I think we all knew that Bill Nye would not have made a statement like in the headline. It's just clickbait, but people want to complain about it anyway.
True. They are not going to shut down their services or stop paying anyone because of this. They will simply not approve any of the tools for use until then. Which means they use the old stuff, or nothing at all, until the approvals are made. Since I doubt they plan on attempting to cancel the contract, this just means that NASA is fucked and HPE puts some project management monkeys on writing the paperwork. And the approvals will eventually come, whether or not the actual issues are fixed, just so that they can make use of some of what they paid for.
I hate to be jaded about the process, but that's pretty much what is going to happen. It's pretty shitty to have a rather complicated remediation process and then have it just be an exercise in meetings and paperwork while nothing has to change.
I've never played Pokemon Go, but from what I know of it, you don't have to deal with 10% of the bullshit you have to deal with when actually trying to work to improve your neighborhood. The game sounds boring to me, and certainly is a fad, but for some people I imagine it is at least somewhat entertaining and allows them to put aside their problems for a little while. Neighborhood improvement is hard work that pays off in the end, but it isn't recreational in the slightest.
Stupidity is not required. Ignorance is more than sufficient. There are probably people out there with a 95 IQ who understand this issue better than some random mathematician with a 140 simply because the average intelligence person works as an IT janitor and deals with it every day, while the mathematician is working on some obscure problem requiring an esoteric proof and doesn't have any exposure to it.
Intelligence only gets you so far if you have no pertinent experience or knowledge to process with your planet sized brain.
Of course, yes, the public is generally marked by both average intelligence AND ignorance of most topics, which is a serious problem, and why big government tells them what to do, instead of vice versa. But what do you expect? No one is an expert on everything to a degree that they need to be in order to make hard decisions.
The United States has never had a zero debt, nor is that even a particularly good idea, since the US debt is a good investment option and also stimulates the economy in a good way, as long as it is kept under control. Debt, in moderation, is good for a state to have.
What you mean is that Clinton did not have a budget deficit in some years. And that's a good thing for keeping your debt under control, but Clinton was also the primary Presidential beneficiary of being able to draw down after the Cold War. Bush or not, there was never going to be a situation where we would never be in another war again, so no matter which major party candidate was in office in 2001, we were going to be fighting at least one war and running up a bill for it after that date.
Powershell is head and shoulders better than anything they had for Windows Server before. The good reviews for it from Windows admins are well deserved.
It still sucks compared to the bash shell, or almost every other Unix shell that has been in use over the last decade or so.
We *might* be safer potentially knowing all of the holes, but if those other countries are not also releasing their zero day exploits then the NSA loses all advantages to be gained from zero day exploits.
More to the point, given the fact that many vulnerabilities are not patched immediately, you're actually handing those exploits to the enemy at the same time you're handing them to everyone else for defensive purposes, and therefore you're helping the enemy more than you're helping to defend your people. The enemy will be able to act on your information release long before all vulnerable groups can set up defenses.
But bear in mind, the NSA does release some vulnerabilities and tools for the reasons you have suggested, but they are always going to reserve some weapons to themselves for their use, and also because those exploits are more dangerous in the wild.
Yes, my problem with big government is the same as my problem with big business organizations. They're effectively equivalent.
Although I think Big Government is a bit more nefarious because it presents itself as being on the side of the People, and there are whole parties in the USA like the Democratic Party, who buy into how Big Government can solve all problems. The reality is that the advantage of elections over shareholders just redirects the inefficiency, but not even as much as you might think.
We've already noticed the following, although few really understand it. There is a bigger gulf between politicians in a big government scenario and their constituents than there is between the same politicians and those who head big corporations. Republicans usually take the rap of being buddy buddy with the 1%, but it is just as true for most Democrats as well. Ultimately, that's as much due to them basically doing the same job (ie. trying to run a huge bureaucracy) as it has anything to do with actual corruption.
If you want to not have your government be in substantial sympathy with big corporations, then you have to have your government not become a big corporation itself. The US government is a multinational, multi-product, conglomerate which operates with as much impunity as any big bank or pharmaceutical company and using nearly the same rules. The only difference is that they have a political layer which works to align voters into manageable blocs.
