Enough with the built in "features". The awesome bar was bad enough, this is a step too far. By all means offer it as an add-on. Surely the whole point of add-ons is that people can start with a basic browser and choose which features are useful to them?
there's less control here because the government simply doesn't fear us.
Mod parent insightful.
Yes. That's the thing. Hiding in plain sight. The truth is in fact out there, plain as day. But no-one cares. The fact that the media is for the most part complicit or even controlling much of what happens in the West notwithstanding.
This is the mistake of Malaysia and China and the old soviet states. Don't throw people in prison for speaking out, just make sure that reality tv and celebrities behaving badly is much bigger news. That way you can do anything you like. Anything at all.
Bread and circuses. It's astonishing that it's taken modern Governments so long to figure this out, the Romans nailed it 2000 years ago.
As much as I hate the erosion of civil rights in the west, I don't see bloggers getting arrested for sedetion. Or are you saying they are secretly arrested and replaced by CIA men, so nobody notice they are gone?
No need to replace anyone. People give up on blogs in their hundreds ever single day. How would you know? It would only be a blogger that could tell you. Or do you think CNN or Fox News or any mainstream news outlet will? How would you know?
Then I suppose you can cite one instance in the USA, UK, Germany, or Australia where a citizen has been incarcerated for a minimum of two years without trial for a blog post that is critical of the government.
Granted, not specifically two years (maybe, I haven't checked) and not for a blog post, however people in the early 70's in the UK were indeed incarcerated on a ship on a lake in Northern Ireland for long periods without trial. Read up on Internment, and then come back and call us all paranoid. The UK categorically does NOT have the right to freedom of speech. And in the UK you do NOT have the right to remain silent, since remaining silent can be construed as an admission of guilt in UK law.
So this, like the previous wikipedia story basically hinge on the fact that people -- who should really know much better -- are believing stuff they read on the internet from dubious sources. (anything on Wikipedia is likely to be dubious at least to some degree)
You believe stuff you read on the internet, you get burned, quel surprise?
It ain't karma, it's just stupidity. It is admittedly disturbing -- and yet unsurprising considering recent world financial events -- that the stupidity in question in this case involves people who work in the stock market.
While it is really dangerous out there sometimes, and a lot of people take nature for granted (Hurricane Katrina, anyone). I'm less concerned about humanity being wiped out in a giant EMP than I am about humanity wiping itself out in a stupendous act of stupidity.
I guarantee you, when we have this conversation again in heaven or hell, it was some retarded human in a position of power that killed us all.
Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity. A huge killer EMP would perhaps be a welcome relief.
Considering we have to look for evidence of the previous switches in three-quarter-of-a-million year old sediment, any data we have on effects is going to be open to interpretation. It's not like we had reporters back then.
Can we not just ask someone in the RIAA? After all, their business model was developed around then.
I assume you know this, but bad news is always deliberately released on a Friday if possible. The media doesn't work full shifts at the weekends, and most people don't sit down to a nightly news program or newspaper. Most in positions of power in Government / Business know that by Monday morning any bad news will have passed largely unnoticed.
Which ultimately is a sad reflection on the media and Joe Sixpack, rather than on the Government.
Comparing the Chinese program to the program by the NSA is completely disingenuous. They have they only similarity that they involve surveillance. That is where the similarities stop.
That depends on whose propaganda you believe. Removing the red vs blue rhetoric, I'm not convinced there's much difference. There's theater and distraction tactics in both. It's safe to assume that both are censorship, and neither is a good thing, regardless of declared intentions.
The biggest issue is overuse and inappropriate use of PDF.
The only reason to ever use PDF is if it is NECESSARY for your audience to print the document in question.
Way too often websites have PDFs that are the only alternative for information. If you want to look up a train time for example, once and once only, you almost always have to download a PDF -- why? Sure, give people the choice of doing that if they want to, but there's no reason to slow down the internet for one-off pieces of information.
