Re:Wasn't firefox designed as the simple mozilla?
on
Marketing Mozilla
·
· Score: 1
But occaisionally when you combine, say, a camera and a cell phone, the combination is more useful than either device alone. More importantly, you make something that everyone wants to own. I would assume that this is the goal of the firefox devs, not creating bloatware.
I wonder if you could figure out which stock they're pumping by reading those spams, buy and hold it for one workday and get the same 4-6% daily return as they spammer does?
Sure, but, how many more hijackings would have taken place had metal detectors never been installed in the first place? When was the last time someone actually succeeded in getting a gun on an airplane?
The point is that since the installation of metal detectors, fewer people have been able to bring weapons onto planes, thereby reducing the number of hijackings.
And to bring the discussion full circle, if chemical detectors can have a similar record as metal detectors, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be employed.
Slashdotters are so quick to point out perceived flaws in new technology. If a story appeared on this site before metal detectors were mandatory in every airport, there would have been commenters saying "Oh, think of the false positives. Every passenger with a metal belt buckle will set off the alarm! All the terrorists will have to do is seed the line ahead of them with people with tin foil in their pockets, and the security guards will assume that their machine is broken!"
The fact is that metal detectors are a very useful tool in securing flights, and there is no reason why chemical detection could not also be a useful tool.
Just because the machine does not provied 1:1 detection for terrorists does not render this solution useless.
Slashdot Mirror
But occaisionally when you combine, say, a camera and a cell phone, the combination is more useful than either device alone. More importantly, you make something that everyone wants to own. I would assume that this is the goal of the firefox devs, not creating bloatware.
I wonder if you could figure out which stock they're pumping by reading those spams, buy and hold it for one workday and get the same 4-6% daily return as they spammer does?
You know, when I saw this story I said to myself "I know there's an Ann Coulter joke in here somewhere."
Security companies are objecting, on the grounds that they do not want the gaping holes in their software revealed to the public by Consumer Reports.
Sure, but, how many more hijackings would have taken place had metal detectors never been installed in the first place? When was the last time someone actually succeeded in getting a gun on an airplane?
The point is that since the installation of metal detectors, fewer people have been able to bring weapons onto planes, thereby reducing the number of hijackings.
And to bring the discussion full circle, if chemical detectors can have a similar record as metal detectors, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be employed.
Actually, yes - this is my first day.
Slashdotters are so quick to point out perceived flaws in new technology. If a story appeared on this site before metal detectors were mandatory in every airport, there would have been commenters saying "Oh, think of the false positives. Every passenger with a metal belt buckle will set off the alarm! All the terrorists will have to do is seed the line ahead of them with people with tin foil in their pockets, and the security guards will assume that their machine is broken!"
The fact is that metal detectors are a very useful tool in securing flights, and there is no reason why chemical detection could not also be a useful tool.
Just because the machine does not provied 1:1 detection for terrorists does not render this solution useless.
I think they have more of a draw when quite literally everyone you know also visits them.