Errmmm... have you ever seen telephone wire? I can't imagine there would be more than few ounces of it in his entire house. The effort of stripping off the insulation wouldn't be worth it.
Is it necessarily evolution? Or is it simply training? I bet if I took a bird egg from the country and swapped it with one from the city, that the birds would identify with their adoptive culture.
(And another thanks to Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts).
Hi. Here is the problem from a societal point of view. If you restrict workers' abilities to transfer jobs, you hurt the economy as a whole. If someone is able to contribute more (and be compensated more as a consequence) to another organization, making the move helps everyone as a whole.
Your naive view of things basically pretends that companies and individuals negotiate as equals. They don't. Companies are much more able to place restrictions on the employee than the other way around. In the U.S., you generally are employed at-will. The company decides to can you, you are gone. You too are free to go. Once that relationship is severed, there is no further contract. That organization has zero right to dictate terms of a contract after the contract is complete.
Because they are not Microsoft. And because they are competing successfully against Microsoft. Nothing more.
Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.
(And thank you Slashdot for making me wait five minutes between posts. Excellent Karma, get mod points yet have to wait. And when I use the email link to report the problem, my email gets ignored. Brilliant)
And generally non-competes are ignored in other states as well I applaud California for legislatively declaring them illegal. Companies already operate at an advantage compared to individuals. They should not be able to take away my livelihood when we decide to part ways. If I am employed "at will" by them, then the business arrangement should be symmetrical. If they are willing to offer me a generous severance package, then I imagine they can have a say on where I end up. But even that should be limited.
At least in my simplistic thinking, I equate the dollar cost of production as being proportional to the energy costs of production. I don't know if that is 100% accurate, but I tend to think it is a pretty good rule of thumb. So, in my simplistic thinking, I figure if I overall spend more on something like this that I am in turn doing more damage to the environment.
Again, this is not based on any research, just my gut. If someone can point me to something that has raw, hard data, I would be inclined to change my mind.
(from Wikipedia) "The life of a CFL is significantly shorter if it is only turned on for a few minutes at a time: In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of a CFL can be up to 85% shorter, reducing its lifespan to the level of an incandescent lamp.[10][11][12]The US Energy Star program says to leave them on at least 15 minutes at a time to mitigate this problem."
And here I am programmed to turn off lights when I leave the room. This being the case, I am more of an environmentalist for turning off my incandescent lights than I would be converting my whole house to CFL. With the exception of my living room, I am wasting money buying the CFLs. And they will be banned in the name of environmentalism.
So, if I leave the light on all day, I should be in good shape? I'm in the habit of turning off lights on leaving the room. I'd end up spending 4x as much energy if I leave the things on 12 hours a day.
That sucks for me. I bought some GE compact florescent bulbs two years ago. They lasted about half as long as incandescent bulbs. Yeah, I know what they are supposed to last forever. I am not sure what the reason is, but the things will not last. Tried a couple more times, but same result. After several weeks the things just stopped working. I may experiment again, but at the steep cost I don't like wasting money.
That's not really the topic of this thread. One could make arguments either way depending upon one's priorities.
Um.... look at the title of this thread Firefox needs to fix this!. The original poster is essentially laying the blame for this on Firefox, not Microsoft, or the user.
If you work in a corporate environment and you rely on autoupdate to keep your systems patched, you're an idiot.
From my original post: 'If I have a problem with an individual update, it is up to me to test the update before pushing it out to client computers. Simple as that.'
And what prevents the updater from marking it as "approved"? You are thinking tactically. But strategically, the mindset has to be "run as root and a process can do whatever it wants, for good or for bad". If you have this mindset, it changes your decisions about how to run systems. Least privileges is a good philosophy.
Bottom line, is this is not Firefox's fault. I think they are handling things properly in this case.
Irrelevant. I can see notifying the user. However, an update process running as root can do whatever the hell it wants.
Lessons to be learned.