With concerns about the environment (perceived real or theatrical, regardless), you'd think that firms would stop encouraging frivolous use of paper. With the extortionate cost of printer ink, you'd think that firms would also be cost-conscious.
Uploading a 2 or 3 page document to the web in a PDF format is a criminal waste of resources, it's also an irritation that I don't need. I do not (and will never) work in a corporation. I do not need Office or PDF format -- ever. It's slow, and it's crap to read online.
I can cheerfully live my entire life without it, and I sincerely wish retarded developers and content managers would stop forcing it on me.
It's going to be a BIG lawsuit someday so the executives have it in mind to bump the stock price as much as possible and make sure they get their bonuses before the shit hits the fan. That and making sure there is still growth in a company where there is no growth.
You're quite correct apart from one thing. eBay has been trying to bump its stock price for the past 3 years -- totally unsuccessfully. It's almost half of what is was 3 years ago(prior to the Skype purchase debacle). It's a dead man walking, and has been for some considerable time. Meg Whitman, the prime architect of its demise, baled a rich woman some time back. Just in time to avoid be caught in the wake of the ship as it sinks.
Frankly, it seems like Wikipedia has about as much credibility these days as Fox News.
Hmmm, actually Fox News has more credibility.
The bias on Fox is overt and wholly transparent. The bias on Wikipedia is covert and secretive, though it is of course even more biased and manipulated than Fox.
Wikipedia has competition. The problem is pagerank. Google calculates pagerank on the basis of the site, not individual pages. Wikipedia has a ridiculously overinflated page rank -- especially when you consider many individual entries are total crap.
In most cases there are better quality pages available, however the Wikipedia page will be in the top 10 of search results, no matter how good or bad it is.
It's Google that needs competition. That will stop monopolies in a number of areas -- not just Wikipedia.
The politically correct term is "Intelligent Unpublishing".
I don't think the word "intelligent" means what you think it means. It is the last word that could ever be applied to the actions (or reactions, in fact) of wikipedia's admins.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Mozilla has lost its way.
Enough with the built in "features". The awesome bar was bad enough, this is a step too far. By all means offer it as an add-on. Surely the whole point of add-ons is that people can start with a basic browser and choose which features are useful to them?
It's time for a fork.
Sadly... no. It means they need to do more of it, with even more control.
Bankers everywhere rejoice!
Mod parent insightful.
Yes. That's the thing. Hiding in plain sight. The truth is in fact out there, plain as day. But no-one cares. The fact that the media is for the most part complicit or even controlling much of what happens in the West notwithstanding.
This is the mistake of Malaysia and China and the old soviet states. Don't throw people in prison for speaking out, just make sure that reality tv and celebrities behaving badly is much bigger news. That way you can do anything you like. Anything at all.
Bread and circuses. It's astonishing that it's taken modern Governments so long to figure this out, the Romans nailed it 2000 years ago.
No need to replace anyone. People give up on blogs in their hundreds ever single day. How would you know? It would only be a blogger that could tell you. Or do you think CNN or Fox News or any mainstream news outlet will? How would you know?
Granted, not specifically two years (maybe, I haven't checked) and not for a blog post, however people in the early 70's in the UK were indeed incarcerated on a ship on a lake in Northern Ireland for long periods without trial. Read up on Internment, and then come back and call us all paranoid. The UK categorically does NOT have the right to freedom of speech. And in the UK you do NOT have the right to remain silent, since remaining silent can be construed as an admission of guilt in UK law.
There are other ways... being audited for example, no fly lists. There's plenty of ways to remove your freedom -- seemingly legally.
So this, like the previous wikipedia story basically hinge on the fact that people -- who should really know much better -- are believing stuff they read on the internet from dubious sources. (anything on Wikipedia is likely to be dubious at least to some degree)
You believe stuff you read on the internet, you get burned, quel surprise?
