As per the subject line above, if you're into action instead of talking, you simply fork.
Note, Mozilla is really "weird" about trademarked names, so you'll have to call it iceweasel like Debian did, or maybe call it Animats-2011-fox or something.
2) No more write it and forget it, never to be updated again. Updates will have to be a process not a project. You literally can't be bothered to test if your "xyz extension" is compatible with the latest version? Well, then we can't be bothered to use it anymore. That sound you're hearing is thousands of pure cruft addons getting flushed. Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on your post-processor.
The problem is that even plugins abandoned by the author can still be useful. There may not be an adequate replacement, and even if there is, it means considerable work to find it, to evaluate that it really does what you want, and possibly to relearn your use of it.
Think about whats most likely, not an individual theoretical anecdote. For individual theoretical anecdotes, you can always force an addon to install anyway, and it might even work.
Most likely: Dev doesn't care, because its worthless, or too buggy to maintain. If a corporate release, dev's boss also doesn't care. No users have stepped up to clone or fork it because they don't care enough. No one is looking for, and fixing, security problems, if they can't even be bothered to do the minimal task of bumping version numbers, so is it safe, or not, who knows... If you're literally the only person left who cares about that software, for your own safety you shouldn't use it, and you should either implement a replacement yourself or hire someone to do it for you.
To safely use completely abandoned software is not just click and go like now... doing it right requires a lot of security and auditing support and testing, tons of expensive labor... Probably cheaper and easier to relearn an alternative...
Go date based. I support everything up to "fill in the blank", anything happened past that date you're on your own. That's possibly the real world situation anyway, just not publicized or stated as such.
You're saying that any person who writes software is automatically required to provide lifetime support of said software?
I like that idea.
If even the dev abandons it, give me one rationalization or justification why the users shouldn't follow their lead and also abandon it... The dev probably quit for a good, well informed reason, and if the user knew it, they'd probably run for the hills too.
If even the devs no longer care what kind of unpatched security holes might exist, users should not be able to use it at all, unless they go to the effort of overriding it, in which case when/if they shoot themselves in their foot, they fully and completely deserve it.
Furthermore, I would consider it a feature to be informed if software I'm responsible for is no longer maintained.
That is a mistaken strategy by the intranet app writers.
If you write a WWW application that uses HTML, anything can use it.
If you write a "IE" app, then you're wasting valuable resources, because you'd be better off putting a compiled.exe on a ftp site, and skip all this "www" "html" stuff that just gets in the way.
It's just a constantly evolving piece of software.
Maybe the whole point is that in late 2011, a freaking web browser should not be making evolutionary or revolutionary changes. It should just accept html written to a standard, and display it to that standard. In late 2011, "revolution" should be limited to moving the tab bar 1/4 inch up or down on the screen. Its just not the 90s anymore.
One of the things I'd like them to provide is the ability to remove extensions and add-ons, instead of just disabling them. I have been accumulating unwanted extensions that I have disabled but I see no button to uninstall them.
You sure about that? "Tools" "Add-ons" look at the right column for the "remove" buttons. Maybe its a version thing, I'm running 5.0, you can click "help" "about firefox" to see what version you're... Oh, very smooth move there sir, I must applaud you...
I've always said i'd wait for the dot one release of eternal life.
Yeah we'll good luck picking the right one, there's about ten thousand forked versions of life 1.1 all of which are literally in a holy war with each other, conflicting featuresets, etc. No wonder I opt out of that entire flamefest, just don't need the aggravation.
Not to mention other web "apps" like learning management systems, etc officially supporting specific versions or a range of versions.
That is a huge management mistake by the LMS programmers, its simply not the browsers problem.
Insert standard/. car analogy: Imagine if my local gas station pumps were so stupid as to only support certain named car brands, going to great effort to ensure I can't buy gas unless my vehicle is on the approved list, instead of just supporting some mostly common sense federal and state EPA standards for all machines.
No responses so far in favor of the idea... I'll toss one out:
1) No more coding some bizarre non-standard garbage code to a specific version of the software anymore. I'm looking at you, JAVA coders. And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorization of which sites require -20 and with can't work on anything newer than -18.
