It's ridiculous to call it a "donation". Credit Card transactions have a fee for good reasons:
I might believe this if it wasn't for all the perks and cash-back that cards offer. When you're giving people airline miles or a flat 1.5% back on all purchases, just how much of the merchant fees are going to support that?
I don't have a problem with credit cards per-se, but I do think businesses should charge a fee on customers who want to use them. When I pay with cash I despise the fact that I'm subsidizing credit card companies by paying the hidden passed-on merchant fees.
"Let me ask everyone, if you don't put out more time and energy than others, how can you achieve the success you want?"
Not everyone dreams of becoming a sociopathic executive when they grow up. Most just want to live relatively comfortably, have the means to raise a family, be able to afford a few indulgences now and then, and have a good work-life balance.
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Never forget this anytime you see big telecos complaining about infrastructure costs, or smothering co-ops and municipal ventures which need to make use of utility poles and easements.
Stop allowing websites to pop up anything, every. Seriously. For fuck sakes.
Why is this hard to understand?
I have to assume it's because everyone working on the HTML5 stuff is too young to have learned anything from the first time around. In a lot of ways HTML5 is just version 2 of alert(), confirm(), and the embed tag. Throw in a little blink and marquee for good measure (and don't forget object and applet with WebAssembly).
It turns out that most of these were just abused a lot more than they were used for anything worthwhile. Is anyone surprised that HTML5's allow-by-default or ask-by-default notifications, video, location, camera, microphone, canvas, etc are being abused in the same ways, by the same actors? Only the 20-somethings writing the specs, I guess.
Indeed. If you get your advice from doctors or nutritionists it is steady. If you get it from CNN, it is not.
This just isn't true -- and if it is then it's only because your doctor hasn't read any medical literature for the last 40 years. The impact of dietary cholesterol has gone back and forth repeatedly for the last decade in peer-reviewed journals. CNN has nothing to do with it.
The OP is, sadly, very correct. Despite 100+ years of advanced medical research into nutrition we still apparently don't know jack shit about what makes an ideal healthy diet. It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.
If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.
The problem is the "medical device" and "prescription" lables associated with glasses. For absolutely no reason at all, people have to see a doctor to get a prescription every few years, and this makes it feel like you need to buy this specialty vision device at the doctor's office. Very few optometrists will just hand you a paper with your prescription on it and suggest a few inexpensive options for buying glasses. They all push their stock very heavily because the margins are obscene.
Of course you can get the prescription and buy glasses from anywhere, but most people just don't know this, and have no reason to assume it's true. They aren't expecting to be price gouged to high-fucking-heaven on something like glasses.
Out of curiosity, what was your glasses prescription before the surgery and did you get LASIK or PRK (or something else)? I've through about getting LASIK or PRK, but at about -11 in both eyes I'm really hesitant.
As someone else who has worn (very) thick glasses or contacts for 30 years, I can definitely understand what you mean by gaining freedom and I'd really like to enjoy that as well someday.
The graf accompanying this section shows Netscape's market share dropping from about 80% to 50% BEFORE the rewrite. Now that drop continues from 50% to near 0% during and after the rewrite, so the rewrite certainly did not save Netscape. But the slope of the decline barely changes pre- and post-rewrite. Basically, unless there's other evidence not presented, the best conclusion is the rewrite had no effect.
The decline of Navigator was caused by Internet Explorer. This is pretty easy to see on the graph, and for anyone who was around at the time, easy to remember. IE improved steadily with each release, and bundling it with Windows 95, first in the Plus! Pack and later in SP1 (in early 1996), had a massive effect. This, more than anything, caused the decline of Netscape.
What Joel and others are saying is that starting a rewrite of the product prevented Netscape from reacting quickly to the problems with Navigator and implementing improvements and new features to compete with IE. The web browser market at the time was moving very fast and very loose, and stagnating an entire product for years was as good as a death sentence, even if there were other problems as well.
So while it's true that the rewrite may not have directly caused the fall of Netscape, it was at the very least a significant contributing factor. In the same way as not going to the doctor when you have appendicitis doesn't actually kill you, it certainly won't help you avoid dying due to the illness.