I'm no admirer of Bernie Sanders, but you can see how that all played out very well. They had to deal with him, but ultimately most of his less extreme supporters all fell into line in the end. The Democratic party platform inched a few notches to the left to accommodate and co-opt the Bernie supporters and that's basically it. And of course, they're throwing around the whole "don't let Trump or the Republicans name a Supreme Court justice" too, as if that actually matters. Anyone who thinks that Trump would follow in lockstep with a normal Republican Supreme Court justice selection is not really paying attention. Trump isn't even playing ball to get elected. Who really thinks he'd actually kow tow to them if he actually got elected?
But that's how things work. Our big corporate government operates as you would expect while trying to convince us that it is our best friend against those who are its real friends.
Facebook is successful. What they are trying to do now is gain PR points and assuage their progressive conscience by paying out from their largesse to accommodate lesser skilled applicants. I assure you, if they did not have the success they had, this program would be a non-starter. Note that their concern comes out now after they have made it big. Before that, it would have received lip service at best while they hoovered up the best coders and techs that they could get.
This is the sort of pork barrel program that clogs the arteries of companies once they get big.
It is probably more complex than that. Realistically, the differences may have some roots in sex based differences, but its mostly a cultural thing.
Of course, the question then becomes, if it is cultural, does that mean we actually have to change it? What is so superior about an IT career that a woman, for instance, would need to have that job? More money?
Any woman who actually likes CS or IT work and has consequently become good at it should have a reasonable shot at getting those jobs, and I support any law or program that removes barriers to a woman or minority person with appropriate skill levels from being hired due to irrational prejudice.
What I don't support is the idea that we have to change cultural preferences so that there is some sort of artificial parity of the sexes and proportional representation of groups. What we are effectively telling women is that, "you should not be happy unless you have an IT job". Well why do we get to tell women that?
I hear all about the benefits of diversity, but I keep coming up short on how that actually helps anyone when you have to force it. It's like saying that I have a team with skill X, Y, and Z, but I am missing out if I don't have a candidate of a different skin color even though their skill level is inferior. What benefit are they actually bringing my team with their diversity? An unskilled and underinformed viewpoint? I mean, if that's the case, why don't we insist on flat earthers being admitted to graduate astronomy programs?
Actually 18% hiring would be too much. There isn't a guarantee of a job just because of the completion of a degree program. If you're hiring 100% of that group's grads, you are definitely taking C and D level players into your company. That shouldn't happen unless all groups have 100% hire rates due to demand outstripping supply.
There may be racism at play, but I don't think it can be solved in quotas at this level. The problem is that the pool of candidates is low to begin with.
While I note that percentage-wise the discrepancy between say, white and black hires is significant, in actual numbers, there are significantly more whites who graduate, but do not get jobs. There are more whites who don't get jobs than there are black candidates in total. To me, that means there is a bigger problem than a mere percentage gap. The fact is that even if 100% of black grads were hired (which is unrealistic), they'd still be a tiny part of the workforce, and they are clearly only a tiny part of the CS program to begin with.
In other words, while 2% out of 4.5% is a big discrepancy percentage-wise, the actual numbers we're talking about probably end up being a rounding error when it comes to the overall pool of candidates. It would not take much for there to be a 50% gap between your grads and hires when you only have 4.5% of the number of total graduates. There are separate factors that come into play by simply being a massive minority in any group to begin with that have nothing to do with racism.
Strictly speaking, racism is something that has ceased to be acceptable in most companies and that means that you won't find many people now actually saying that they don't want to hire minorities, but there are lingering issues with social and economic issues where blacks in general have to overcome the fact that they face economic disadvantage and other cultural and demographic disadvantages which have to be taken on. Without that, you start minority kids down a path which leads them away from a CS education and the tech workplace and no matter of high school or college quotas can turn that around because by that time, its too late, they're already a disproportionately small minority of those advanced programs.
I don't think that racism is going to ever go away. I think the best we can do is remain conscious of irrational prejudices. There is always going to be someone who is different that you are, and that will subtly and irrationally affect your view of them. What needs to happen is both legal enforcement of an actual level playing field, but also steps from within those communities to turn things around culturally. I don't think the disadvantage that was created by racism can be turned around from outside the community. Black culture was definitely pushed down a certain path by racism, but at this point it has so much internal momentum that it has to be tackled as much from within as from without.
