From my past experience, Edge had a long way to catch up to other browsers. Maybe they have by now; however, it seemed to me that while trying to catch up, MS baked in a bunch of shortcuts just to pass specific tests. I wouldn't put it past MS to do that to that specific compatibility test. If the test was changed in any way, it wouldn't surprise me if Edge failed badly while the other browsers passed.
Or Google subtly exposing Edge's performance claims for what they were: highly specific use cases that don't withstand changes. I don't know why Google would add a hidden div but there are not the only website that might add one. Edge's claims of superior performance would be meaningless as it requires websites to never change their code.
I would say that the allegations from a MS intern may not be up to the same level of maliciousness that MS did. Even if we believe that Google made changes to screw MS, the exact examples cited show more of a flaw in Edge than anything else. Adding a hidden div shouldn't break a browser as that's a HTML standard. Google didn't add a new HTML code word that only works with Chrome. Other browsers like Firefox and Safari seem to handle it. Or Edge tried to bake in performance and highly specific shortcuts that were so fragile that any changes would affect them. My opinion is that the later is probably more true as Edge was way behind functionality of other browsers and tried a bunch of shortcuts to leap ahead like hard coding performance use cases.
The difference is that MS was convicted while MS is merely accusing Google of the same behavior. From my overview of users, no one using Firefox or Safari complains about not being able to use YouTube. Sounds like the problem is just Edge.
Seriously, if true this is either a star taking herself WAY too seriously or some security asshat who got a new shiny toy to pay with and convinced an overpayed prima-donna to pay for it.
I understand sarcasm but when you write "Seriously" that is not sarcasm. My guess is that you are trying to desperately frame what you wrote as sarcasm even when you did not intend that way.
Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.
Let me summarize your points: first you call her "a prima donna" for trying to protect herself from stalkers. Then you question about any measures she takes about whether they would be effective and down play any risk even though stalkers have gotten close to her in the past.
What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information they already have or do they just check you are NOT one of the barred individuals. THAT is a big difference.
The way I understand the system is that it has nothing to do with scanning people who buy tickets. The face scans are on people who are present at her concert. They are matched with previous scans presumably from pictures of her known stalkers. Your system seems unnecessarily complicated.
Wasn't Amazon trying to get into the grocery delivery business? I can imagine there are lots of items in grocery that would be unprofitable especially when delivery is factored into the cost.
Did you even read the summary? The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers. Meaning that there is a list of people that have previously harassed her and probably been told to stay away. I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.
How does more food help Yemen or North Korea? In the case of Yemen, a war makes it hard to deliver food to people. In the case of North Korea, the authoritarian government is the cause. What about South Sudan right now?
If having to spend an extra couple of dollars each month to watch TV is too onerous for you then why don't you try not watching as much? Read a book instead you will be better off.
So you don't mind paying extra money means that everyone who does should read a book? Why does everyone have to do what you want them to do?
I'm not talking anything about how much money Netflix makes. I'm talking about how much the Verizon surcharge to Netflix affects your monthly fee. Sure Netflix could just eat the surcharge but as a company they have to make money or they won't survive.
So the answer to government monopoly making mess...is MOAR government? Does that make ANY sense?
And your answer is THE WILD WEST! Everyone will police themselves right?
Open up the last mile to competition so that everyone can have multiple choices in ISPs again!
And how would that be possible considering? That's like saying we should solve world hunger by making more food.
The US taxpayer paid paid over 200 BILLION dollars for nationwide services we did NOT get [reddit.com] so just like anyone else who gets paid and rips off the customer we should take them to court and they can either give us what we paid for or we seize the last mile.
And yet you advocate that the same ISPs are not regulated? That makes no sense.
The answer to this is not NN because that isn't gonna mean shit if you don't do anything about the duopoly (or in many areas monopoly) controlling the last mile as without competition they have no reason to improve service or give a flying fuck. Make it easier for towns to start their own broadband, open up the last mile, and you'll see all this nastiness dry up and blow away like a fart in the breeze because if your ISP starts acting like a douche?