If the person recommending the rewrite is the person who wrote the original code, they are usually right.
If the person recommending the rewrite understands the code and has years of experience with it, they are often right.
I would still take it with a large grain of salt. These two groups are also the most likely to lean towards the second-system effect. There needs to be significant objective justification for a complete rewrite, more than just "Bob's gut feeling is that we need a redo".
And yes, even the recent graduate can offer valuable insight since they're most immune to the "we've always done it this way" and the "it's always been this way" symptoms.
Since 2010 it is illegal to refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Not for much longer. Trump's repeal of the individual mandate (the only part of the Republican "repeal and replace" that actually happened, lol) removes the only means by which the pre-existing condition requirement was viable.
We? We?? Or do you mean a government thug doing the dirty work on your behalf? People like you who make these demands do so because you lack the spine to do anything yourself.
And how exactly would I take this matter into my own hands? Hide in movie theaters and prick kids with vaccination needles in the dark while they watch the latest brain-draining driven from Disney or Marvel?
And I sicken you? Ha.
Oh, and if a vaccination causes a reaction and a child is left crippled, or dead, who is going to accept responsibility for that?
Sorry, but this doesn't happen.. Outside of unhealthy people (immunocompromised or with existing alergies), common vaccines such as MMR and the flu are unequivocally safe. Even in the 0.0002% chance of an unknown allergy causing an anaphylaxis response, it doesn't always result in death or even any permanent condition. You have a better chance of being killed by a seat belt after your car went underwater, and most people are fine with seat belt laws.
Put Jenny McCarthy in jail It would be a good beginning.
Perhaps, but an even better beginning would be to start introducing legislation making certain vaccinations mandatory. Failure to comply should be a heavy fine or tax to help pay for bullshit like this. Continued failure to comply is direct child endangerment and society takes children away from parents for things like that. Oh, and manslaughter charges for any parents whose unvaccinated children are involved in the deaths of someone else, just to make sure the asshats know we're serious.
We need to stop tolerating irrational stupidity in this country under the guise of "freedom" or "religion". This is a public safety matter.
Jesus, I hope you're getting paid to spout this bullshit.
If an extension is deeply integrated into the interface of the browser, you might expect that when this interface change, there'll be some work involved
The "interface" didn't change - the entire extension framework was removed and replaced with something that was at about 30% feature parity with the original. The entire ecosystem of user-created extensions and more than a decade of people spending their personal time creating useful features was doused in gasoline and set on fire without a second thought. Mozilla even just torched the legacy addon website, as a final "fuck you" to users and developers.
is in the process of being re-written (but still isn't on par with the classic on)
Bullshit. Most the of the APIs that TMP needs don't even exist yet, and aren't even on the roadmap. Pretty much the only functionality is some controls about how links are opened and there are almost 100 open bugzilla API requests.
The interface of Quantum is based on Servo, it's not using XUL anymore, it's written in HTML/CSS. You don't control it the same way any more.
Quantum is better because it's based on HTML and CSS? You mean almost exactly like XUL was?
For a download manager *IN* Firefox : the necessary API extensions are still being worked on.
The only extensions that didn't make the jump were either abandoned, or those whose authors preferred to loudly complain and join sone "anti-WebExtensions resistance" instead of trying to work out a solution.
This is a blatant lie.
There are plenty of extensions that are still waiting on updates to the WebExtensions framework so that they can be ported over. There are dozens or hundreds of bugs in bugzilla with requests for this. Just a couple that come to mind are around session management (there are no decent session managers for Nu-Firefox, and Michael Kraft's excellent Session Manager which was maintained and worked perfectly for years was left in the ditch) and tab management (Tab Mix Plus is only "dead" because Mozilla killed it).
This is only two among many others. Instead of waiting a year or so for WebExtensions to catch up, Mozilla in their rush to make Firefox become Chrome as fast as possible, threw the baby out with the bathwater without regret. It's what happens when people who don't actually care about a project or users take control.