I actually thought that Deadshot was the character they fleshed out most, although they certainly did feature Harley Quinn quite a bit more than the others, for plainly obvious reasons.
I did say they needed to pick something to work on after cutting back, and while it could be speed, I did not mean the focus had to be on speed itself. I agree that you can't just be leaner, because that's not enough for a top browser, being the speed demon is a trap because it locks you out of adaptability.
Having said that, there is a niche for fast and lean too, you just need to find the right use cases. That would have to be a decision they would make.
In any event, they need to get back to basics on this and in order to make that something that they can do without basically deleting the source code and starting again, they need to dig back into what make the browser usable and then build on that foundation. They need to have a foundation for the browser which is something that can be built on. Nobody needs another Chrome. We may need a Chrome *competitor*, but FF isn't even in the same league at present. You aren't a competitor just because you're there, you're a competitor by competing. FF is just there right now. There is no compelling reason to use it unless you have a favorite plug-in or you just don't feel like switching.
I was in the same boat. When I tried Chrome the first time, I stopped using it because the tabs would seem to page out when I wasn't using them. So I was happy to call that experiment completed and go back to FF. Except, FF just kept getting slower and slower. Odd decisions were made which I didn't understand which didn't do anything to help me with what I needed a browser to do.
I started to get the idea that they thought they could do anything they wanted because they were now the top browser. Which works for those projects which stay on the top of their game, but if they don't, they lose focus and suffer.
So Chrome got a second chance from me. And that time it worked. And it has remained working.
I'm not someone who changes for the sake of change. In fact being told that Chrome was the new "thing" actually made it less appealing to me. But I'm not stupid. If something works, I'll use it, but if it stops working, it gets replaced as soon as possible. FF basically stopped working to my specifications, so it got replaced.
I know what it will take to get me to install it again, and a minor re-write isn't going to get me to waste my time while they figure it out.
Actually, I quite agree. It's not perfect, but it actually makes some otherwise unreadable pages readable.
Granted, this isn't Firefox's reader mode. I haven't used FF in years ever since they fixed whatever was paging out my tabs.
At this point they need to cut down to a fast engine, and then pick something to focus on that Chrome does not do already. That's less a problem of coding and more a problem of vision and direction. FF squandered its lead by bloating right the fuck up. Its hard to understand why the FF developers don't understand that after all these years. People left IE and old Netscape because FF was faster and saner than the alternative. It was clean. Then they shat it right up and turned it into an overweight has-been. Microsoft can glide on their momentum, but not many other groups can.
To be fair, I think the "Hey Russia, do this please," was less of a call to only Russian crackers, and more of a nod to the fact that the DNC was blaming Russians to redirect a little of the bad mojo.
So what he was really saying was, "Okay DNC, I *totally* believe you that Russia did it (wink). Well guess what? They did America a service. Maybe they can keep doing America a service? Maybe if more Russians were working on this, perhaps we'd get more truth."
You know, hacking the DNC is illegal and just generally dirty tricks, but the DNC isn't the US government. Even if that is what Trump *meant*, he's not a traitor. The DNC is a private organization that happens to be in politics, just because our current President and our likely next President are members of this club, doesn't mean that they are now synonymous with the USA. This is no better, or worse, than someone hacking a big bank to get the truth about how things are actually run.
Actually, I think the responses to Trump's comments actually need a "woosh".
He's being unpresidential, but what he's really saying is that: maybe those emails aren't as lost as they would like everyone to believe. Which is to say that if people with the right skills, an inability to be arrested by the government, and a lack of interest in keeping Hillary out of trouble were looking, perhaps they would magically appear.
Just like: maybe the Democratic National Committee wasn't quite as unbiased as they said they were, but no one could prove that... until they could.
Many people think that Russia putting up Edward Snowden is helping out someone who helped America. Do those same people believe Snowden is a traitor for making use of Russia's good graces? Does anyone believe Russia is doing it to help out the cause of civil rights in America?
