764 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
My browser title bar says "News for the WORLD." Don't worry, you'll get over it.
EMF? That's so 10 years ago! Chemtrails are where it's now, baby, chemtrails.
I think it would be a fabulous use of Mozilla's resources maintaining compatibility with a dead platform. Maybe they can also crank out an Amiga version or a BeOS (PPC, of course) version.
I do have "phantom pager" syndrome, but I attribute that to the fact that my cell is usually carried at the same position on my waist and set primarily to vibrate.
As to the Web sites, without opening them I predict that they are mostly anecdata and scaremongering tabloid journalism.
That . . .
. . . and the deafening clicks of their down-votes.
Well, that's a relief
Since Matt Asay is wrong about virtually everything, I think we can predict a roaring success for G+. I actually know quite a lot of mainstream individuals who are at least giving G+ a try. If Google can figure out a way to migrate pics and whatnot from Facebook, it's a slam dunk.
I know, right?
They didn't make a complete neural network from scratch, they just built a system to simulate a small part of one, so this effort is obviously a complete failure. After all, if you can't succeed completely in a gargantuan task in one go, you might as well not even start it.
</sarcasm> for the <sarcasm>-impaired.
. . . and other misconceptions
Are you sure there's not an "i" instead of an "o" in your last name?
Heck with that
Running 5 beta
I find the FF 5 beta to be faster and more stable than 4.0, although it still has some problems rendering pages that used to show up fine in 3.6 and which still show up fine in IE 9. AdBlock+ works better than in Chrome, though, and NoScript does what it should.
"Get your filthy packets off me, you damn dirty apes!"
Looks cool, but why do software vendors have to be so secretive about their pricing? I realize that they're probably charging so much that the sticker shock is literally terrifying, but really, can't we at least have a ballpark figure?
I don't really think of the low-slung trousers look as a hipster thing, more of a gangsta(-wannabe) thing. Either way, I support this ban. Unfortunately, it would be unenforceable in my current city of residence, not because I think that the gangsta community is any great threat but because the bus drivers couldn't be arsed (pun intended).
It. Was. Irony.
No actual body required.
No way to get it without Office 2K10, with a Windows edition other than Home Premium, or without Dell's crapware (McAfee, I'm looking at you). Nice design; shame about the software.
You couldn't just look it up, could you? Noooooo, you had to go and correct some poor sot . . . incorrectly. Chris Miller is correct in his spelling; you are not. The irony police will be around with bats and a chainsaw; if you must leave, please do so by way of the lumbermill.
I'm on tenterhooks . . .
. . . waiting to find out what thing belonging to a shop you have!
See, over *here*, an apostrophe followed by an "s" indicates possession (or a contraction, but I'm going to assume, perhaps foolishly, you weren't trying to say "we have shop is").
You would be right . . .
. . . except for the many ways in which you're wrong.
"a drugstore is no more a store for generic drugs than the App Store is a store for generic apps"
The point is that a drugstore is a generic *term* for a store where you buy drugs (or at least that's how it started). At this point, if someone tried to trademark the word "drugstore," they would hopefully be laughed out of court.
"the App Store with capitals is Apple's copyrighted Application store"
If you RTFA, you'll see that Apple is explicitly fighting the words "app store" used in conjunction, i.e., they are denying that those two common nouns placed together form a common phrase but rather a proper one which they can trademark.
"Give your lack of English understanding a rest, please, trolls ..."
Back at ya there, skippy.
Unlike, for example, Unix?
Search by committee
Because none of us is as dumb as all of us!
In before the Facebook hate
If they had won the suit, it would have been akin to me suing for bodily injury someone who was driving recklessly yet did me no actual harm. Irresponsible? Yes. Harmful? No.
Bring the downvotes! BRING THEM, I SAY!
Their new, two-year-old service that no one uses? That new service?
Since Andrew's story is a little short on facts, here's an alternate perspective:
Strangely . . .
. . . not everyone has the same usage patterns as you. I have not owned a car in close to five years, and big part of what facilitates that is car sharing and, to a lesser extent, car rental. Don't know what car sharing is? Check out www.zipcar.com or www.citycarshare.com. Renting is not cheaper than owning if you drive every single day, but I take public transport 90% of the time, so the $75/month or so that I spend on driving is less than the price of gas alone probably would be. Let's break it down:
Cost of car: $20,000 + taxes and fees (yes, yes, you can plenty of cars for cheaper; you can also pay more; this is a nice, round figure, so STFU if you don't like it)
Cost of insurance: $1200/year
Cost of gas: $100/month
License fees: $120/year
Maintenance (oil changes, etc.): $40/quarter (probably more, but I'm being generous)
Cost of accident: deductible ($500) plus inconvenience and cost of car rental
Parking: $200/month + tickets
The cost of a new car will pay for a *lot* of car sharing/rental fees, and with car sharing, I know exactly how much I have to pay in advance. Admittedly, that model doesn't work for everyone, but it's great for urbanites who don't want to deal with the hassle and expense of owning a car. There are a lot of us, and our numbers are growing, thanks to car sharing firms. An automated car sharing arrangement would be fantastic, because it would reduce or eliminate one of the biggest issues with car sharing right now, which is that you're compelled to pick the car up, drive it somewhere, most likely leave it parked for several hours, and then drive it back, paying for the idle time in the middle. Automated car sharing could reduce the need for and thus the expense of that idle time, in turn reducing the need for individual car ownership.