The difference between $1k+ Apple phones and Lamborghini's is that most people can afford Apple phones. Too expensive doesn't mean they cannot afford it, it means they would rather spend the money on something else. Buying a $1500 phone every other year is about $60 per month. That is far less than a standard cable bill.
This seems like it's begging the question, and can lead to similar nonsensical comparison. "Sure this $750 coffee maker seems expensive, but it's only about $30 a month if you buy one every 2 years".
You're not wrong that people are deciding not to spend the $1000 or $1500 on a phone, but I think people are (very very slowly) waking up to the fact that they have been getting fleeced by Apple and Samsung for the last 6-8 years. Both companies make more than a 50% profit margin on their phones (i.e., they sell them for twice what they cost to build). Aside from the fact that this is completely bonkers for consumer electronics, it's also starting to show that what you get out of these devices is simply not worth the cost.
I sincerely hope that "budget" phone manufacturers like Motorola begin to take over more market share, just to tighten the screws on Apple and Samsung (and Google, now that they've completely abandoned what the Nexus line was supposed to be), but it's an uphill battle with those companies having worked hard to cement the "it's normal to spend almost $1000 on a phone" mentality. Pretty much the only reason for someone to spend $800+ on a smartphone today is either ignorance or stupidity, and at least ignorance is hopefully on the decline.
Sure, it may objectively be a waste of time, but if you want to sell in that market (and they let you sell, lol) then you just have to decide if it's worth it. As long as the Chinese don't start dictating how things look and function for everyone else, that seems fine (for a relative meaning of "fine" given the authoritarian society) with me.
Maybe after a few CEOs and CTOs go to prison for 5 years for their company's exposing of hundreds of thousands or millions of customer's private information this point of view will change. Suddenly the fallacy of that ZERO ROI will become clear.
Oh wait, who am I kidding. This is America where the only punishment these execs get is the inflation of their $70m golden parachute as they glide into their next job of screwing people over.
What happened to Enron should have happened to Equifax. The fact that it didn't tells you just about everything you need to know about the state of things.
Mozilla is working on potentially useful stuff, not world domination.
Nobody suggested "world domination". Why the need for a straw man?
What we *are* concerned about is yet another attempt to monetize Firefox by trading user privacy for dollars. You know, like the sponsored tiles which people hated and were removed, but have just recently been replaced with the totally-not-the-same-thing-trust-us sponsored content.
That, and Mozilla has a bad habit of turning extensions into forced bundled features, like they did with Pocket.
So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???
Exactly. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid.
Unfortunately more and more people eat this shit up. The only thing missing is "think of the children".
"The internet [is] not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet," an official from Macron's office said. "Otherwise, the internet as we know it today -- free, open and secure -- will be damaged by the new threats."
Do these people even hear themselves talk? "We need to regulate the internet to keep it free and open." This is the exact definition of doublespeak.
Sqlite is one of the most widely distributed and used libraries in all of software. It has larger penetration than Linux, is more ubiquitous than zlib.
Something's probably going to give in over this -- either the SQLite CoC or Mozilla -- and Mozilla has already proven they don't have a spine to stand with, so...
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
Has nothing to do with wavelength, but with polarization of the light. Anybody who has looked at screens with polarizing sunglasses is familiar with the effect.
Exactly, which to be fair they are honest about on the Kickstarter page:
RL Glasses block LCD/LED screens through horizontal polarized optics (we found out about this after coming across a 2017 WIRED article). By flattening and rotating the polarized lens 90 degrees, light emitted by LCD/LED screens is blocked, making it look like the TV or computer in front of you is off.
IRL Glasses are in beta. This means they are compatible with most TVs (LCD/LED) and some computers (LCD/LED). IRL glasses do not yet block smartphones or digital billboards (OLED).
Of course that doesn't prevent the OMG SCREEN BLOCKING GLASSES headlines that clickbait rags like Wired are throwing around.
Just try to do reflection on nullable C# types, for example. It's a WTF moment. When you investigate why it's that way, you learn that nullable types are an ugly hack on top of the existing dynamic type sub-engine.
