I was curious about Pale Moon, so I googled it. Turns out it's a Firefox build optimized for Windows. They disabled some stuff they didn't think most people would need and enabled compiler optimizations that might exclude some older machines. See technical details.

No Linux version, though :(

Scalia's the only one of the nine who is almost guaranteed to strike it down. He has routinely voted against government intrusion such as using IR devices to find grow houses without a warrant or the recent case of the government collecting DNA samples from all people arrested.

Though the most likely outcome is that the Court will not rule on the issue at all, deciding that whoever brings whatever case doesn't have standing because they cannot prove they were spied upon.

You fool! Don't know know how dangerous that stuff is?

Maybe, but even the act of sending the cookie back, even if it seems to have bad data in it, can give information about you -- what sites you visit, how long you spend there, etc.

Now, maybe a script that made random HTTP requests with random cookie data. It still would be tricky, and blocking the stalkers (especially facebook) seems much safer.

I agree with a lot of your points, but regarding recycling, a big thing to consider is that recycled material doesn't take up space in a landfill. If we recycle a cubic meter of glass, we aren't saving ourselves from having to gather a cubic meter of sand, but we are saving a cubic meter of space in a landfill somewhere. And those cubic meters add up.

Your corporate shill quip made me remember a passing comment I once overheard that went something like:

... so what this GNU company has done is license the zip technology to make the gzip format ...

I almost cried.

And there are provisions for revoking signatures. AIUI, they can be even be distributed through something like Windows update (as long as the revocation is signed by MS), and certainly the revocation lists would be on new hardware. That is what people are worried about.

In technology, "legacy" is a derogatory term used to describe technology the speaker doesn't like and wishes others stopped using. For example, "the Linux enthusiast suggested migrating from the legacy Windows clients to Linux" or "the Microsoft salesperson recommended migrating from legacy Linux servers to new Windows 8 servers".

Personally, I like to use it as a joke to tweak fanbois :)

That's an interesting ilnk, since it says that the credit card companies are half of Apple's share of the apps, and the overwhelming majority of their costs.

Of course what you really mean to say is "Apple doesn't make a significant amount of money [on the app store, compared to the rest of their revenues]." Which may be realistic, but even the $1.5 billion they get as profit (based on the costs in the link) is not really insignificant. If they don't want it, I'll take it :)

That's a ridiculous phrasing, since every Linux distribution out there has had an "app store" via its package manager long before the iPhone even existed. Just because Apple is anti-GPL is no reason to say that app stores in general and the GPL are incompatible.

There might be some problems with GPL3 and app signing, but that has little to do with the app store and more to do with what the system will actually allow to execute.
 

Maybe they'll also get good digital advertising jobs in New York based on this Samantha's information!

I use the caps lock key all the time -- I remap it to be an additional control key (like on Sun keyboards). It's a much better use of that button. I'm not sure I'd like it being a super (aka, "Windows") key.

Just for the record, my family had a Packard Bell that ran Mandrake Linux extremely reliably for many years. Though from listening to other people complain about Packard Bells online, I guess we got the only good one they ever made :)

You could only stream the Olympics (in the U.S.) if you had cable (they required a log in). Even if you could watch it OTA, you couldn't stream it.

Because, AIUI, the part of the DMCA takedown request that is backed under penalty of perjury is that Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows 8. There's nothing in the takedown certifying that the site is in fact infringing on that copyright. Since no one disputes that Microsoft owns the copyright to Windows, there's no perjury. Just annoyance.

Of course, IANAL, etc, etc.