They wanted to release software, hence them wanting the name under which to release it. That seems rather fair. The way this was handled, however, was anything but fair.
It does nothing of the sort. This would happen to any language which relied upon an external dependency provided at the whim of someone else. Sane developers will already have their own caching repository between them and the real provider, which would store all dependencies for later use. That speeds up build times, and gives you a manageable, controllable source for your dependencies.
You'd be right if PTSD wasn't considered a disability. As it is considered a disability by medical professionals and organisations the world over, you are massively incorrect, and you've just shown that you're quite happy being incorrect if you can grind a suitable axe in the process.
Nearly. Header fingerprinting doesn't rely on Javascript and can deliver some excellent results. You are both right to a certain degree - it was (and still is) possible to track people server-side. It was also possible to change some settings to screw that over. It was always possible to use other aspects to track individual users across a site regardless of their desire for anonymity.
MojoKid is HotHardware.com's editor in chief: Is this acceptable? There is no acknowledgement of his involvement in the site in question. It smacks of some sort of nonsense.
Paranoid nonsense. I'd expect nothing less from you - these discussions always bring out your bad side. Remember when you didn't know the difference between ice on the sea and ice on the land? You kept on arguing your damaged logic for all to see, completely unaware of just how wrong your grasp of basic science was.
1. Only if you ignore the scientific findings you find so troubling. Otherwise it's patently obvious from the data what's happening. You choosing to not believe it is your problem, not anyone else's.
Publish a paper tearing his research apart. This is how you attack bad science - you show that it is bad science. You certainly do not pussy foot around throwing assertions of malice or ineptitude and hope something sticks. You, and your argument, are pathetic. Fight science with science, not whining and bullshit.
He didn't point out anything - he asked a loaded question as if it has any bearing on the subject at hand. As his question has not been answered you can't draw conclusions from it. You are not being rational at all.
Your ignorance is astounding. 10cm won't affect anything? I guess you have no idea about how storm surges are affected by increases in sea level, and how just small increases can severely affect the damage wrought. This might not be too bad if humans didn't like putting their very important cities next to water.
Seeing as you said there is "plenty of time to prepare", that means you know how much preparation time it will take to relocate New York, London, and all the other coastal cities vital for civilisation. What is this figure, and how did you arrive at it? If you don't have the figure and can't account for its provenance, you are lying.
He responded to your post, remained on topic, and showed you how you are incorrect. He also alluded to the climate change which exacerbated the instability in Syria - I guess you didn't know about that (which is not surprising as you don't seem too well informed on this topic).
This really isn't too difficult to keep up with. I guess if you don't like the responses to your posts screaming and shouting about them is a good way to ignore them. Your approach makes sense, even if it is intellectually bankrupt.
Humanity might survive, but it's practically impossible to relocate large, vital cities (New York, London, etc.) which civilisation relies on. Sure, some folks might live just fine in their caves on top of a mountain, but civilisation itself will be screwed.
You've surely read the IPCC reports (otherwise you wouldn't be chiming in on topics they've covered to great extents), so I'm interested in knowing where your extra information comes from. Did you win an award for your paper?
Or I guess you are just making stuff up and hand-waiving away unpleasant thoughts. That's far more probable.
Again - you've entirely failed to make an argument. You are just mumbling and grumbling and complaining but offering up nothing of any substance. I get it - you don't want this to be true. You don't want to think for one second that your lifestyle is unsustainable and will negatively affect future generations. Or maybe your education was so woeful that you honestly misunderstand what is being claimed and the framework through which the findings were reached, and are railing against some process or machination that frightens you. This is all perfectly understandable. Don't mask it with fake scientific rigour - it's painfully transparent and only ends up making you look foolish.
You decry people not objectively studying this topic in a post about someone objectively studying this topic. Not to mention the countless people who have studied this ad infinitum over the decades. You're not a skeptic, you're a cynic. You can't simply dislike the findings of a paper and denounce it as subjective - science doesn't work that way. Write your paper tearing his apart and get it over with.
Yes, the data has been "skewed and manipulated" - it's what has to happen to get usable data. It happens in every single field of science and is not dishonest in any way. If you find one set of instruments is constantly off by a certain margin, you don't throw out the data they have collected, you adjust for the error, allowing you to keep the data. Your confusion stems from your ignorance of the scientific method, it seems, and how data is collected and actually used.
Objective data exists - you not knowing about it speaks more of your grasp of this subject than it does the subject itself.
Your obtuse ignorance is not becoming. The answers you seek are not esoteric, and your failure to seek them out for yourself shines a cold, bright light on your motives.
You are getting angry about everything but the actual discussion at hand. It's perplexing.
Why change? Here's a reason: It saves space. Space costs money. For some people in some industries that might be a good enough reason to change, even if it's not reason enough for you.
Hint: you are not the arbiter of what makes sense or not.
The point of terrorism is to use fear to politically coerce a group of people. It's not just "fear", but specific fear guided to achieve a particular end.
I think you'll find most people aren't as scared of terrorism as you seem to assume they are. That says more about your fears than about those you wish you describe...
Slashdot Mirror
They wanted to release software, hence them wanting the name under which to release it. That seems rather fair. The way this was handled, however, was anything but fair.
It does nothing of the sort. This would happen to any language which relied upon an external dependency provided at the whim of someone else. Sane developers will already have their own caching repository between them and the real provider, which would store all dependencies for later use. That speeds up build times, and gives you a manageable, controllable source for your dependencies.