In what way? Aside from some magic around implicit type conversion, Nullable types were added to the language through the Nullable<T> generic struct and some new language syntax to support the int? syntactic sugar (instead of Nullable<int>). Detecting and reflecting on a nullable type is just a matter of using Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(Type), or if you want to do it the long way you can always use the IsGenericType, IsValueType, GetGenericTypeDefinition(), and GenericTypeArguments on the Type of the thing you're looking at.
There's nothing dynamic about nullable types in C#.
This is trotted out by fans of the show every time someone mentions a "laugh track", but I don't really know why. They may not be using a canned laugh track, but they 100% do have a separate audio track that's overlayed on top of the actor's recorded lines. The "best" laughing from the audience is balanced and leveled to conform with the rest of the audio and fit the desires of the editor.
Either way, the point is that Big Bang's laugh track is overly loud and especially obnoxious, even for a sitcom. A recording of a roomful of hyped up hyenas is hardly a big selling point. Honestly, I would prefer if BBT used a canned laugh track -- I might have actually made it past two seasons.
Is it possible for Mozilla to remotely disable the add-ons in Firefox ESR 52 after they have been removed from the add-on website ?
For example, can Mozilla disable them by adding them to a blacklist which causes Firefox to disable them ?
Yes, to some extent, but as far as I know it is only a soft-block and you can always choose to re-enable the addon. This functionality is controlled by the extensions.blocklist configuration entries, including extensions.blocklist.enabled which can be used to disable the feature altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ridiculous to call it a "donation". Credit Card transactions have a fee for good reasons:
I might believe this if it wasn't for all the perks and cash-back that cards offer. When you're giving people airline miles or a flat 1.5% back on all purchases, just how much of the merchant fees are going to support that?
I don't have a problem with credit cards per-se, but I do think businesses should charge a fee on customers who want to use them. When I pay with cash I despise the fact that I'm subsidizing credit card companies by paying the hidden passed-on merchant fees.
"Let me ask everyone, if you don't put out more time and energy than others, how can you achieve the success you want?"
Not everyone dreams of becoming a sociopathic executive when they grow up. Most just want to live relatively comfortably, have the means to raise a family, be able to afford a few indulgences now and then, and have a good work-life balance.
Civilization is not a zero-sum game.
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Never forget this anytime you see big telecos complaining about infrastructure costs, or smothering co-ops and municipal ventures which need to make use of utility poles and easements.
The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal (or a summary from the author) should be required reading for any lawmakers involved with the USF or FCC.
Stop allowing websites to pop up anything, every. Seriously. For fuck sakes.
Why is this hard to understand?
I have to assume it's because everyone working on the HTML5 stuff is too young to have learned anything from the first time around. In a lot of ways HTML5 is just version 2 of alert(), confirm(), and the embed tag. Throw in a little blink and marquee for good measure (and don't forget object and applet with WebAssembly).
It turns out that most of these were just abused a lot more than they were used for anything worthwhile. Is anyone surprised that HTML5's allow-by-default or ask-by-default notifications, video, location, camera, microphone, canvas, etc are being abused in the same ways, by the same actors? Only the 20-somethings writing the specs, I guess.
Indeed. If you get your advice from doctors or nutritionists it is steady. If you get it from CNN, it is not.
This just isn't true -- and if it is then it's only because your doctor hasn't read any medical literature for the last 40 years. The impact of dietary cholesterol has gone back and forth repeatedly for the last decade in peer-reviewed journals. CNN has nothing to do with it.
The OP is, sadly, very correct. Despite 100+ years of advanced medical research into nutrition we still apparently don't know jack shit about what makes an ideal healthy diet. It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.
For commodities.
If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.
The problem is the "medical device" and "prescription" lables associated with glasses. For absolutely no reason at all, people have to see a doctor to get a prescription every few years, and this makes it feel like you need to buy this specialty vision device at the doctor's office. Very few optometrists will just hand you a paper with your prescription on it and suggest a few inexpensive options for buying glasses. They all push their stock very heavily because the margins are obscene.
Of course you can get the prescription and buy glasses from anywhere, but most people just don't know this, and have no reason to assume it's true. They aren't expecting to be price gouged to high-fucking-heaven on something like glasses.