2) No more write it and forget it, never to be updated again. Updates will have to be a process not a project. You literally can't be bothered to test if your "xyz extension" is compatible with the latest version? Well, then we can't be bothered to use it anymore. That sound you're hearing is thousands of pure cruft addons getting flushed. Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on your post-processor.
This is a business model change, and a wise one. Not a technical code change. I am no FF fanboy, they've done some really stupid things lately like "tabs on top". But this is actually a good idea.
Can anyone express what this does in technical terms? Everything I could find was sorta like liberal arts major expounds on the new (to the liberal arts establishment) idea of memoization.
And technical question: it looks like they are printing the images in color, which means non-silver inks. How fast will those degrade when the silver tarnishes etc.? Why wouldn't they just use an engraving like most coins, especially for a near-pure silver coin like this? I would be much more tempted to buy it, too. This just looks like a (not so) cheap gimmick.
Coin collectors kind of laugh at painted coins, they're supposed to appeal to the general public, but they even fail at that.
Its a complicated tradeoff. On one hand, they make "coins" look like "toy tokens" which should strongly not appeal to the coin collectors, but should appeal to the pop culture collectors. On the other hand, you never really know whats under the paint, maybe they're fakes. On the other hand, maybe its easy to stamp fakes, and easy to paint fakes, but stamping and painting fakes is pushing it a bit.
Isn't this really just a set of bullion coins, up to and including the fact that they're technically legal tender but you'd have to be out of your mind to actually spend them? Or are they hoping that value to collectors might push the value of these things up even further than the cost of the silver itself?
The value of "legal tender" bullion coins over a private mint, is at least theoretically, the worlds legal forces will treat copies as counterfitting vs simple copyright infringement.
If I took a R2D2 action figure (for the foreigners, "action figure" = "doll for boys") and did some lost wax casting action and sold little $2K gold R2D2s, there is only wimpy copyright law preventing others from gold plating lead and tungsten R2D2s and marketing them as my own product for, say, $1900.
On the other hand, even counterfeiting foreign currency is a quick trip to jail...
Also public mints usually have some law about only minting true dates or something like that. Stamp all the pennies you want, more or less, as long as they're stamped "2011". On the other hand, a private mint could notice that proof grade 1909-S-VDB pennies sell for slightly more than pennies from a 2010 proof set, and there is really nothing stopping a private mint from making a new run of "model 1909-S-VDB psuedopennies".
I am told that a large number of "collectable" coins are manufactured/faked in China. Supposedly most 1909-S-VDB "proof" pennies are fake, but we can't / won't enforce the law. Its more of a "in theory" rather than "in practice" argument.
In summary : At least in theory, public minted coins are less likely to be counterfeit than private mint coinage.
If purchase_timestamp_HS purchase_timestamp_CPU then your HS does not support that old of a CPU, sorry no refund.
If purchase_timestamp_HS = purchase_timestamp_CPU then sorry intel can not verify that is a supported combination of CPU and HS, sorry no refund.
It may be a precursor to DRM'd CPU and HS fan technology... Add another line to each fan, +5, gnd, and rotation, now add "drm" line. Oh, your 120 mm $5 case fan doesn't have a DRM line? Sorry, you'll have to buy a "special" $75 50 mm fan or that CPU won't boot. Whats "special" about it? Oh, it costs $70 more, nothing else.
Pretty low. Its kind of like incoming artillery, the ones you see are not the ones to worry about (classical, not NBC). Worry about the tiny little dot headed right towards you...
It seems they want to build in a revenue stream so I wonder if they will be rolling out additional upgrades. So you buy this upgrade now, but in 3 months there will be an additional upgrade to increase performance another 10%.
It's like the DLC for games model. Buy the game. A few months later buy the DLC. A few months after that buy DLC #2, etc...
More like subscription model. Pay $50 for a one year upgrade... or else. Technically meets minimum speed requirements for booting windows, but if you want to actually "use" the computer you have to pay an arbitrary yearly / monthly / daily fee.
If you don't like that business model, that's OK, because there's a free market so you can switch to any commodity processor manufacturer... oh snap...