Of course they're not in it to help us out, but perhaps they might be helping out America in the long term by helping someone who dropped some short term troubles on us.
In this case, calling Trump a "traitor" is missing the point, since I imagine many, if not most of the people calling him a traitor think that Edward Snowden is a great guy. Even though I dislike Trump and just about everything about his campaign, I can see that this is just a little bit too easy and self-serving a distinction between the two.
The point is, if Russia finds something that destabilizes the USA by actually finding the truth, is that good or bad? I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to excuse Clinton simply because the other option is somewhat worse. Its sort of like picking death by hanging or firing squad. Sometimes a choice isn't really a choice.
In any case, it's all theoretical. I'm sure Clinton had real experts delete those emails, as opposed to the amateur hour IT that got her in trouble to begin with. If anything, the Clintons do seem to come through in the clutch when there's an investigation in the works.
Although he wasn't a CEO, Yahoo dropped $100+ million on Henrique de Castro for only like 15 months of work before they fired him. This was due to Marissa Mayer basically getting a call from him looking for the job, and her refusal to vet him when she decided he was just the thing Yahoo needed.
I can totally believe that boards will have similar blinders on when it comes to vetting, even though they are supposed to have a search committee process to find the right CEO.
That said, I do agree that we focus a little too much on what these guys get paid. It *is* discouraging to see someone get paid millions to run a company and then be fired from a company which is almost certainly about to have layoffs. Seeing Marissa Mayer get her parachute after basically failing made me a bit steamed, and I got even more steamed when I noticed the Yahoo board changed the bylaws to ensure that the acquisition was classified in such a way as to trigger clauses to give executives even more money on sale.
However, in the end, the problem isn't what someone else makes, and it could be argued that even Mayer couldn't have saved Yahoo, although it doesn't appear that she really did anything that was worth her paycheck in the end. What I think really should matter is that companies are willing to burn money like this to stay on top. Mostly for stock value and to maintain a leadership position.
Yahoo was a profitable company, if you erased all of the acquisitions and fumbling around. It was bringing in a billion in revenue, something it could have kept up if it had been satisfied with just staying in business and being boring. We all kind of think that Yahoo was a sinking ship, but it really wasn't, it was simply at risk of becoming a has-been, but a mildly profitable one. Good news for the company itself and a longer term outlook, but bad news for people who wanted to get in there and drive stock price up.
In the end, the failure to let Yahoo be a mature company with decent, but boring profit is what I think the sin is, and from that original sin is where we get the atrocities like wanting some sort of rock star CEO and throwing good money after bad.
Yeah, the way most of these flights go, they end up on the ground longer for getting permissions to fly through airspace, fixing the plane, trying to get more money, and for other random stuff than they actually spend flying.
While you don't need fuel, there's no way you can guarantee that a plane that slow, fragile, and with limited cargo space can remain aloft for long periods of time with human passengers. There is a lot of groundwork, so to speak, to keeping a flight going.
What would be really impressive is if they have been able to actually fly the plane with only short, necessary stops to load food/water and perhaps do some maintenance checking. There would probably be an occasional need to wait for weather on take off. That still wouldn't be 22 days, but I'm sure it could be done in less than 80.
I just wish there was somewhere to go with planes like this. Unless they seriously reduce battery weight, you're never going to do more than some well financed adventuring in a solar plane.
3) Hillary Clinton has not had to declare bankruptcy
That's like saying that I've never declared bankruptcy. I haven't, but I've never actually run a major business, and neither has she.
And Fiorina, while probably preferable to Trump, was someone who thought that losing a Senatorial election meant that now she was qualified to run for a Presidential contest as well. It was like she had this script in her head about
1. Run HP successfully 2. Win Senate Election 3. Become President
And no one bothered to mention to her that she hadn't actually accomplished either of the first two steps before trying the third one.
Slashdot Mirror
Stock is worthless in the upcoming apocalypse!
You're supposed to hoard! Gold, bottled water, aluminum foil (for protective head gear and home protection).
And guns. Lots of guns.
I think we all knew that Bill Nye would not have made a statement like in the headline. It's just clickbait, but people want to complain about it anyway.