Out of curiosity, what was your glasses prescription before the surgery and did you get LASIK or PRK (or something else)? I've through about getting LASIK or PRK, but at about -11 in both eyes I'm really hesitant.
As someone else who has worn (very) thick glasses or contacts for 30 years, I can definitely understand what you mean by gaining freedom and I'd really like to enjoy that as well someday.
The graf accompanying this section shows Netscape's market share dropping from about 80% to 50% BEFORE the rewrite. Now that drop continues from 50% to near 0% during and after the rewrite, so the rewrite certainly did not save Netscape. But the slope of the decline barely changes pre- and post-rewrite. Basically, unless there's other evidence not presented, the best conclusion is the rewrite had no effect.
The decline of Navigator was caused by Internet Explorer. This is pretty easy to see on the graph, and for anyone who was around at the time, easy to remember. IE improved steadily with each release, and bundling it with Windows 95, first in the Plus! Pack and later in SP1 (in early 1996), had a massive effect. This, more than anything, caused the decline of Netscape.
What Joel and others are saying is that starting a rewrite of the product prevented Netscape from reacting quickly to the problems with Navigator and implementing improvements and new features to compete with IE. The web browser market at the time was moving very fast and very loose, and stagnating an entire product for years was as good as a death sentence, even if there were other problems as well.
So while it's true that the rewrite may not have directly caused the fall of Netscape, it was at the very least a significant contributing factor. In the same way as not going to the doctor when you have appendicitis doesn't actually kill you, it certainly won't help you avoid dying due to the illness.
If the person recommending the rewrite is the person who wrote the original code, they are usually right.
If the person recommending the rewrite understands the code and has years of experience with it, they are often right.
I would still take it with a large grain of salt. These two groups are also the most likely to lean towards the second-system effect. There needs to be significant objective justification for a complete rewrite, more than just "Bob's gut feeling is that we need a redo".
And yes, even the recent graduate can offer valuable insight since they're most immune to the "we've always done it this way" and the "it's always been this way" symptoms.
Since 2010 it is illegal to refuse coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Not for much longer. Trump's repeal of the individual mandate (the only part of the Republican "repeal and replace" that actually happened, lol) removes the only means by which the pre-existing condition requirement was viable.
We? We?? Or do you mean a government thug doing the dirty work on your behalf? People like you who make these demands do so because you lack the spine to do anything yourself.
And how exactly would I take this matter into my own hands? Hide in movie theaters and prick kids with vaccination needles in the dark while they watch the latest brain-draining driven from Disney or Marvel?
And I sicken you? Ha.
Oh, and if a vaccination causes a reaction and a child is left crippled, or dead, who is going to accept responsibility for that?
Sorry, but this doesn't happen.. Outside of unhealthy people (immunocompromised or with existing alergies), common vaccines such as MMR and the flu are unequivocally safe. Even in the 0.0002% chance of an unknown allergy causing an anaphylaxis response, it doesn't always result in death or even any permanent condition. You have a better chance of being killed by a seat belt after your car went underwater, and most people are fine with seat belt laws.
Put Jenny McCarthy in jail
It would be a good beginning.
Perhaps, but an even better beginning would be to start introducing legislation making certain vaccinations mandatory. Failure to comply should be a heavy fine or tax to help pay for bullshit like this. Continued failure to comply is direct child endangerment and society takes children away from parents for things like that. Oh, and manslaughter charges for any parents whose unvaccinated children are involved in the deaths of someone else, just to make sure the asshats know we're serious.
We need to stop tolerating irrational stupidity in this country under the guise of "freedom" or "religion". This is a public safety matter.
Jesus, I hope you're getting paid to spout this bullshit.
If an extension is deeply integrated into the interface of the browser, you might expect that when this interface change, there'll be some work involved
The "interface" didn't change - the entire extension framework was removed and replaced with something that was at about 30% feature parity with the original. The entire ecosystem of user-created extensions and more than a decade of people spending their personal time creating useful features was doused in gasoline and set on fire without a second thought. Mozilla even just torched the legacy addon website, as a final "fuck you" to users and developers.
is in the process of being re-written (but still isn't on par with the classic on)
Bullshit. Most the of the APIs that TMP needs don't even exist yet, and aren't even on the roadmap. Pretty much the only functionality is some controls about how links are opened and there are almost 100 open bugzilla API requests.