Your entire argument is a strawman argument. No one has every said Net Neutrality is the solution to monopoly. Net Neutrality is the only way the Internet can really function.
Just walk across the street and go somewhere else!
Do you live in my neighborhood because if you did you'd know that isn't the solution to the problem.
Didn’t the Internet come to an end? I was told it was an Internet armageddon, and I wouldn’t be able to post this comment without paying an extra surcharge to Verizon or some other bogeyman. But here I am, paying no such surcharge.
That you know about. Tell how much of your Netflix monthly fee goes to pay off the likes of Comcast and Verizon? What about Amazon Video?
Or Canada should ignore Trump and go by what US prosecutors say. I'm guessing Trump thinks this declaration helps him look tough with trade negotiations but it only undermines the US position. It gives the impression that serious charges might be used a tool by the US in trade talks.
If Ethereum wants to be a currency, 15 transactions per second is the technical problem they have to overcome. It's better than Bitcoin but still not fast enough.
Well I think that in Canada there is some called due process that exists. She can and has probably filed legal paperwork to fight extradition and thus requires at least a court hearing.
As for her using a private jet to escape the country, the distance from Vancouver to China is about 8000 km, and I don't know of many chartered jets that more than 6250 km. Certainly China could get her in a military plane or a personal jet but then that's an international incident if China intervened on her behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
From my past experience, Edge had a long way to catch up to other browsers. Maybe they have by now; however, it seemed to me that while trying to catch up, MS baked in a bunch of shortcuts just to pass specific tests. I wouldn't put it past MS to do that to that specific compatibility test. If the test was changed in any way, it wouldn't surprise me if Edge failed badly while the other browsers passed.
Or Google subtly exposing Edge's performance claims for what they were: highly specific use cases that don't withstand changes. I don't know why Google would add a hidden div but there are not the only website that might add one. Edge's claims of superior performance would be meaningless as it requires websites to never change their code.
I would say that the allegations from a MS intern may not be up to the same level of maliciousness that MS did. Even if we believe that Google made changes to screw MS, the exact examples cited show more of a flaw in Edge than anything else. Adding a hidden div shouldn't break a browser as that's a HTML standard. Google didn't add a new HTML code word that only works with Chrome. Other browsers like Firefox and Safari seem to handle it. Or Edge tried to bake in performance and highly specific shortcuts that were so fragile that any changes would affect them. My opinion is that the later is probably more true as Edge was way behind functionality of other browsers and tried a bunch of shortcuts to leap ahead like hard coding performance use cases.
Then your memory is suspect. You seem to forget the how MS threatened Intel not to build a Java VM. How MS threatened OEMs not to install Netscape.
The difference is that MS was convicted while MS is merely accusing Google of the same behavior. From my overview of users, no one using Firefox or Safari complains about not being able to use YouTube. Sounds like the problem is just Edge.
Was it a joke when you wrote "Seriously" or are you trying to cover up?
Do you understand sarcasm or jokes?
You wrote:
Seriously, if true this is either a star taking herself WAY too seriously or some security asshat who got a new shiny toy to pay with and convinced an overpayed prima-donna to pay for it.
I understand sarcasm but when you write "Seriously" that is not sarcasm. My guess is that you are trying to desperately frame what you wrote as sarcasm even when you did not intend that way.
Of course they do. It's not a new problem. It's also not clear that this technology provides any meaningful additional safety to the performer. It's not as if you hear about performers getting assaulted by their fans at concerts very often. Big venues tend to do security very well and they did so long before automated facial recognition was even a possibility.
Let me summarize your points: first you call her "a prima donna" for trying to protect herself from stalkers. Then you question about any measures she takes about whether they would be effective and down play any risk even though stalkers have gotten close to her in the past.
What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information they already have or do they just check you are NOT one of the barred individuals. THAT is a big difference.
The way I understand the system is that it has nothing to do with scanning people who buy tickets. The face scans are on people who are present at her concert. They are matched with previous scans presumably from pictures of her known stalkers. Your system seems unnecessarily complicated.