1) In general, do not run as root (admin) 2) Don't run auto-update
For the 95% of the folks who don't care about what Windows puts on their system, this is irrelevant to them. To those who care about what add-in shows up in Firefox, simply obey these two rules. Non-issue.
Hi. If you are running automatic updates, then by default, you have a process running on your computer with administrative privileges. So, you are proposing that Firefox somehow magically blocks that? Even if you find a way to do that, you would piss someone like me off. I am the defacto sysadmin for a small company. If I want auto update to run and update all computers, I do NOT want individual applications vetoing the updates. If I have a problem with an individual update, it is up to me to test the update before pushing it out to client computers. Simple as that.
It is goofy workarounds and disregarding of conventions that create the big messes.
Essentially the reclaiming of memory. Traditionally when you created complex objects in code, you would have to explicitly release the resources. Otherwise, you had the notorious "memory leaks" that caused your computer to slow down or even crash if memory continually got used and not freed up. garbage collection is an asynchronous process that goes and looks for objects that are no longer referenced and frees up space.
And having programmed back in the days of Borland C, I see why it is needed. I also see that a lot of programmers are just lazy and don't think about their code.
Damn. Do you have some type of disorder that prevents you from understanding sarcasm? I mean the sarcasm in my original post was so thick I had to buy a new monitor.
Folks get stereotyped on television? You don't say?
I've never seen athletes stereotyped as bumbling morons. I have never seen good looking women stereotyped as airheads. I have never seen Christians stereotyped as clueless and out of touch. I have never seen factory workers stereotyped as beer guzzling, bowling addicted rubes. I have never seen Southerners stereotyped as trailer trash. I have never seen rich folks stereotyped as constantly stepping on and using others.
Comic book folks are the only ones stereotyped on TV. Call your congressman.
Slashdot Mirror
Go check out her website if you want a clue.
Errmmm... have you ever seen telephone wire? I can't imagine there would be more than few ounces of it in his entire house. The effort of stripping off the insulation wouldn't be worth it.
Is it necessarily evolution? Or is it simply training? I bet if I took a bird egg from the country and swapped it with one from the city, that the birds would identify with their adoptive culture.
(And another thanks to Slashdot for the five minute wait between posts).
Hi. Here is the problem from a societal point of view. If you restrict workers' abilities to transfer jobs, you hurt the economy as a whole. If someone is able to contribute more (and be compensated more as a consequence) to another organization, making the move helps everyone as a whole.
Your naive view of things basically pretends that companies and individuals negotiate as equals. They don't. Companies are much more able to place restrictions on the employee than the other way around. In the U.S., you generally are employed at-will. The company decides to can you, you are gone. You too are free to go. Once that relationship is severed, there is no further contract. That organization has zero right to dictate terms of a contract after the contract is complete.
Have you ever SEEN CowboyNeal?
Because they are not Microsoft. And because they are competing successfully against Microsoft. Nothing more.
Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.
(And thank you Slashdot for making me wait five minutes between posts. Excellent Karma, get mod points yet have to wait. And when I use the email link to report the problem, my email gets ignored. Brilliant)
And generally non-competes are ignored in other states as well I applaud California for legislatively declaring them illegal. Companies already operate at an advantage compared to individuals. They should not be able to take away my livelihood when we decide to part ways. If I am employed "at will" by them, then the business arrangement should be symmetrical. If they are willing to offer me a generous severance package, then I imagine they can have a say on where I end up. But even that should be limited.
Yeah, but folks actually have to TALK to me to find out I'm a dork.
At least in my simplistic thinking, I equate the dollar cost of production as being proportional to the energy costs of production. I don't know if that is 100% accurate, but I tend to think it is a pretty good rule of thumb. So, in my simplistic thinking, I figure if I overall spend more on something like this that I am in turn doing more damage to the environment.
Again, this is not based on any research, just my gut. If someone can point me to something that has raw, hard data, I would be inclined to change my mind.
Good idea... if your coworkers don't know you are a dork already, this will definitely clue them in.
This appears only to show usage, not how "dirty" the power is. Or am I missing something?
