The pixel remains lit (saying "the pixel remains lit" is a simplification, I know, but irrelevant to the discussion) after it's supposed to. The output does not match the signal, therefore the artifact is on the LCD panel.
What sort of blurry reality do you live in that you can't make that kind of distinction?
I'm not sure Mozilla all by itself has anywhere near that level of power, but I absolutely stand behind the concept--right now, the only thing the CAs have to lose is their reputation, as if that matters at all. Hey, remember that time you stood around with your friends talking about how Verisign will just give a certificate out to any Joe Schmoe?
The only thing a corporation cares about is money, so if you want me to trust you, put your money on the line. I trust that you'll do everything necessary to protect that.
It shouldn't (and doesn't) require proposal of a good idea in order to shit all over a bad one. Why do you want to attach an arbitrary bit of work to an already valuable service?
Their pedophilia issues might be bad, but it's not something unique... most large organizations are going to have a few of those, they just got caught.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. The pedophiles didn't "just get caught." They "just got caught" by the church which then "just got caught" not reporting them to the police and then quietly moving them to distant locations where they resumed their sexual abuse on a new batch of unsuspecting children.
1) Editing C# in a GUI editor means you are "programming in a GUI"
You're going to have to explain how this is a misconception, because I can't even imagine what level of pedantry you're operating on to come to that conclusion.
2) CLI == vt100
You're going to have to explain this as well, because I'm assuming that you're referring to my assumption that a CLI will be running on a text terminal, which, given that the post I replied to called VIM and Emacs CLI editors, and given that nobody uses a graphical terminal, is a perfectly valid assumption.
Why would you trust an admin who can't, as TFA indicates, edit a text file?
Or write a safe regex:
$ echo '123a123b123c123' | sed 's/123.123.123./321.321.321./g'
321.321.321.123
Gotta love the way he hand-waved the "half hour on a Wednesday" to do the whole transition, too. As someone who's done it, it is never, ever, ever that simple. Have fun finding bugs like the above, fixing them, finding out that your fix invalidates your entire solution, approaching it from a different angle, looking up an obscure syntax you can't remember even though you use sed/awk/grep every day, finding out you've got a slightly older version or yours wasn't compiled with --enable-double-buttgrep... sure, the "30 minutes" sounds great when you're trying to make a point, but it also sounds ridiculous to anyone who's actually done it twice.
I love me some CLI, and I'd lose my mind if I didn't have it available, but promoting either one to the exclusion of the other is asanine.
But why on earth would you do configuration in a GUI? Why would you ever program in a GUI, instead of vim or emacs?
Because it's way, way easier. Don't get me wrong, I love my VIM, I use sed at least weekly, I've built 5,000-line programs in awk (awk, not gawk, and god help me not by choice), but here's why I use a GUI to program (when it's available):
Autocompletion. Yeah, you can get it in whatever text editor, but it's not nearly as good. Ctags doesn't handle C++ well. In Visual Studio using C#, I can add a method, not even save, and there it is in my autocompletion list, auto-populated to the first signature, and as I add parameters it auto-selects the one that matches the number and types of parameters I've entered, with the short documentation right there.
Tabs. I sometimes have 30-40 source files open in a single project. Tabs Studio (not affiliated in any way, it just saved my sanity) lets me have all those files instantly visible, clickable, alphabetized, noted if changed, and the last viewed file highlighted. Are all those things possible in an ncurses app? Sure, with a 240x80 display, but it'd be cramped even then. Proportional fonts have their uses.
You can put a CLI inside your GUI. I have immediate sub-windows inside Visual Studio, I have a Cygwin window open at all times, with screen and a few utilities with their own dedicated screen windows inside it.
You know what, fuck it, I don't feel like typing all this stuff out, you don't feel like reading it. Essentially, my argument boils down to a UI that has control over individual pixels has more potential visual display resolution than one that can only render a limited number of glyphs in a fixed array of rows and columns, and that's the only inescapable difference between the two. Imagine 9 more bullet points here where I say the same thing over and over.
