then get a cheap clip-on lamp and a wall outlet timer. Set the timer to turn the light on say 15 minutes before your alarm. If the 5+ minutes it takes to get fully bright is still too fast for you, point it downward so the bulb heats up more slowly (but this will lower the life of the bulb significantly if you leave it on). You're done. Total cost ~$20.
So next time you play "CFL roulette" and get a really bad one you'll have a use for it. And since the really bad CFLs last for freaking ever (just to spite you) you'll soon have a huge stockpile of replacement bulbs for the time when all CFLs are actually instant on (yeah right...).
It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee
Why is that marked funny? Last I checked Google is making huge profits even despite massive spending, so they're basically doing the same thing. If anything Google is taking significantly more profit percentage-wise from actual content producers than Apple is.
Heck, to prove it, just light up a bulb and touch it. Feel that heat on the incandescent? That's wasted energy that didn't go to light. Now touch an equivalently bright fluorescent bulb, it's only a little warm.
What a crock of shit. Touch a halogen bulb and you'll end up in the hospital, but they are much more energy efficient than a regular tungsten incandescent. CFLs are usually just warm to the touch mostly because they have many times the surface area of an incandescent bulb (and more mass so they heat up more slowly). Try grabbing one of the fully enclosed glass CFL bulbs (glass to filter out the UV which everybody forgets about until it destroys plastic or bleaches colors) and it'll still burn your hand.
If Google really cared about net neutrality, they'd put a link on all their properties "Support net neutrality" with a little colored ribbon of some kind instead of pimping Chrome every change they get.
It gives the FCC authority to retroactively look at a specific company's actions and make them stop, after the fact. Which means basically companies will do whatever they want to, and only if what they are doing is so terribly egrigious, and there is a democratic administration, will anything be done. And that will be a slap on the wrist at most.
So basically, no FCC authority under Google's proposal.
Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?
Because it's patently obvious that humans are the cause of it. It's just an absurd proposition that there is any other significant cause of climate change. Yes, you would have to be some kind a slack-jawed right-wing gun toting idiot, or equivalent, to think otherwise.
You know all this mess in the gulf that people are hysterical about? Imagine 15,000 other deep water oil leaks of the same size spread out across the oceans, and what kind of hell that would be. Because that's the amount of oil we are burning each year. The idea that burning it all instead of letting it leak makes it all but harmless is madness. Less directly harmful that letting it leak, probably, but still plenty bad.
Just being uneducated wouldn't even be enough to explain it. Take a look at yourself for instance. You "haven't made a final decision yet"? Science doesn't make "final decisions". If new facts come up, scientists change the 'decision'; there is no 'final'. The evidence is so overwhelming right now that really the only way to deny it is to un-scientifically hold out for an absolute... well we can't be 100.0% sure so reserve judgment. Mathematics and religion works on absolutes, not science. So it's not even a question of education or intelligence, it's really a question of whether you have to courage to face the facts or not.
I think really the problem is that the scale of human activity is simply too great for many people to comprehend. People that haven't ever left their own town and aren't worldly just don't have the resources or motivation or fortitude to even contemplate it. So I don't hold out much hope for society to change before it's too late. And it's not too late, yet, but we'll need massive infrastructure changes or something drastic like say a solar shield to keep anything resembling our current climate.
Also, they insist on using fucking _return_ _codes_ to indicate errors. WTF? It only makes code more complex because of tons of stupid 'if error' statements.
What's worse is that not only are there error returns codes (by convention), but there are multiple return codes. Which means you could return two error codes, or no error codes, or whatever. What a mess.
Personally, I like Rust's design more. At least, it has some new features.
Rust actually tries to solve some future/current problems, like garbage collection on hundred-core CPUs for instance. You can't just stop every CPU while you collect garbage, like Go does since it has no concept of separate domains of data.