You'd be right if PTSD wasn't considered a disability. As it is considered a disability by medical professionals and organisations the world over, you are massively incorrect, and you've just shown that you're quite happy being incorrect if you can grind a suitable axe in the process.
You forgot one option: This has nothing to do with JavaScript but with using external dependencies in your code without preparing for an outage.
Don't be so quick to throw around accusations, as if you've got the wrong end of the stick you will look rather thoughtless.
Nearly. Header fingerprinting doesn't rely on Javascript and can deliver some excellent results. You are both right to a certain degree - it was (and still is) possible to track people server-side. It was also possible to change some settings to screw that over. It was always possible to use other aspects to track individual users across a site regardless of their desire for anonymity.
MojoKid is HotHardware.com's editor in chief: Is this acceptable? There is no acknowledgement of his involvement in the site in question. It smacks of some sort of nonsense.
Paranoid nonsense. I'd expect nothing less from you - these discussions always bring out your bad side. Remember when you didn't know the difference between ice on the sea and ice on the land? You kept on arguing your damaged logic for all to see, completely unaware of just how wrong your grasp of basic science was.
1. Only if you ignore the scientific findings you find so troubling. Otherwise it's patently obvious from the data what's happening. You choosing to not believe it is your problem, not anyone else's.
Publish a paper tearing his research apart. This is how you attack bad science - you show that it is bad science. You certainly do not pussy foot around throwing assertions of malice or ineptitude and hope something sticks. You, and your argument, are pathetic. Fight science with science, not whining and bullshit.
He didn't point out anything - he asked a loaded question as if it has any bearing on the subject at hand. As his question has not been answered you can't draw conclusions from it. You are not being rational at all.
Your ignorance is astounding. 10cm won't affect anything? I guess you have no idea about how storm surges are affected by increases in sea level, and how just small increases can severely affect the damage wrought. This might not be too bad if humans didn't like putting their very important cities next to water.
Seeing as you said there is "plenty of time to prepare", that means you know how much preparation time it will take to relocate New York, London, and all the other coastal cities vital for civilisation. What is this figure, and how did you arrive at it? If you don't have the figure and can't account for its provenance, you are lying.
He responded to your post, remained on topic, and showed you how you are incorrect. He also alluded to the climate change which exacerbated the instability in Syria - I guess you didn't know about that (which is not surprising as you don't seem too well informed on this topic).
This really isn't too difficult to keep up with. I guess if you don't like the responses to your posts screaming and shouting about them is a good way to ignore them. Your approach makes sense, even if it is intellectually bankrupt.
Humanity might survive, but it's practically impossible to relocate large, vital cities (New York, London, etc.) which civilisation relies on. Sure, some folks might live just fine in their caves on top of a mountain, but civilisation itself will be screwed.
You've surely read the IPCC reports (otherwise you wouldn't be chiming in on topics they've covered to great extents), so I'm interested in knowing where your extra information comes from. Did you win an award for your paper?
Or I guess you are just making stuff up and hand-waiving away unpleasant thoughts. That's far more probable.
Again - you've entirely failed to make an argument. You are just mumbling and grumbling and complaining but offering up nothing of any substance. I get it - you don't want this to be true. You don't want to think for one second that your lifestyle is unsustainable and will negatively affect future generations. Or maybe your education was so woeful that you honestly misunderstand what is being claimed and the framework through which the findings were reached, and are railing against some process or machination that frightens you. This is all perfectly understandable. Don't mask it with fake scientific rigour - it's painfully transparent and only ends up making you look foolish.
You decry people not objectively studying this topic in a post about someone objectively studying this topic. Not to mention the countless people who have studied this ad infinitum over the decades. You're not a skeptic, you're a cynic. You can't simply dislike the findings of a paper and denounce it as subjective - science doesn't work that way. Write your paper tearing his apart and get it over with.
Yes, the data has been "skewed and manipulated" - it's what has to happen to get usable data. It happens in every single field of science and is not dishonest in any way. If you find one set of instruments is constantly off by a certain margin, you don't throw out the data they have collected, you adjust for the error, allowing you to keep the data. Your confusion stems from your ignorance of the scientific method, it seems, and how data is collected and actually used.
Objective data exists - you not knowing about it speaks more of your grasp of this subject than it does the subject itself.
You didn't do very well at school, did you?
Did you type that thinking "this is a good, reasonable point worthy of a grown-up"? Amazing.
Your obtuse ignorance is not becoming. The answers you seek are not esoteric, and your failure to seek them out for yourself shines a cold, bright light on your motives.
I know you probably thought your post made a sensible point. It does, just not the one you intended, namely "I don't understand feminism".
You are getting angry about everything but the actual discussion at hand. It's perplexing.
Why change? Here's a reason: It saves space. Space costs money. For some people in some industries that might be a good enough reason to change, even if it's not reason enough for you.
Hint: you are not the arbiter of what makes sense or not.
Your point was ethernet was not going anywhere, not the RJ45. Don't complain when you get confused and someone points it out.
The point of terrorism is to use fear to politically coerce a group of people. It's not just "fear", but specific fear guided to achieve a particular end.
I think you'll find most people aren't as scared of terrorism as you seem to assume they are. That says more about your fears than about those you wish you describe...
That Spiegel link doesn't claim what you (or its headline) claims.