The issue here is the manufacturers are starting to realize just how much overhead they're spending making so many different models of products, and that it's cheaper to just manufacture one model, the best one, and then cripple it if you don't want to pay for the best.
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
A much better standard/. car analogy is you can legally enable certain pre-installed hardware in your car, like a 6th gear in the transmission or 5 more PSI of turbo boost if you want to pay the aftermarket money, but its WAY funnier when your car catches a drive-by virus which tries to increase the turbo boost to 750 PSI and blasts itself into dust. Or applies a model 832 air conditioning valve routing map to a model 2942 air conditioner which unfortunately reroutes pure carbon monoxide into the air ducts while perma-welding shut the door latch solenoids.
That's what I'm waiting for, and that's gonna be funny to watch.
You get EXACTLY what you pay for when buying a processor. You get $200 functionality for a $200 processor. Just because a $400 functionality processor came out of the chute, you expect them to give it to you for $200? Or maybe you'd be happier if only $400 models were available? Or if the company was required to actually produce completely separate dies for each version, thus making your $200 model more expensive?
The annoyance is because in a free market they would never get away with this scam, and Americans incorrectly believe they do everything from CPU purchases to emergency room visits in a perfect, informed, efficient free market. And then this comes along (insert simpsons voice) Ha Ha.
Its like trying to figure out reality with a particle physics accelerator smashing core american values into the hard wall of facist reality, bean counting the little pieces that shatter off to try and understand whats up.
What about the DRM built-in the CPUs?? you know they have some horrible system in place to support this; otherwise, the upgrades will leak out on the internet and we will get them for free.... just think of the malware that could use such features.
Naah, much more likely to see malware that'll misconfigure hardware on such and such date, literally blowing it up or at least burning it out, unless you send $20 to a certain address ending in.ru for a protection code you can enter... after which it threatens to blow up the CPU on a later date, unless you send $40 to a new address for... Of course anyone who runs windows pretty much deserves to be shaken down for all they've got.
Also I'm mystified how this "upgrade" software works on linux.
So... 40 posts about how much better the support experience would be if they incremented it by 0.1 instead of 1.0, as if the bugs somehow know which digit was incremented. But, no comments about the actual browser? For example, have they finally reverted "tabs on top"?
It has been assumed that, in the United States, a commuter will not change her eating habits if she switches from driving to walking to work,
LOL you've got to be kidding, or have never exercised, or at least have never seen other people exercise. Lots of fat bikers around here, because they burn 50 calories on a leisurely sunday afternoon cruise, then rationalize to themselves that the double bacon cheeseburger for lunch mon-fri is OK because they exercised.
Also accident rates are spectacularly higher for bikes, walking, etc, and the energy cost of medical care (or early disability / death) is probably a huge multiple of the energy consumed by the bike... I mean think about it, if that ER visit costs $10K worth of energy, that kinda swamps the cost of a nice $500 worth of energy in a bike.
Even worse, don't forget that it takes ten pounds of crude oil to deliver a pound of food to a plate, when everything is added together. The energy cost of a pound of olive oil is not how much CO2 released when you burn it, its all the CO2 it takes to make it, which is a large multiple of the energy contained in the food. This makes taking a bike ten times worse of an idea.
When I drive, the majority of my energy cost is at the gas pump. When I bike, the majority of my energy cost is medical, followed by food, and manufacture and infrastructure cost, which is all that was covered in the study, is practically lost in the noise.
For me, that bike trip would be a round trip of 40 miles per day. I live in a civilized area so that's less than an hour per day in the car, but on foot that would be a good 10 hours per day of walking. High density has severe negative costs, that's why the vast majority of the worlds population does not voluntarily live in high density conditions. The energy cost of replicating downtown Manhattan and forcing the population at gunpoint to live there cannot be ignored.
You can't avoid the distance issue w/ walking by claiming people would move within a mile to walk, because if they could, they would move within a mile to drive, if that area were both safe and affordable to live in.
Slashdot Mirror
As per the subject line above, if you're into action instead of talking, you simply fork.
Note, Mozilla is really "weird" about trademarked names, so you'll have to call it iceweasel like Debian did, or maybe call it Animats-2011-fox or something.