And the lack of parenthesis is also annoying. You can't just design a language based on what you theorize is good. Visual grouping helps people to read code. Too many parenthesis are bad (LISP) and too few are bad (Go).
What's better? Voting for the lesser evil, knowing that it's still evil and basically the same turd sandwich, or voting for someone who you know can't win but would be the right candidate for you?
That's a false choice. What's better is voting. Vote in every election for every office, from President to sanitation commissioner. If you've every missed an election because you were too lazy to get off your ass then you are the problem.
But what's better still is voting for somebody good that can also win. That means voting for a Republican or Democrat for higher office, and voting Libertarian or Green for local offices.
Slashdot Mirror
Both IE and Chrome offer sandboxing, JIT hardening and ways to make vulnerable plug-ins less easy to exploit and gain access to system. Firefox offers none of these.
On the other hand only Firefox is checked with static analysis tools before released, meaning that there are very, very few actual flaws in the browser (IE might be, Chrome certainly isn't). For instance when Chrome added a very basic memory checker to their test servers they caught dozens of bugs -- and that's just from the most basic of runtime checks. When people have run their commercial static analyzers on Chrome they've found several hundreds of potential flaws.
What does this mean in practice? The inner sandboxed code in Chrome is wide open to attack. They aren't even using serious methods to try to protect that code and are instead relying completely on the sandbox. This is the reason why you'll get random crashes in Chrome, and why they purposely try to keep you from using too many tabs (if a process is rendering more than one tab then when it crashes more of your tabs have to reload). On the flip side, this is the reason why in a years of running Firefox nightly it has never crashed once. Yes, there are errors in Firefox, but they are complex ones not the simple mistakes that crash Chrome left and right.
Personally I've never had a malware in dozens of years, so browser stability matters a whole lot more to me than security. A sandbox would be nice, but one that is relied on and causes random page crashes is worse than not having one but having far fewer crashes.
The possible threat is from mass panic and/or social unrest. Take somebody's whole lifetime of religious belief and pull the carpet out from under it and they'll react irrationally. Do that to the majority of people on the planet and you potentially have big problems.
I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet, let alone how people in some place like the Middle East would react. You know for a certainty people would at least try to blow up the radio telescopes and cover up the knowledge. What else? Who knows, but the government having some time to plan and prepare before word got out would be valuable preparation.
Just get a USB optical drive. They use two USB ports to legitimately get enough power, although you can usually just use one plug. They're basically just a laptop optical drive in a box and work just fine for almost everything, even installing an OS from scratch usually works. And you don't need to have it inside the computer for the 99% of the time you don't need it.
Right, what he meant to say is that Android is having all sorts of patent problems because it's a complete rip-off of previous new work and designs by other companies (Apple and Sun). The real testament to Google's lack of innovation is they had to pay $12 billion for Motorola Mobility in order to get some patents of their own. If they had actually invented things themselves they wouldn't have needed to do that.
It's just sour grapes. Patents are supposed to 'skim off the top' if you're using somebody else's inventions. It's the "ripoff tax" and it's good for society.
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework
If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me) or using the respect of their office then it isn't ad hominem to attack their person -- they opened the door by using themselves as their argument. Unfortunately there aren't very many compelling arguments for religion that don't boil down to 'trust me' or 'god spoke to me', but it isn't Dawkin at fault.
because Google has never been in the mobile device market before and so didn't have a relevant patent arsenal with which to ward of the incumbents' attacks
That's not really true though, is it. Apple also hadn't really been in the mobile/cell market either, but they came out with a phone with a ton of new inventions in it. The existing players couldn't sue Apple because they needed to look and work like the iPhone. Apple invents new things.
The real problem Google had entering the mobile device market is that they didn't add anything new at all. They just copied existing phones (iPhone). Google is like Microsoft, just improving and executing on other people's ideas. Search, email, maps, phones... I can't think of any actual invention Google's made. They are opportunists not inventors and that's why they have to buy patents.