Well Amazon is trying to get into the grocery delivery business. Delivering small quantities of non-bulk items would be part of that business.
Wasn't Amazon trying to get into the grocery delivery business? I can imagine there are lots of items in grocery that would be unprofitable especially when delivery is factored into the cost.
Did you even read the summary? The face scans are compared to a database of her stalkers. Meaning that there is a list of people that have previously harassed her and probably been told to stay away. I would imagine many famous people have stalkers.
I agree. If she used this tech to track the movements of fans before and after the concert that would be "spying"
How does more food help Yemen or North Korea? In the case of Yemen, a war makes it hard to deliver food to people. In the case of North Korea, the authoritarian government is the cause. What about South Sudan right now?
A quick search of WHO says you're just dead wrong. That doesn't cover Yemen or North Korea.
I did. The OP said he wasn't paying a surcharge. I told exactly how he's a paying a surcharge. Why don't you add something to the conversation?
Poor little Kohath doesn't understand companies need to make money. Netflix isn't a non-profit
If having to spend an extra couple of dollars each month to watch TV is too onerous for you then why don't you try not watching as much? Read a book instead you will be better off.
So you don't mind paying extra money means that everyone who does should read a book? Why does everyone have to do what you want them to do?
I'm not talking anything about how much money Netflix makes. I'm talking about how much the Verizon surcharge to Netflix affects your monthly fee. Sure Netflix could just eat the surcharge but as a company they have to make money or they won't survive.
So because it doesn't affect you because of your choices, it doesn't affect me?
So the answer to government monopoly making mess...is MOAR government? Does that make ANY sense?
And your answer is THE WILD WEST! Everyone will police themselves right?
Open up the last mile to competition so that everyone can have multiple choices in ISPs again!
And how would that be possible considering? That's like saying we should solve world hunger by making more food.
The US taxpayer paid paid over 200 BILLION dollars for nationwide services we did NOT get [reddit.com] so just like anyone else who gets paid and rips off the customer we should take them to court and they can either give us what we paid for or we seize the last mile.
And yet you advocate that the same ISPs are not regulated? That makes no sense.
The answer to this is not NN because that isn't gonna mean shit if you don't do anything about the duopoly (or in many areas monopoly) controlling the last mile as without competition they have no reason to improve service or give a flying fuck. Make it easier for towns to start their own broadband, open up the last mile, and you'll see all this nastiness dry up and blow away like a fart in the breeze because if your ISP starts acting like a douche?
Your entire argument is a strawman argument. No one has every said Net Neutrality is the solution to monopoly. Net Neutrality is the only way the Internet can really function.
Just walk across the street and go somewhere else!
Do you live in my neighborhood because if you did you'd know that isn't the solution to the problem.
Didn’t the Internet come to an end? I was told it was an Internet armageddon, and I wouldn’t be able to post this comment without paying an extra surcharge to Verizon or some other bogeyman. But here I am, paying no such surcharge.
That you know about. Tell how much of your Netflix monthly fee goes to pay off the likes of Comcast and Verizon? What about Amazon Video?
Hey now, Trump didn't win the popular vote so he certainly doesn't speak for all of America. "Fuck you Trump" is more like it.
Or Canada should ignore Trump and go by what US prosecutors say. I'm guessing Trump thinks this declaration helps him look tough with trade negotiations but it only undermines the US position. It gives the impression that serious charges might be used a tool by the US in trade talks.
If Ethereum wants to be a currency, 15 transactions per second is the technical problem they have to overcome. It's better than Bitcoin but still not fast enough.
Well I think that in Canada there is some called due process that exists. She can and has probably filed legal paperwork to fight extradition and thus requires at least a court hearing.
As for her using a private jet to escape the country, the distance from Vancouver to China is about 8000 km, and I don't know of many chartered jets that more than 6250 km. Certainly China could get her in a military plane or a personal jet but then that's an international incident if China intervened on her behalf.