Its not like its closed source.
The problem is that even plugins abandoned by the author can still be useful. There may not be an adequate replacement, and even if there is, it means considerable work to find it, to evaluate that it really does what you want, and possibly to relearn your use of it.
Think about whats most likely, not an individual theoretical anecdote. For individual theoretical anecdotes, you can always force an addon to install anyway, and it might even work.
Most likely: Dev doesn't care, because its worthless, or too buggy to maintain. If a corporate release, dev's boss also doesn't care. No users have stepped up to clone or fork it because they don't care enough. No one is looking for, and fixing, security problems, if they can't even be bothered to do the minimal task of bumping version numbers, so is it safe, or not, who knows... If you're literally the only person left who cares about that software, for your own safety you shouldn't use it, and you should either implement a replacement yourself or hire someone to do it for you.
To safely use completely abandoned software is not just click and go like now... doing it right requires a lot of security and auditing support and testing, tons of expensive labor... Probably cheaper and easier to relearn an alternative...
Go date based. I support everything up to "fill in the blank", anything happened past that date you're on your own. That's possibly the real world situation anyway, just not publicized or stated as such.
You're saying that any person who writes software is automatically required to provide lifetime support of said software?
I like that idea.
If even the dev abandons it, give me one rationalization or justification why the users shouldn't follow their lead and also abandon it... The dev probably quit for a good, well informed reason, and if the user knew it, they'd probably run for the hills too.
If even the devs no longer care what kind of unpatched security holes might exist, users should not be able to use it at all, unless they go to the effort of overriding it, in which case when/if they shoot themselves in their foot, they fully and completely deserve it.
Furthermore, I would consider it a feature to be informed if software I'm responsible for is no longer maintained.
intranet apps now only supporting IE again.
That is a mistaken strategy by the intranet app writers.
If you write a WWW application that uses HTML, anything can use it.
If you write a "IE" app, then you're wasting valuable resources, because you'd be better off putting a compiled .exe on a ftp site, and skip all this "www" "html" stuff that just gets in the way.
It's just a constantly evolving piece of software.
Maybe the whole point is that in late 2011, a freaking web browser should not be making evolutionary or revolutionary changes. It should just accept html written to a standard, and display it to that standard. In late 2011, "revolution" should be limited to moving the tab bar 1/4 inch up or down on the screen. Its just not the 90s anymore.
One of the things I'd like them to provide is the ability to remove extensions and add-ons, instead of just disabling them. I have been accumulating unwanted extensions that I have disabled but I see no button to uninstall them.
You sure about that? "Tools" "Add-ons" look at the right column for the "remove" buttons. Maybe its a version thing, I'm running 5.0, you can click "help" "about firefox" to see what version you're ... Oh, very smooth move there sir, I must applaud you...
You know if your machine is up to date when you go to the about page and it says "this copy of Firefox is up to date".
How does it fight "web proxy gone wild"? https connection, I suppose?
I've always said i'd wait for the dot one release of eternal life.
Yeah we'll good luck picking the right one, there's about ten thousand forked versions of life 1.1 all of which are literally in a holy war with each other, conflicting featuresets, etc. No wonder I opt out of that entire flamefest, just don't need the aggravation.
Not to mention other web "apps" like learning management systems, etc officially supporting specific versions or a range of versions.
That is a huge management mistake by the LMS programmers, its simply not the browsers problem.
Insert standard /. car analogy: Imagine if my local gas station pumps were so stupid as to only support certain named car brands, going to great effort to ensure I can't buy gas unless my vehicle is on the approved list, instead of just supporting some mostly common sense federal and state EPA standards for all machines.
No responses so far in favor of the idea... I'll toss one out:
1) No more coding some bizarre non-standard garbage code to a specific version of the software anymore. I'm looking at you, JAVA coders. And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorization of which sites require -20 and with can't work on anything newer than -18.
2) No more write it and forget it, never to be updated again. Updates will have to be a process not a project. You literally can't be bothered to test if your "xyz extension" is compatible with the latest version? Well, then we can't be bothered to use it anymore. That sound you're hearing is thousands of pure cruft addons getting flushed. Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on your post-processor.