Since I don't give blanket scripting access to google.com, gstatic, etc, now that google uses instant it often happens that I try to search on google and get no results because the site is broken without either all or no scripting enabled. Whenever this happens it reminds me to search on Bing instead.
The results on Bing are fine for the most part, and I like how they improved the search UI over the old Google (most of which Google copied, Google just went too far and made their copy over the top).
Luckily for them, ATI was still good at its job, and kept up with nVidia in video HW, so AMD owned what ATI was, and no more. But their gamble on the synergy was a total bust. It cracked their financial structure and forced them to sell off their manufacturing plants, which drastically reduced their possible profitability.
And how do you think ATI was able to be so good at its job? With help from AMD's engineers, patents, and processes. ATI's cards only started getting really good after the buyout, for instance their idle power dropped by huge amounts after integrating AMD power saving tech. It was years before nVidia had any decent cards with sub-50 watt idle power (let alone less than 10 watt), and it cost them market share. Avoiding a process disaster like nVidia's recall also was no doubt influenced from being part of AMD.
AMD was plodding along with good chips, but no dominated market segment. ATI was strong but failing. Now ATI is even stronger, and AMD has at least one segment where its chips dominate the market (netbooks, cheap notebooks). I really don't see how the buyout can be interpreted as anything but a huge success.
unless any of the subscribers can provide further assistance to identify the actual parties who should be sued, I can see no reason why they should not have to pay damages here.
That's just another form of being guilty until proven innocent. Just because you can't prove somebody else did it doesn't make you guilty... it's the plaintiff's responsibility to prove to some standard that you did it.
Ironically DMCA protects you as an account holder from liability for people that use the Internet Service you Provide. Basically all you need is to inform your users they they'll get the boot if they are repeat infringers and "reasonably implement" that policy. Then the most the RIAA/MPAA can legally do is subpoena you to identify the real culprit, but even that's only "to the extent such information is available to the service provider", and get an injunction to make you actually cut the person off from the service.
Of course if you are a parent then while you won't be liable for infringement, if your children are found to have infringed copyright then you may be liable for their actions as their guardian. Or if you prove yourself as the infringer, like using your online banking username/password for kazaa...
but there is no way ARM is going to emulate x86 apps at a usable speed.
When people usually talk about emulater speeds it's running the whole OS, virtual box style. But in this case the Windows OS and all the standard APIs would be running native ARM so it would only be the application code itself that was emulated. There are plenty of apps written in say Python that are maybe 1/30th the speed of a native app but still plenty usable.
Combine a native OS with the experts they have on JIT tech (CLR is really hard to JIT, so you know these people are wicked good) and tons of cores on future ARMs so each thread gets its own core... I don't know man I think it's totally possible.
The important part is indeed that Bing is essentially using Google results to boost its own accuracy. It doesn't matter that it comes through a user clicking on the first result of a Google search and opting to send that action to Microsoft
Of course it matters. User feedback is extremely valuable input for a search engine, because knowing what users actually want from a couple search terms is an impossible task for an AI or data mining algorithm. Bing is getting this info from all searches (on their site, Google, portals specific search engines, etc), whereas Google is getting it mostly from their own site. This is the real issue Google is upset about, not the 'copying'.
Google is upset because Bing is doing a much better job of getting this valuable information, and the results are showing. Bing is a real competitor. If Bing were merely 'copying off the test' then Google would be ecstatic... Bing would be forever behind on the treadmill, always with out of date lesser results. But instead Google is worried that Bing will have better results, because what's valuable is not the URLs themselves but the user choices.
If that's not the ultimate admission of "We don't know what the fuck we're doing, and have resorted to copying other people's results", I don't know what is.
First you ignored Bing, now you're laughing at them. ... profit?
As usual, it seems to trace back to Microsoft astro-turfers and lobby groups of various kinds.
The question is not whether there is an astroturfing campaign on, because that's a given (Microsoft plays hardball). The question is, why is it working? For astroturfing to work there has to be some fire to fan.