The interface of Quantum is based on Servo, it's not using XUL anymore, it's written in HTML/CSS. You don't control it the same way any more.
Quantum is better because it's based on HTML and CSS? You mean almost exactly like XUL was?
For a download manager *IN* Firefox : the necessary API extensions are still being worked on.
A modicum of honesty. How refreshing.
The only extensions that didn't make the jump were either abandoned, or those whose authors preferred to loudly complain and join sone "anti-WebExtensions resistance" instead of trying to work out a solution.
This is a blatant lie.
There are plenty of extensions that are still waiting on updates to the WebExtensions framework so that they can be ported over. There are dozens or hundreds of bugs in bugzilla with requests for this. Just a couple that come to mind are around session management (there are no decent session managers for Nu-Firefox, and Michael Kraft's excellent Session Manager which was maintained and worked perfectly for years was left in the ditch) and tab management (Tab Mix Plus is only "dead" because Mozilla killed it).
This is only two among many others. Instead of waiting a year or so for WebExtensions to catch up, Mozilla in their rush to make Firefox become Chrome as fast as possible, threw the baby out with the bathwater without regret. It's what happens when people who don't actually care about a project or users take control.
Stop shilling for them.
The difference between $1k+ Apple phones and Lamborghini's is that most people can afford Apple phones. Too expensive doesn't mean they cannot afford it, it means they would rather spend the money on something else. Buying a $1500 phone every other year is about $60 per month. That is far less than a standard cable bill.
This seems like it's begging the question, and can lead to similar nonsensical comparison. "Sure this $750 coffee maker seems expensive, but it's only about $30 a month if you buy one every 2 years".
You're not wrong that people are deciding not to spend the $1000 or $1500 on a phone, but I think people are (very very slowly) waking up to the fact that they have been getting fleeced by Apple and Samsung for the last 6-8 years. Both companies make more than a 50% profit margin on their phones (i.e., they sell them for twice what they cost to build). Aside from the fact that this is completely bonkers for consumer electronics, it's also starting to show that what you get out of these devices is simply not worth the cost.
I sincerely hope that "budget" phone manufacturers like Motorola begin to take over more market share, just to tighten the screws on Apple and Samsung (and Google, now that they've completely abandoned what the Nexus line was supposed to be), but it's an uphill battle with those companies having worked hard to cement the "it's normal to spend almost $1000 on a phone" mentality. Pretty much the only reason for someone to spend $800+ on a smartphone today is either ignorance or stupidity, and at least ignorance is hopefully on the decline.
They can, but it costs money and time, and they are not willing to spend either.
It's just another cost / benefit analysis. Some companies do spent the money and time because they see it as worthwhile over the life of the game. For example, Blizzard made a lot of visual changes to World of Warcraft just for China because they have some weird aversion to skeletons and bones. Player skeletons on the ground are replaced with tombstones, undead models don't show bones, bones and bits of meat on the ground are replaced with bread, etc.
Sure, it may objectively be a waste of time, but if you want to sell in that market (and they let you sell, lol) then you just have to decide if it's worth it. As long as the Chinese don't start dictating how things look and function for everyone else, that seems fine (for a relative meaning of "fine" given the authoritarian society) with me.
There is often ZERO ROI for fixing bugs.
Maybe after a few CEOs and CTOs go to prison for 5 years for their company's exposing of hundreds of thousands or millions of customer's private information this point of view will change. Suddenly the fallacy of that ZERO ROI will become clear.
Oh wait, who am I kidding. This is America where the only punishment these execs get is the inflation of their $70m golden parachute as they glide into their next job of screwing people over.
What happened to Enron should have happened to Equifax. The fact that it didn't tells you just about everything you need to know about the state of things.
Mozilla is working on potentially useful stuff, not world domination.
Nobody suggested "world domination". Why the need for a straw man?