Do I miss stuff from VIM when I'm working in Visual Studio? Sure. But if you know the tools equally, and I know VIM like I know the palm of my hand, Visual Studio is just plain faster. But, your entire premise is invalid--a GUI or CLI is not a binary choice for a subject as large as "programming". Individual activities are better suited to one or the other, and a savvy user will use the most effective tool for the task at hand. A GUI can host a CLI or simulate it entirely, a CLI can't do either, therefore GUIs are objectively better unless the resources required for the UI is a concern.
Actually, it's been so annoying for so long it's starting to get funny again. The fact that they keep doing it despite nobody really enjoying it and massively reduced postscounts just makes it better. You'll get it eventually, it's hilarious.
Yeah, that wasn't worded great, it sounds like too strong of a suspicion. By "apparently" I meant "it appears that", which is not the same as "it is certain". The admission was from a Samsung tech, according to the person who posted the unsubstantiated accusation in the first place. That part of his claim I don't doubt, but who knows what the tech thought he was referring to. It is odd enough that I think it bears looking into though, especially if you are or plan on being one of their customers. They wouldn't be the first to accidentally admit to something when they were being accused of something else.
Heh I remember reading the line where he said that it definitely wasn't a false positive because it had never had one before, and going.... "what? Well, the part where he captures the network information or at the very least sees the log files on his disk somewhere must be coming soon." Nope! Just another credulous fool. By the end I was wondering how the hell he could claim that Samsung was logging every keystroke, when even if it was installed, in all likelihood Starlogger can be configured to do a number of different things.
The part about it being "completely undetectable" gave me a chuckle too. That's not something you should say without some sort of qualifier, but he just kept on going about how bad-ass his investigation was.
The main thing is though, no real evidence has been given either way (although given the ease of verifying his claim, the fact that it's an accusation, and its extraordinary nature, the burden of proof should clearly go on the accuser's shoulders) so either vilifying or exonerating Samsung is silly at this point. Besides, what did they think they were admitting to? Apparently there is some sort of information-gathering going on, and any at all without clear prior notice to the user and the user's acceptance is... unacceptable.
Gizmodo decided that their content looking a particular way was more important than working without javascript. They're probably right, I block their ads too, so I'd be less than worthless to them even if I was willing to let them run code in my browser.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a significant number of people whose cinema experience is shot to hell for the rest. Ever think about that?
Yes, I have, and I don't care. Don't act all offended, you don't care that I enjoy it either.
Are you on Ambien?
The pixel remains lit (saying "the pixel remains lit" is a simplification, I know, but irrelevant to the discussion) after it's supposed to. The output does not match the signal, therefore the artifact is on the LCD panel.
What sort of blurry reality do you live in that you can't make that kind of distinction?
If he shoots the ... film ..., "The Hobbit ...", won't it get kind of boring:-)
Yes, yes it will.
Oh, I see, you can't enjoy it, so nobody else should either.
Read that wikipedia link again, the strobing backlight corrects for an artifact of LCD technology, not our visual system.
I'm not sure Mozilla all by itself has anywhere near that level of power, but I absolutely stand behind the concept--right now, the only thing the CAs have to lose is their reputation, as if that matters at all. Hey, remember that time you stood around with your friends talking about how Verisign will just give a certificate out to any Joe Schmoe?
The only thing a corporation cares about is money, so if you want me to trust you, put your money on the line. I trust that you'll do everything necessary to protect that.
It shouldn't (and doesn't) require proposal of a good idea in order to shit all over a bad one. Why do you want to attach an arbitrary bit of work to an already valuable service?
Their pedophilia issues might be bad, but it's not something unique... most large organizations are going to have a few of those, they just got caught.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. The pedophiles didn't "just get caught." They "just got caught" by the church which then "just got caught" not reporting them to the police and then quietly moving them to distant locations where they resumed their sexual abuse on a new batch of unsuspecting children.
But hey, tomato tomato, right?
1) Editing C# in a GUI editor means you are "programming in a GUI"
You're going to have to explain how this is a misconception, because I can't even imagine what level of pedantry you're operating on to come to that conclusion.