For me, this campaign is working because over the last year or so google results for highly specific technical terms have gotten much, much worse. There's nothing more frustrating than searching for something related to some particular field name in a struct used in STREAMS in Solaris for instance and getting results without the specific terms I'm looking for. I put the term in quotes, say yes I really did mean this "misspelling", and then the cached page results say the term isn't even present. If you don't have anything in the database with that keyword then don't give any search results... then I can at least try something else instead of wasting time reading useless results.
So even though Google results overall may be better than before (how would you know?) they've been changing things a lot, and all the people who's searches used to work and now are frustrated are prime targets for an astroturfing campaign like this. And since it seems to be working so well I'd say Google has pissed off a lot of users.
For tasks that relied on heavy memory, Atom of course, won out. But for tasks that were more CPU-bound (Dhrystone), a Cortex A8 achieved somewhere around 1.47 DMIPS/MHz compared to Atom 330's 1.17.
And it was destroyed 10-to-1 by Atom on CPU-bound floating point (Whetstone, LINPACK). Of course A8 will be a simpler more power efficient design when it leaves off floating point.
The A9 should significantly improve on this and at 1GHz, will likely be as fast if not faster than a 1.6GHz Atom at less than half the power. The A15 should close the gap even further and rival low-tier Core CPU's. I'm not sure what nVidia's going to make.
Atom will be old news this year... ARM will need to be able to compete with AMD CPUs.
Unless the screen technology changes (one of the biggest power draws) I really don't see ARM's traditional strength of low power being a big deal. And with transistor sizes shrinking, having a simple design is of little benefit. I think they are in for a lot more competition than they are used to. The question is really how well RISC instructions scale to very complicated chips, and the history (all high-performance CPUs left are CISC) and parallels point to CISC scaling better the more complicated the chip is.
Also interestingly, the most expensive desktop part will start at $317, putting the screws to AMD yet again.
When has Intel ever lowered prices without needing to?
It's more likely that instead of putting the screws to AMD, Intel is worried about Bobcat and Bulldozer coming out pretty soon and factoring that into their prices (to gain market share before AMD chips get out). On merit Bobcat CPUs should dominate the low-end laptop/netbook market with low power use and real integrated graphics. Bulldozer should do well in the high-end server market again with low-power and more cores... basically where intel CPUs have hyperthreading, Bulldozer has another actual core (for integer instructions).
The really funny thing is that in practice all generics really need to do is prevent you from having to repeat casts everywhere, catch errors moderately soon, and aid in documentation. Which is what these do. The real 'trap' here is thinking that something has to be theoretically perfect to be useful or convenient.
Go to the local mass-market store like Lowes or even Target and look for a CFL bulb with the most lumens per watt. Also look for bulbs that have a curiously long life rating since these will not have any circuitry to use more power at startup to warm the bulb up. It doesn't matter if it says "instant on" or not (all slow-starting CFLs say "instant on")... in fact if the packaging is really loud about being "instant on!!!" then that's a good one to buy since it's guaranteed to take forever to get fully bright.
Now you have a bulb that will take 5+ minutes to reach full brightness even pointed upward. Then get a cheap clip-on lamp and a wall outlet timer. Set the timer to turn the light on say 15 minutes before your alarm. If the 5+ minutes it takes to get fully bright is still too fast for you, point it downward so the bulb heats up more slowly (but this will lower the life of the bulb significantly if you leave it on). You're done. Total cost ~$20.
So next time you play "CFL roulette" and get a really bad one you'll have a use for it. And since the really bad CFLs last for freaking ever (just to spite you) you'll soon have a huge stockpile of replacement bulbs for the time when all CFLs are actually instant on (yeah right...).
It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee
Why is that marked funny? Last I checked Google is making huge profits even despite massive spending, so they're basically doing the same thing. If anything Google is taking significantly more profit percentage-wise from actual content producers than Apple is.