What we *are* concerned about is yet another attempt to monetize Firefox by trading user privacy for dollars. You know, like the sponsored tiles which people hated and were removed, but have just recently been replaced with the totally-not-the-same-thing-trust-us sponsored content.
That, and Mozilla has a bad habit of turning extensions into forced bundled features, like they did with Pocket.
So the idea is to censor the internet, in order to prevent censorship???
Exactly. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid.
Unfortunately more and more people eat this shit up. The only thing missing is "think of the children".
"The internet [is] not governed. So now that half of humanity is online, we need to find new ways to organize the internet," an official from Macron's office said. "Otherwise, the internet as we know it today -- free, open and secure -- will be damaged by the new threats."
Do these people even hear themselves talk? "We need to regulate the internet to keep it free and open." This is the exact definition of doublespeak.
Sqlite is one of the most widely distributed and used libraries in all of software. It has larger penetration than Linux, is more ubiquitous than zlib.
I think they have the karma to burn on this.
Perhaps, but SJWs are already trying to manufacture outrage by shaming the project sponsors like Mozilla.
Something's probably going to give in over this -- either the SQLite CoC or Mozilla -- and Mozilla has already proven they don't have a spine to stand with, so...
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
Has nothing to do with wavelength, but with polarization of the light. Anybody who has looked at screens with polarizing sunglasses is familiar with the effect.
Exactly, which to be fair they are honest about on the Kickstarter page:
RL Glasses block LCD/LED screens through horizontal polarized optics (we found out about this after coming across a 2017 WIRED article). By flattening and rotating the polarized lens 90 degrees, light emitted by LCD/LED screens is blocked, making it look like the TV or computer in front of you is off.
IRL Glasses are in beta. This means they are compatible with most TVs (LCD/LED) and some computers (LCD/LED). IRL glasses do not yet block smartphones or digital billboards (OLED).
Of course that doesn't prevent the OMG SCREEN BLOCKING GLASSES headlines that clickbait rags like Wired are throwing around.
It reminds me of a "privacy monitor" I saw some time ago, where you remove the polarizing film from a monitor and put it on a pair of glasses. You see the normal display and everyone else sees a blinding white screen.
No mod points today, but this is spot-on.
Just try to do reflection on nullable C# types, for example. It's a WTF moment. When you investigate why it's that way, you learn that nullable types are an ugly hack on top of the existing dynamic type sub-engine.
In what way? Aside from some magic around implicit type conversion, Nullable types were added to the language through the Nullable<T> generic struct and some new language syntax to support the int? syntactic sugar (instead of Nullable<int>). Detecting and reflecting on a nullable type is just a matter of using Nullable.GetUnderlyingType(Type), or if you want to do it the long way you can always use the IsGenericType, IsValueType, GetGenericTypeDefinition(), and GenericTypeArguments on the Type of the thing you're looking at.
There's nothing dynamic about nullable types in C#.
It's not a laugh track, it is a studio audience.
This is trotted out by fans of the show every time someone mentions a "laugh track", but I don't really know why. They may not be using a canned laugh track, but they 100% do have a separate audio track that's overlayed on top of the actor's recorded lines. The "best" laughing from the audience is balanced and leveled to conform with the rest of the audio and fit the desires of the editor.
Either way, the point is that Big Bang's laugh track is overly loud and especially obnoxious, even for a sitcom. A recording of a roomful of hyped up hyenas is hardly a big selling point. Honestly, I would prefer if BBT used a canned laugh track -- I might have actually made it past two seasons.
Is it possible for Mozilla to remotely disable the add-ons in Firefox ESR 52 after they have been removed from the add-on website ?
For example, can Mozilla disable them by adding them to a blacklist which causes Firefox to disable them ?
Yes, to some extent, but as far as I know it is only a soft-block and you can always choose to re-enable the addon. This functionality is controlled by the extensions.blocklist configuration entries, including extensions.blocklist.enabled which can be used to disable the feature altogether.
For Firefox 56 at least, you can see the list at https://blocked.cdn.mozilla.net. Not sure about newer versions.