Not so fast
Americans also made Star Trek.
They could cut out the tedious unedited twaddle, and it would fit into the length of music video.
How about the part where it's 95% cheaper, substantially smaller, and has a vastly reduced power draw?
Matt Bryant . . .
. . . paging Matt Bryant to the red Sun thread.
Good to see that we're still on target for the world fulfilling all of William Gibson's predictions.
Not sure if serious
Assuming one parses your question as written, the question becomes "why would they offer a bounty?" which I think is what the article was written to explain. Something about being massively hacked, if my short-term memory does not deceive me.
"And web users are the least profitable on all levels."
I find that hard to believe, as it would imply that Web users assume they can just get premium content and applications without paying for them.
The tinfoil hat brigade is out in force today.
Hmm . . .
And here I was thinking it might be some kind of giant robot piloted by a whiny kid.
Right, I'm going, I'm going . . .
Let's see ...
Is this the comment thread where we assert our personal superiority based on operating system preference? I still run BeOS, bitches! Suck it!
Hot stock tip
Invest in tinfoil-manufacturing companies.
Ringworld, by Larry Niven
"OMG, I hate Facebook!"
... seems to be the knee-jerk response. The point here is that Facebook has done an awful lot of work figuring out how to make its datacenters tremendously energy-efficient and has made the fruits of that work public, as opposed to Google, which has not. Presumably, there is now an option for other datacenter customers to ask their providers why a Facebook-style environment cannot be created. The market will not change overnight, but it probably will change, allowing more cost- and energy-efficient datacenters to be created, resulting in non-trivial cost and energy savings for everyone.
Yeah, that's kind of a big deal.
Supercilious Fanoi Arrogance?
I think I saw those guys at the Warfield. I thought it was going to be pretty rocking, but it turned out to be a bunch of guys in turtlenecks and horn rim glasses talking about their jobs.
Well, I'm convinced!
There's some decisive action! I wasn't considering buying a Nokia handset, but this new font really has caught my eye!
There's a special pomposity about font designers, probably a result of someone being forced to care much about something so small and irrelevant (insert dick joke here).
And I do what when I'm not at home?
Install the NoScript plugin--it really does make Web browsing faster, and you can easily enable/disable it for specific sites and sessions, plus it gives you added protection from malware-infested sites.
How long . . .
. . . will it be before these guys are bought by CA/EMC/Tivoli and quietly vanish?
One small problem
As mentioned in the article, tape is now primarily an *archival* medium, which means that the tapes are usually stored offsite. The only way to validate the tapes therefore is to periodically recall them and run them through the tape library for analysis. Sounds fun!
I'm with stupid
Do you just keep that post in a document editor ready to auto-post whenever IE is mentioned? I think most human beings would consider an operating system *without* a browser to be worthless, so it would be profoundly stupid of Microsoft to ship Windows that way. They could include someone else's browser; for example, I hear there's a crappy Firefox knockoff that comes out of Norway (sorry, that was gratuitous, but I just couldn't help myself), but that leads to other issues of bundling and favoritism, and of course, there's the issue of the browser code being outside of Microsoft's control.
It is not illegal to bundle the browser with the OS, otherwise Apple and Ubuntu would also be in dire straits. Commingling the code is not illegal either; the developer of an OS can do whatever they want with the code. What *is* illegal is using that technology combined with monopoly power to squeeze out competition. At this point, there is sufficient competition in the browser space that arguing that Microsoft has a *browser* monopoly would be difficult. In any case, you can 1) remove IE and 2) install any other browser, which was not the case when the original anti-trust case went to trial.
I feel like I should address the "directly harm" bit as well, but I'm struggling to come up with an argument that doesn't involve insulting you. Suffice to say that you have not demonstrated harm in your post.
Presumably . . .
You decelerate the way a regular rocket would: turn the ship around and thrust in the opposite direction. You just would have to do it for a longer period. Rocket scientists, being rocket scientists, will hopefully have thought of the whole "needing to stop" issue and planned appropriately.
I spotted the EMC employee!
What do I win?
Because . . .
. . . you didn't provide enough context in your post to diagnose the issue? No, wait, that's what's wrong with your post, not Chrome.
I await . . .
. . . the Opera users who, failing to understand the methodology behind this approach, erroneously attribute Opera's absence from the list to be a sign of its superiority rather than its obscurity.
Even in the US, there are no fewer than 51 capitols--let's see if you can guess what they are!
Hand grenade icon as the modern equivalent of the petard by which you have been hoisted.
- Leaked screenshots show next Windows kernel to be a perfect 10
- Amazon warming up 'cheapo web vid' cannon to SINK Netflix
- Windows Phone will snatch biz No 2 spot from Android – analyst
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?