True. They are not going to shut down their services or stop paying anyone because of this. They will simply not approve any of the tools for use until then. Which means they use the old stuff, or nothing at all, until the approvals are made. Since I doubt they plan on attempting to cancel the contract, this just means that NASA is fucked and HPE puts some project management monkeys on writing the paperwork. And the approvals will eventually come, whether or not the actual issues are fixed, just so that they can make use of some of what they paid for.
I hate to be jaded about the process, but that's pretty much what is going to happen. It's pretty shitty to have a rather complicated remediation process and then have it just be an exercise in meetings and paperwork while nothing has to change.
I imagine they will try and find the culprit, but there will be little political pressure to keep the case going if it becomes difficult.
He was misquoted. He was saying they needed a "Bluetooth II" which is all different because of the Roman numerals.
I've never played Pokemon Go, but from what I know of it, you don't have to deal with 10% of the bullshit you have to deal with when actually trying to work to improve your neighborhood. The game sounds boring to me, and certainly is a fad, but for some people I imagine it is at least somewhat entertaining and allows them to put aside their problems for a little while. Neighborhood improvement is hard work that pays off in the end, but it isn't recreational in the slightest.
Stupidity is not required. Ignorance is more than sufficient. There are probably people out there with a 95 IQ who understand this issue better than some random mathematician with a 140 simply because the average intelligence person works as an IT janitor and deals with it every day, while the mathematician is working on some obscure problem requiring an esoteric proof and doesn't have any exposure to it.
Intelligence only gets you so far if you have no pertinent experience or knowledge to process with your planet sized brain.
Of course, yes, the public is generally marked by both average intelligence AND ignorance of most topics, which is a serious problem, and why big government tells them what to do, instead of vice versa. But what do you expect? No one is an expert on everything to a degree that they need to be in order to make hard decisions.
Hasn't Uber been telegraphing this for a few years now? They want automation to drive their cars.
Uber drivers are there to drive the cars until the automation can be perfected. It's not like this is a surprise to the drivers, right? Right?
The United States has never had a zero debt, nor is that even a particularly good idea, since the US debt is a good investment option and also stimulates the economy in a good way, as long as it is kept under control. Debt, in moderation, is good for a state to have.
What you mean is that Clinton did not have a budget deficit in some years. And that's a good thing for keeping your debt under control, but Clinton was also the primary Presidential beneficiary of being able to draw down after the Cold War. Bush or not, there was never going to be a situation where we would never be in another war again, so no matter which major party candidate was in office in 2001, we were going to be fighting at least one war and running up a bill for it after that date.
Powershell is head and shoulders better than anything they had for Windows Server before. The good reviews for it from Windows admins are well deserved.
It still sucks compared to the bash shell, or almost every other Unix shell that has been in use over the last decade or so.
We *might* be safer potentially knowing all of the holes, but if those other countries are not also releasing their zero day exploits then the NSA loses all advantages to be gained from zero day exploits.
More to the point, given the fact that many vulnerabilities are not patched immediately, you're actually handing those exploits to the enemy at the same time you're handing them to everyone else for defensive purposes, and therefore you're helping the enemy more than you're helping to defend your people. The enemy will be able to act on your information release long before all vulnerable groups can set up defenses.
But bear in mind, the NSA does release some vulnerabilities and tools for the reasons you have suggested, but they are always going to reserve some weapons to themselves for their use, and also because those exploits are more dangerous in the wild.
Yes, my problem with big government is the same as my problem with big business organizations. They're effectively equivalent.
Although I think Big Government is a bit more nefarious because it presents itself as being on the side of the People, and there are whole parties in the USA like the Democratic Party, who buy into how Big Government can solve all problems. The reality is that the advantage of elections over shareholders just redirects the inefficiency, but not even as much as you might think.
We've already noticed the following, although few really understand it. There is a bigger gulf between politicians in a big government scenario and their constituents than there is between the same politicians and those who head big corporations. Republicans usually take the rap of being buddy buddy with the 1%, but it is just as true for most Democrats as well. Ultimately, that's as much due to them basically doing the same job (ie. trying to run a huge bureaucracy) as it has anything to do with actual corruption.