Heck, to prove it, just light up a bulb and touch it. Feel that heat on the incandescent? That's wasted energy that didn't go to light. Now touch an equivalently bright fluorescent bulb, it's only a little warm.
What a crock of shit. Touch a halogen bulb and you'll end up in the hospital, but they are much more energy efficient than a regular tungsten incandescent. CFLs are usually just warm to the touch mostly because they have many times the surface area of an incandescent bulb (and more mass so they heat up more slowly). Try grabbing one of the fully enclosed glass CFL bulbs (glass to filter out the UV which everybody forgets about until it destroys plastic or bleaches colors) and it'll still burn your hand.
If Google really cared about net neutrality, they'd put a link on all their properties "Support net neutrality" with a little colored ribbon of some kind instead of pimping Chrome every change they get.
It gives the FCC authority to retroactively look at a specific company's actions and make them stop, after the fact. Which means basically companies will do whatever they want to, and only if what they are doing is so terribly egrigious, and there is a democratic administration, will anything be done. And that will be a slap on the wrist at most.
So basically, no FCC authority under Google's proposal.
Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?
Because it's patently obvious that humans are the cause of it. It's just an absurd proposition that there is any other significant cause of climate change. Yes, you would have to be some kind a slack-jawed right-wing gun toting idiot, or equivalent, to think otherwise.
You know all this mess in the gulf that people are hysterical about? Imagine 15,000 other deep water oil leaks of the same size spread out across the oceans, and what kind of hell that would be. Because that's the amount of oil we are burning each year. The idea that burning it all instead of letting it leak makes it all but harmless is madness. Less directly harmful that letting it leak, probably, but still plenty bad.
Just being uneducated wouldn't even be enough to explain it. Take a look at yourself for instance. You "haven't made a final decision yet"? Science doesn't make "final decisions". If new facts come up, scientists change the 'decision'; there is no 'final'. The evidence is so overwhelming right now that really the only way to deny it is to un-scientifically hold out for an absolute... well we can't be 100.0% sure so reserve judgment. Mathematics and religion works on absolutes, not science. So it's not even a question of education or intelligence, it's really a question of whether you have to courage to face the facts or not.
I think really the problem is that the scale of human activity is simply too great for many people to comprehend. People that haven't ever left their own town and aren't worldly just don't have the resources or motivation or fortitude to even contemplate it. So I don't hold out much hope for society to change before it's too late. And it's not too late, yet, but we'll need massive infrastructure changes or something drastic like say a solar shield to keep anything resembling our current climate.
Also, they insist on using fucking _return_ _codes_ to indicate errors. WTF? It only makes code more complex because of tons of stupid 'if error' statements.
What's worse is that not only are there error returns codes (by convention), but there are multiple return codes. Which means you could return two error codes, or no error codes, or whatever. What a mess.
Personally, I like Rust's design more. At least, it has some new features.
Rust actually tries to solve some future/current problems, like garbage collection on hundred-core CPUs for instance. You can't just stop every CPU while you collect garbage, like Go does since it has no concept of separate domains of data.
And the lack of parenthesis is also annoying. You can't just design a language based on what you theorize is good. Visual grouping helps people to read code. Too many parenthesis are bad (LISP) and too few are bad (Go).
That God exists and he's Rule 110.
Also knock it up a notch with View -> Page Style -> No Style.
This works really well for sites that put stories into tiny columns or use unreadable fonts.
What's better? Voting for the lesser evil, knowing that it's still evil and basically the same turd sandwich, or voting for someone who you know can't win but would be the right candidate for you?
That's a false choice. What's better is voting. Vote in every election for every office, from President to sanitation commissioner. If you've every missed an election because you were too lazy to get off your ass then you are the problem.
But what's better still is voting for somebody good that can also win. That means voting for a Republican or Democrat for higher office, and voting Libertarian or Green for local offices.