I think we might have the answer
(from Wikipedia)
"The life of a CFL is significantly shorter if it is only turned on for a few minutes at a time: In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of a CFL can be up to 85% shorter, reducing its lifespan to the level of an incandescent lamp.[10][11][12]The US Energy Star program says to leave them on at least 15 minutes at a time to mitigate this problem."
And here I am programmed to turn off lights when I leave the room. This being the case, I am more of an environmentalist for turning off my incandescent lights than I would be converting my whole house to CFL. With the exception of my living room, I am wasting money buying the CFLs. And they will be banned in the name of environmentalism.
How would you recommend finding out?
So, if I leave the light on all day, I should be in good shape? I'm in the habit of turning off lights on leaving the room. I'd end up spending 4x as much energy if I leave the things on 12 hours a day.
That sucks for me. I bought some GE compact florescent bulbs two years ago. They lasted about half as long as incandescent bulbs. Yeah, I know what they are supposed to last forever. I am not sure what the reason is, but the things will not last. Tried a couple more times, but same result. After several weeks the things just stopped working. I may experiment again, but at the steep cost I don't like wasting money.
That's not really the topic of this thread. One could make arguments either way depending upon one's priorities.
Um.... look at the title of this thread Firefox needs to fix this!. The original poster is essentially laying the blame for this on Firefox, not Microsoft, or the user.
If you work in a corporate environment and you rely on autoupdate to keep your systems patched, you're an idiot.
From my original post: 'If I have a problem with an individual update, it is up to me to test the update before pushing it out to client computers. Simple as that.'
So much for your reading skills.
And what prevents the updater from marking it as "approved"? You are thinking tactically. But strategically, the mindset has to be "run as root and a process can do whatever it wants, for good or for bad". If you have this mindset, it changes your decisions about how to run systems. Least privileges is a good philosophy.
Bottom line, is this is not Firefox's fault. I think they are handling things properly in this case.
Irrelevant. I can see notifying the user. However, an update process running as root can do whatever the hell it wants.
Lessons to be learned.
1) In general, do not run as root (admin)
2) Don't run auto-update
For the 95% of the folks who don't care about what Windows puts on their system, this is irrelevant to them. To those who care about what add-in shows up in Firefox, simply obey these two rules. Non-issue.
Hi. If you are running automatic updates, then by default, you have a process running on your computer with administrative privileges. So, you are proposing that Firefox somehow magically blocks that? Even if you find a way to do that, you would piss someone like me off. I am the defacto sysadmin for a small company. If I want auto update to run and update all computers, I do NOT want individual applications vetoing the updates. If I have a problem with an individual update, it is up to me to test the update before pushing it out to client computers. Simple as that.
It is goofy workarounds and disregarding of conventions that create the big messes.
Ah, finally found the link. Sadly enough, Slashdot's search engine didn't find it but Google's did.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/01/2143218
(would have posted sooner, but have to wait 5 minutes between posts)
I read about this on Slashdot a couple weeks ago.
Essentially the reclaiming of memory. Traditionally when you created complex objects in code, you would have to explicitly release the resources. Otherwise, you had the notorious "memory leaks" that caused your computer to slow down or even crash if memory continually got used and not freed up. garbage collection is an asynchronous process that goes and looks for objects that are no longer referenced and frees up space.
And having programmed back in the days of Borland C, I see why it is needed. I also see that a lot of programmers are just lazy and don't think about their code.
Damn. Do you have some type of disorder that prevents you from understanding sarcasm? I mean the sarcasm in my original post was so thick I had to buy a new monitor.
Folks get stereotyped on television? You don't say?
I've never seen athletes stereotyped as bumbling morons.
I have never seen good looking women stereotyped as airheads.
I have never seen Christians stereotyped as clueless and out of touch.
I have never seen factory workers stereotyped as beer guzzling, bowling addicted rubes.
I have never seen Southerners stereotyped as trailer trash.
I have never seen rich folks stereotyped as constantly stepping on and using others.
Comic book folks are the only ones stereotyped on TV. Call your congressman.