2) CLI == vt100
You're going to have to explain this as well, because I'm assuming that you're referring to my assumption that a CLI will be running on a text terminal, which, given that the post I replied to called VIM and Emacs CLI editors, and given that nobody uses a graphical terminal, is a perfectly valid assumption.
I'm a woman.
Why would you trust an admin who can't, as TFA indicates, edit a text file?
Or write a safe regex:
$ echo '123a123b123c123' | sed 's/123.123.123./321.321.321./g'
321.321.321.123
Gotta love the way he hand-waved the "half hour on a Wednesday" to do the whole transition, too. As someone who's done it, it is never, ever, ever that simple. Have fun finding bugs like the above, fixing them, finding out that your fix invalidates your entire solution, approaching it from a different angle, looking up an obscure syntax you can't remember even though you use sed/awk/grep every day, finding out you've got a slightly older version or yours wasn't compiled with --enable-double-buttgrep ... sure, the "30 minutes" sounds great when you're trying to make a point, but it also sounds ridiculous to anyone who's actually done it twice.
I love me some CLI, and I'd lose my mind if I didn't have it available, but promoting either one to the exclusion of the other is asanine.
But why on earth would you do configuration in a GUI? Why would you ever program in a GUI, instead of vim or emacs?
Because it's way, way easier. Don't get me wrong, I love my VIM, I use sed at least weekly, I've built 5,000-line programs in awk (awk, not gawk, and god help me not by choice), but here's why I use a GUI to program (when it's available):
Do I miss stuff from VIM when I'm working in Visual Studio? Sure. But if you know the tools equally, and I know VIM like I know the palm of my hand, Visual Studio is just plain faster. But, your entire premise is invalid--a GUI or CLI is not a binary choice for a subject as large as "programming". Individual activities are better suited to one or the other, and a savvy user will use the most effective tool for the task at hand. A GUI can host a CLI or simulate it entirely, a CLI can't do either, therefore GUIs are objectively better unless the resources required for the UI is a concern.
Well that's just sad as shit. :(
Really? That's incredible. It's a shame that they can agree to something like this but refuse to come together for world peace, though.
Actually, it's been so annoying for so long it's starting to get funny again. The fact that they keep doing it despite nobody really enjoying it and massively reduced postscounts just makes it better. You'll get it eventually, it's hilarious.
Mongol hordes rappelling down from hot air balloons.
Yeah, that wasn't worded great, it sounds like too strong of a suspicion. By "apparently" I meant "it appears that", which is not the same as "it is certain". The admission was from a Samsung tech, according to the person who posted the unsubstantiated accusation in the first place. That part of his claim I don't doubt, but who knows what the tech thought he was referring to. It is odd enough that I think it bears looking into though, especially if you are or plan on being one of their customers. They wouldn't be the first to accidentally admit to something when they were being accused of something else.
So, what's the attack? What SQL servers/CMS/languages are vulnerable?
Fucking Phong Shading. How does it work?
Heh I remember reading the line where he said that it definitely wasn't a false positive because it had never had one before, and going .... "what? Well, the part where he captures the network information or at the very least sees the log files on his disk somewhere must be coming soon." Nope! Just another credulous fool. By the end I was wondering how the hell he could claim that Samsung was logging every keystroke, when even if it was installed, in all likelihood Starlogger can be configured to do a number of different things.
The part about it being "completely undetectable" gave me a chuckle too. That's not something you should say without some sort of qualifier, but he just kept on going about how bad-ass his investigation was.
The main thing is though, no real evidence has been given either way (although given the ease of verifying his claim, the fact that it's an accusation, and its extraordinary nature, the burden of proof should clearly go on the accuser's shoulders) so either vilifying or exonerating Samsung is silly at this point. Besides, what did they think they were admitting to? Apparently there is some sort of information-gathering going on, and any at all without clear prior notice to the user and the user's acceptance is ... unacceptable.
What are you talking about? Her vagina is totally blurred out.
Gizmodo decided that their content looking a particular way was more important than working without javascript. They're probably right, I block their ads too, so I'd be less than worthless to them even if I was willing to let them run code in my browser.
Clean the keyboard? No, you misunderstand. I don't have to pull out; I got its cables tied.
I already go in my computer.