This is a business model change, and a wise one. Not a technical code change. I am no FF fanboy, they've done some really stupid things lately like "tabs on top". But this is actually a good idea.
Can anyone express what this does in technical terms? Everything I could find was sorta like liberal arts major expounds on the new (to the liberal arts establishment) idea of memoization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoization
just like Wikipedia has a web page for everything
So they're taking a bold anti-deletionist position. Good for them.
And technical question: it looks like they are printing the images in color, which means non-silver inks. How fast will those degrade when the silver tarnishes etc.? Why wouldn't they just use an engraving like most coins, especially for a near-pure silver coin like this? I would be much more tempted to buy it, too. This just looks like a (not so) cheap gimmick.
Coin collectors kind of laugh at painted coins, they're supposed to appeal to the general public, but they even fail at that.
Its a complicated tradeoff. On one hand, they make "coins" look like "toy tokens" which should strongly not appeal to the coin collectors, but should appeal to the pop culture collectors. On the other hand, you never really know whats under the paint, maybe they're fakes. On the other hand, maybe its easy to stamp fakes, and easy to paint fakes, but stamping and painting fakes is pushing it a bit.
Isn't this really just a set of bullion coins, up to and including the fact that they're technically legal tender but you'd have to be out of your mind to actually spend them? Or are they hoping that value to collectors might push the value of these things up even further than the cost of the silver itself?
The value of "legal tender" bullion coins over a private mint, is at least theoretically, the worlds legal forces will treat copies as counterfitting vs simple copyright infringement.
If I took a R2D2 action figure (for the foreigners, "action figure" = "doll for boys") and did some lost wax casting action and sold little $2K gold R2D2s, there is only wimpy copyright law preventing others from gold plating lead and tungsten R2D2s and marketing them as my own product for, say, $1900.
On the other hand, even counterfeiting foreign currency is a quick trip to jail...
Also public mints usually have some law about only minting true dates or something like that. Stamp all the pennies you want, more or less, as long as they're stamped "2011". On the other hand, a private mint could notice that proof grade 1909-S-VDB pennies sell for slightly more than pennies from a 2010 proof set, and there is really nothing stopping a private mint from making a new run of "model 1909-S-VDB psuedopennies".
I am told that a large number of "collectable" coins are manufactured/faked in China. Supposedly most 1909-S-VDB "proof" pennies are fake, but we can't / won't enforce the law. Its more of a "in theory" rather than "in practice" argument.
In summary : At least in theory, public minted coins are less likely to be counterfeit than private mint coinage.
/. certainly does not like greater than or less than signs. Its AMSTEX from here on out, assuming that works.
If purchase_timestamp_HS purchase_timestamp_CPU then your HS does not support that old of a CPU, sorry no refund.
If purchase_timestamp_HS = purchase_timestamp_CPU then sorry intel can not verify that is a supported combination of CPU and HS, sorry no refund.
It may be a precursor to DRM'd CPU and HS fan technology... Add another line to each fan, +5, gnd, and rotation, now add "drm" line. Oh, your 120 mm $5 case fan doesn't have a DRM line? Sorry, you'll have to buy a "special" $75 50 mm fan or that CPU won't boot. Whats "special" about it? Oh, it costs $70 more, nothing else.
What's the probability of these hitting the ISS?
Pretty low. Its kind of like incoming artillery, the ones you see are not the ones to worry about (classical, not NBC). Worry about the tiny little dot headed right towards you...
It seems they want to build in a revenue stream so I wonder if they will be rolling out additional upgrades. So you buy this upgrade now, but in 3 months there will be an additional upgrade to increase performance another 10%.
It's like the DLC for games model. Buy the game. A few months later buy the DLC. A few months after that buy DLC #2, etc...
More like subscription model. Pay $50 for a one year upgrade... or else. Technically meets minimum speed requirements for booting windows, but if you want to actually "use" the computer you have to pay an arbitrary yearly / monthly / daily fee.
If you don't like that business model, that's OK, because there's a free market so you can switch to any commodity processor manufacturer... oh snap...