If you want to not have your government be in substantial sympathy with big corporations, then you have to have your government not become a big corporation itself. The US government is a multinational, multi-product, conglomerate which operates with as much impunity as any big bank or pharmaceutical company and using nearly the same rules. The only difference is that they have a political layer which works to align voters into manageable blocs.
I'm no admirer of Bernie Sanders, but you can see how that all played out very well. They had to deal with him, but ultimately most of his less extreme supporters all fell into line in the end. The Democratic party platform inched a few notches to the left to accommodate and co-opt the Bernie supporters and that's basically it. And of course, they're throwing around the whole "don't let Trump or the Republicans name a Supreme Court justice" too, as if that actually matters. Anyone who thinks that Trump would follow in lockstep with a normal Republican Supreme Court justice selection is not really paying attention. Trump isn't even playing ball to get elected. Who really thinks he'd actually kow tow to them if he actually got elected?
But that's how things work. Our big corporate government operates as you would expect while trying to convince us that it is our best friend against those who are its real friends.
Facebook is successful. What they are trying to do now is gain PR points and assuage their progressive conscience by paying out from their largesse to accommodate lesser skilled applicants. I assure you, if they did not have the success they had, this program would be a non-starter. Note that their concern comes out now after they have made it big. Before that, it would have received lip service at best while they hoovered up the best coders and techs that they could get.
This is the sort of pork barrel program that clogs the arteries of companies once they get big.
It is probably more complex than that. Realistically, the differences may have some roots in sex based differences, but its mostly a cultural thing.
Of course, the question then becomes, if it is cultural, does that mean we actually have to change it? What is so superior about an IT career that a woman, for instance, would need to have that job? More money?
Any woman who actually likes CS or IT work and has consequently become good at it should have a reasonable shot at getting those jobs, and I support any law or program that removes barriers to a woman or minority person with appropriate skill levels from being hired due to irrational prejudice.
What I don't support is the idea that we have to change cultural preferences so that there is some sort of artificial parity of the sexes and proportional representation of groups. What we are effectively telling women is that, "you should not be happy unless you have an IT job". Well why do we get to tell women that?
I hear all about the benefits of diversity, but I keep coming up short on how that actually helps anyone when you have to force it. It's like saying that I have a team with skill X, Y, and Z, but I am missing out if I don't have a candidate of a different skin color even though their skill level is inferior. What benefit are they actually bringing my team with their diversity? An unskilled and underinformed viewpoint? I mean, if that's the case, why don't we insist on flat earthers being admitted to graduate astronomy programs?
Actually 18% hiring would be too much. There isn't a guarantee of a job just because of the completion of a degree program. If you're hiring 100% of that group's grads, you are definitely taking C and D level players into your company. That shouldn't happen unless all groups have 100% hire rates due to demand outstripping supply.
There may be racism at play, but I don't think it can be solved in quotas at this level. The problem is that the pool of candidates is low to begin with.
While I note that percentage-wise the discrepancy between say, white and black hires is significant, in actual numbers, there are significantly more whites who graduate, but do not get jobs. There are more whites who don't get jobs than there are black candidates in total. To me, that means there is a bigger problem than a mere percentage gap. The fact is that even if 100% of black grads were hired (which is unrealistic), they'd still be a tiny part of the workforce, and they are clearly only a tiny part of the CS program to begin with.
In other words, while 2% out of 4.5% is a big discrepancy percentage-wise, the actual numbers we're talking about probably end up being a rounding error when it comes to the overall pool of candidates. It would not take much for there to be a 50% gap between your grads and hires when you only have 4.5% of the number of total graduates. There are separate factors that come into play by simply being a massive minority in any group to begin with that have nothing to do with racism.
Strictly speaking, racism is something that has ceased to be acceptable in most companies and that means that you won't find many people now actually saying that they don't want to hire minorities, but there are lingering issues with social and economic issues where blacks in general have to overcome the fact that they face economic disadvantage and other cultural and demographic disadvantages which have to be taken on. Without that, you start minority kids down a path which leads them away from a CS education and the tech workplace and no matter of high school or college quotas can turn that around because by that time, its too late, they're already a disproportionately small minority of those advanced programs.