It ain't karma, it's just stupidity. It is admittedly disturbing -- and yet unsurprising considering recent world financial events -- that the stupidity in question in this case involves people who work in the stock market.
Relax, it would make an awesome reality tv gameshow. The Ultimate Survivor! 6 billion people and half must go!
And face it, losing would still be less painful than actually watching reality tv.
I blame Al Gore...
Ha! Even his name nearly reads like "All Gorge"!
While it is really dangerous out there sometimes, and a lot of people take nature for granted (Hurricane Katrina, anyone). I'm less concerned about humanity being wiped out in a giant EMP than I am about humanity wiping itself out in a stupendous act of stupidity.
I guarantee you, when we have this conversation again in heaven or hell, it was some retarded human in a position of power that killed us all.
Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity. A huge killer EMP would perhaps be a welcome relief.
Can we not just ask someone in the RIAA? After all, their business model was developed around then.
I assume you know this, but bad news is always deliberately released on a Friday if possible. The media doesn't work full shifts at the weekends, and most people don't sit down to a nightly news program or newspaper. Most in positions of power in Government / Business know that by Monday morning any bad news will have passed largely unnoticed.
Which ultimately is a sad reflection on the media and Joe Sixpack, rather than on the Government.
... but I'm shocked.
Robert Bigelow, Space Gigolo!
Just as well he already works in space.
That depends on whose propaganda you believe. Removing the red vs blue rhetoric, I'm not convinced there's much difference. There's theater and distraction tactics in both. It's safe to assume that both are censorship, and neither is a good thing, regardless of declared intentions.
and forget the blackjack too...
Here's a great idea that would change the world...
Search.
You know, that works really, really well.
I know, it's a crazy idea and I bet no-one at Google has thought of it.
... and nothing of value was lost.
The biggest issue is overuse and inappropriate use of PDF.
The only reason to ever use PDF is if it is NECESSARY for your audience to print the document in question.
Way too often websites have PDFs that are the only alternative for information. If you want to look up a train time for example, once and once only, you almost always have to download a PDF -- why? Sure, give people the choice of doing that if they want to, but there's no reason to slow down the internet for one-off pieces of information.
With concerns about the environment (perceived real or theatrical, regardless), you'd think that firms would stop encouraging frivolous use of paper. With the extortionate cost of printer ink, you'd think that firms would also be cost-conscious.
Uploading a 2 or 3 page document to the web in a PDF format is a criminal waste of resources, it's also an irritation that I don't need. I do not (and will never) work in a corporation. I do not need Office or PDF format -- ever. It's slow, and it's crap to read online.
I can cheerfully live my entire life without it, and I sincerely wish retarded developers and content managers would stop forcing it on me.
Yep. It's simple microeconomics. The marginal benefit is not greater than the marginal cost, resulting in market failure.
You're quite correct apart from one thing. eBay has been trying to bump its stock price for the past 3 years -- totally unsuccessfully. It's almost half of what is was 3 years ago(prior to the Skype purchase debacle). It's a dead man walking, and has been for some considerable time. Meg Whitman, the prime architect of its demise, baled a rich woman some time back. Just in time to avoid be caught in the wake of the ship as it sinks.
Hmmm, actually Fox News has more credibility.
The bias on Fox is overt and wholly transparent. The bias on Wikipedia is covert and secretive, though it is of course even more biased and manipulated than Fox.
Wikipedia has competition. The problem is pagerank. Google calculates pagerank on the basis of the site, not individual pages. Wikipedia has a ridiculously overinflated page rank -- especially when you consider many individual entries are total crap.
In most cases there are better quality pages available, however the Wikipedia page will be in the top 10 of search results, no matter how good or bad it is.
It's Google that needs competition. That will stop monopolies in a number of areas -- not just Wikipedia.
I don't think the word "intelligent" means what you think it means. It is the last word that could ever be applied to the actions (or reactions, in fact) of wikipedia's admins.
Book burning by any other name.