What's the issue here? You think everyone should be forced to buy the top-end model because that's the only one manufacturers should make available? If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality. Just cause there's $50,000 functionality built into the car to make manufacturing cheaper, doesn't mean it should be given to you for free.
A much better standard /. car analogy is you can legally enable certain pre-installed hardware in your car, like a 6th gear in the transmission or 5 more PSI of turbo boost if you want to pay the aftermarket money, but its WAY funnier when your car catches a drive-by virus which tries to increase the turbo boost to 750 PSI and blasts itself into dust. Or applies a model 832 air conditioning valve routing map to a model 2942 air conditioner which unfortunately reroutes pure carbon monoxide into the air ducts while perma-welding shut the door latch solenoids.
That's what I'm waiting for, and that's gonna be funny to watch.
You get EXACTLY what you pay for when buying a processor. You get $200 functionality for a $200 processor. Just because a $400 functionality processor came out of the chute, you expect them to give it to you for $200? Or maybe you'd be happier if only $400 models were available? Or if the company was required to actually produce completely separate dies for each version, thus making your $200 model more expensive?
The annoyance is because in a free market they would never get away with this scam, and Americans incorrectly believe they do everything from CPU purchases to emergency room visits in a perfect, informed, efficient free market. And then this comes along (insert simpsons voice) Ha Ha.
Its like trying to figure out reality with a particle physics accelerator smashing core american values into the hard wall of facist reality, bean counting the little pieces that shatter off to try and understand whats up.
What about the DRM built-in the CPUs?? you know they have some horrible system in place to support this; otherwise, the upgrades will leak out on the internet and we will get them for free.... just think of the malware that could use such features.
Naah, much more likely to see malware that'll misconfigure hardware on such and such date, literally blowing it up or at least burning it out, unless you send $20 to a certain address ending in .ru for a protection code you can enter... after which it threatens to blow up the CPU on a later date, unless you send $40 to a new address for ... Of course anyone who runs windows pretty much deserves to be shaken down for all they've got.
Also I'm mystified how this "upgrade" software works on linux.
So... 40 posts about how much better the support experience would be if they incremented it by 0.1 instead of 1.0, as if the bugs somehow know which digit was incremented. But, no comments about the actual browser? For example, have they finally reverted "tabs on top"?
It has been assumed that, in the United States, a commuter will not change her eating habits if she switches from driving to walking to work,
LOL you've got to be kidding, or have never exercised, or at least have never seen other people exercise. Lots of fat bikers around here, because they burn 50 calories on a leisurely sunday afternoon cruise, then rationalize to themselves that the double bacon cheeseburger for lunch mon-fri is OK because they exercised.
Also accident rates are spectacularly higher for bikes, walking, etc, and the energy cost of medical care (or early disability / death) is probably a huge multiple of the energy consumed by the bike... I mean think about it, if that ER visit costs $10K worth of energy, that kinda swamps the cost of a nice $500 worth of energy in a bike.
Even worse, don't forget that it takes ten pounds of crude oil to deliver a pound of food to a plate, when everything is added together. The energy cost of a pound of olive oil is not how much CO2 released when you burn it, its all the CO2 it takes to make it, which is a large multiple of the energy contained in the food. This makes taking a bike ten times worse of an idea.
When I drive, the majority of my energy cost is at the gas pump. When I bike, the majority of my energy cost is medical, followed by food, and manufacture and infrastructure cost, which is all that was covered in the study, is practically lost in the noise.
For me, that bike trip would be a round trip of 40 miles per day. I live in a civilized area so that's less than an hour per day in the car, but on foot that would be a good 10 hours per day of walking. High density has severe negative costs, that's why the vast majority of the worlds population does not voluntarily live in high density conditions. The energy cost of replicating downtown Manhattan and forcing the population at gunpoint to live there cannot be ignored.
You can't avoid the distance issue w/ walking by claiming people would move within a mile to walk, because if they could, they would move within a mile to drive, if that area were both safe and affordable to live in.
the carbon credits is just a way to make businesses ...
... more money. Yet another reverse robinhood deal, steal from the poor and give to the rich.