I don't think that racism is going to ever go away. I think the best we can do is remain conscious of irrational prejudices. There is always going to be someone who is different that you are, and that will subtly and irrationally affect your view of them. What needs to happen is both legal enforcement of an actual level playing field, but also steps from within those communities to turn things around culturally. I don't think the disadvantage that was created by racism can be turned around from outside the community. Black culture was definitely pushed down a certain path by racism, but at this point it has so much internal momentum that it has to be tackled as much from within as from without.
I actually thought that Deadshot was the character they fleshed out most, although they certainly did feature Harley Quinn quite a bit more than the others, for plainly obvious reasons.
I did say they needed to pick something to work on after cutting back, and while it could be speed, I did not mean the focus had to be on speed itself. I agree that you can't just be leaner, because that's not enough for a top browser, being the speed demon is a trap because it locks you out of adaptability.
Having said that, there is a niche for fast and lean too, you just need to find the right use cases. That would have to be a decision they would make.
In any event, they need to get back to basics on this and in order to make that something that they can do without basically deleting the source code and starting again, they need to dig back into what make the browser usable and then build on that foundation. They need to have a foundation for the browser which is something that can be built on. Nobody needs another Chrome. We may need a Chrome *competitor*, but FF isn't even in the same league at present. You aren't a competitor just because you're there, you're a competitor by competing. FF is just there right now. There is no compelling reason to use it unless you have a favorite plug-in or you just don't feel like switching.
I was in the same boat. When I tried Chrome the first time, I stopped using it because the tabs would seem to page out when I wasn't using them. So I was happy to call that experiment completed and go back to FF. Except, FF just kept getting slower and slower. Odd decisions were made which I didn't understand which didn't do anything to help me with what I needed a browser to do.
I started to get the idea that they thought they could do anything they wanted because they were now the top browser. Which works for those projects which stay on the top of their game, but if they don't, they lose focus and suffer.
So Chrome got a second chance from me. And that time it worked. And it has remained working.
I'm not someone who changes for the sake of change. In fact being told that Chrome was the new "thing" actually made it less appealing to me. But I'm not stupid. If something works, I'll use it, but if it stops working, it gets replaced as soon as possible. FF basically stopped working to my specifications, so it got replaced.
I know what it will take to get me to install it again, and a minor re-write isn't going to get me to waste my time while they figure it out.
Actually, I quite agree. It's not perfect, but it actually makes some otherwise unreadable pages readable.
Granted, this isn't Firefox's reader mode. I haven't used FF in years ever since they fixed whatever was paging out my tabs.
At this point they need to cut down to a fast engine, and then pick something to focus on that Chrome does not do already. That's less a problem of coding and more a problem of vision and direction. FF squandered its lead by bloating right the fuck up. Its hard to understand why the FF developers don't understand that after all these years. People left IE and old Netscape because FF was faster and saner than the alternative. It was clean. Then they shat it right up and turned it into an overweight has-been. Microsoft can glide on their momentum, but not many other groups can.
Those people are probably wondering why they don't actually run together on the same ticket.
"Vote Corrupt/Insane 2016. It's not like you ever had a choice anyway!"
To be fair, I think the "Hey Russia, do this please," was less of a call to only Russian crackers, and more of a nod to the fact that the DNC was blaming Russians to redirect a little of the bad mojo.
So what he was really saying was, "Okay DNC, I *totally* believe you that Russia did it (wink). Well guess what? They did America a service. Maybe they can keep doing America a service? Maybe if more Russians were working on this, perhaps we'd get more truth."
You know, hacking the DNC is illegal and just generally dirty tricks, but the DNC isn't the US government. Even if that is what Trump *meant*, he's not a traitor. The DNC is a private organization that happens to be in politics, just because our current President and our likely next President are members of this club, doesn't mean that they are now synonymous with the USA. This is no better, or worse, than someone hacking a big bank to get the truth about how things are actually run.
Actually, I think the responses to Trump's comments actually need a "woosh".
He's being unpresidential, but what he's really saying is that: maybe those emails aren't as lost as they would like everyone to believe. Which is to say that if people with the right skills, an inability to be arrested by the government, and a lack of interest in keeping Hillary out of trouble were looking, perhaps they would magically appear.
Just like: maybe the Democratic National Committee wasn't quite as unbiased as they said they were, but no one could prove that... until they could.
Many people think that Russia putting up Edward Snowden is helping out someone who helped America. Do those same people believe Snowden is a traitor for making use of Russia's good graces? Does anyone believe Russia is doing it to help out the cause of civil rights in America?
Of course they're not in it to help us out, but perhaps they might be helping out America in the long term by helping someone who dropped some short term troubles on us.
In this case, calling Trump a "traitor" is missing the point, since I imagine many, if not most of the people calling him a traitor think that Edward Snowden is a great guy. Even though I dislike Trump and just about everything about his campaign, I can see that this is just a little bit too easy and self-serving a distinction between the two.
The point is, if Russia finds something that destabilizes the USA by actually finding the truth, is that good or bad? I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to excuse Clinton simply because the other option is somewhat worse. Its sort of like picking death by hanging or firing squad. Sometimes a choice isn't really a choice.
In any case, it's all theoretical. I'm sure Clinton had real experts delete those emails, as opposed to the amateur hour IT that got her in trouble to begin with. If anything, the Clintons do seem to come through in the clutch when there's an investigation in the works.
Although he wasn't a CEO, Yahoo dropped $100+ million on Henrique de Castro for only like 15 months of work before they fired him. This was due to Marissa Mayer basically getting a call from him looking for the job, and her refusal to vet him when she decided he was just the thing Yahoo needed.
I can totally believe that boards will have similar blinders on when it comes to vetting, even though they are supposed to have a search committee process to find the right CEO.
That said, I do agree that we focus a little too much on what these guys get paid. It *is* discouraging to see someone get paid millions to run a company and then be fired from a company which is almost certainly about to have layoffs. Seeing Marissa Mayer get her parachute after basically failing made me a bit steamed, and I got even more steamed when I noticed the Yahoo board changed the bylaws to ensure that the acquisition was classified in such a way as to trigger clauses to give executives even more money on sale.
However, in the end, the problem isn't what someone else makes, and it could be argued that even Mayer couldn't have saved Yahoo, although it doesn't appear that she really did anything that was worth her paycheck in the end. What I think really should matter is that companies are willing to burn money like this to stay on top. Mostly for stock value and to maintain a leadership position.
Yahoo was a profitable company, if you erased all of the acquisitions and fumbling around. It was bringing in a billion in revenue, something it could have kept up if it had been satisfied with just staying in business and being boring. We all kind of think that Yahoo was a sinking ship, but it really wasn't, it was simply at risk of becoming a has-been, but a mildly profitable one. Good news for the company itself and a longer term outlook, but bad news for people who wanted to get in there and drive stock price up.
In the end, the failure to let Yahoo be a mature company with decent, but boring profit is what I think the sin is, and from that original sin is where we get the atrocities like wanting some sort of rock star CEO and throwing good money after bad.
Yeah, the way most of these flights go, they end up on the ground longer for getting permissions to fly through airspace, fixing the plane, trying to get more money, and for other random stuff than they actually spend flying.
While you don't need fuel, there's no way you can guarantee that a plane that slow, fragile, and with limited cargo space can remain aloft for long periods of time with human passengers. There is a lot of groundwork, so to speak, to keeping a flight going.
What would be really impressive is if they have been able to actually fly the plane with only short, necessary stops to load food/water and perhaps do some maintenance checking. There would probably be an occasional need to wait for weather on take off. That still wouldn't be 22 days, but I'm sure it could be done in less than 80.
I just wish there was somewhere to go with planes like this. Unless they seriously reduce battery weight, you're never going to do more than some well financed adventuring in a solar plane.
3) Hillary Clinton has not had to declare bankruptcy
That's like saying that I've never declared bankruptcy. I haven't, but I've never actually run a major business, and neither has she.
And Fiorina, while probably preferable to Trump, was someone who thought that losing a Senatorial election meant that now she was qualified to run for a Presidential contest as well. It was like she had this script in her head about
1. Run HP successfully
2. Win Senate Election
3. Become President
And no one bothered to mention to her that she hadn't actually accomplished either of the first two steps before trying the third one.