How big is thing thing going to be?

In my experience, the development environment for software is larger than the actual software.

Working copies, and interim copies, and what have you. Tools, pieces, and parts.

Now imagine something as massive as a video game, specifically involving art and computer graphics ... models, mockups, rendered seqeunces, things I don't even know what might be in there.

I'm betting the amount of source material which feeds into a finished game is likely many thousands of times the end-product. Because you probably have various edits and do-overs of stuff which took a long time to make, and is probably valuable.

I can't imagine how many terabytes it takes to build a modern video game.

But 40GB of cool stuff? Yeah, I totally buy that as possible.

The world should not be set up safe as a default for you and your fucking whiny children.

The moral upbringing of your children in a sealed bubble which keeps the world at bay is your damned problem.

Every parent who insists the world be made sanitized for you and your precious little snowflake can piss off.

You want a nanny internet, you take the time to sign up for it and request it. But if you think the rest of the world should have to opt-in ... you can fuck off and leave the rest of us out of it.

I'm s sick of idiotic parents who think the world should change to protect their children. We don't give a crap, they're not our kids ... on behalf of parent-less couples everywhere, this is your fucking problem not ours.

I won't moderate my behavior for my mother. If you think I'll do it for you and your brood of annoying children ... well, ask me. I dare you. Because they'll learn every possible bad word as well as hearing them used in complete sentences.

If you think the world should tiptoe around you and your kids ... you're too stupid to have kids.

Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker and tits. Fuck you, fuck off, go the fuck away, and don't make me tell you again.

I will not in any way attempt to say that I understand the entirety or magnitude of the issue. While I've known people with mental illnesses, that doesn't mean I can truly understand it.

But I lament that one has to describe internet privacy and security as something which you have to be in the throes of a clinical mental illness to appreciate.

Because these days, a perfectly sane and rational person should be assuming that governments are, in fact, spying on them. Or at the very least have the capacity to do so with shockingly little oversight.

But if people think that only clinical paranoids are, or should be, concerned about such things .. people will continue to act as it only clinical paranoids are concerned about such things.

And, that's just simply not true.

Being somewhat paranoid due to my periodic bi-polar "manic" periods, I already was convinced the goobernmints and corporations of the world were up to nefarious snooping and hacking

Of course the problem with this characterization is it somehow implies that this is something only people with mental illness believe.

The reality is, it is now an objective fact that it is true.

But for some reason this fact hasn't sunk in, and people keep acting like it's solely for paranoids and other crazy people to be concerned about.

And that's simply not true.

Don't you mean "eh". As in "Lets all go to Tim Hortons for hot dogs and beer after a good match of curling, eh."

You can't buy either hot dogs or beer at Tim Hortons.

And pretty much nobody actually says "eh", and never has.

So why is Mozilla trying to enter into the cheap handset market? This isn't their core competencies.

It just seems like they're flailing about trying to define the next big thing. And, really, that seems to be a waste of resources.

This just feels like Mozilla has kind of lost the plot.

I think it's hilarious when Windows 95 icons are more intuitive than an OS that'll literally be twenty years later from the same company

LOL, that's because Windows '95 was still using visual metaphors they'd 'borrowed' from Apple -- and since Microsoft won a court case which said you can't own look and feel, there's no denying they borrowed from Apple.

The problem seems to be now that they're borrowing elements of a tablet interface, and trying to innovate ... they seem to be painting themselves into a corner by believing a tablet interface is somehow suitable for all kinds of tasks.

I think the Metro UI is probably really well suited for a tablet or a phone. But I think for many of the things people still use computers for will not be well suited to this new UI.

The problem is the belief that having Metro as a default UI isn't a stupid idea when it's not on a platform optimized for it.

On a 23" monitor with no touchscreen ... Metro is a giant leap backwards which has decided ergonomics and proximity are archaic ideas, and that everybody wants to move from corner to corner.

My Windows 8.1 feels like a fast, rock-solid platform. But Metro felt like a child's interface slapped on the front which needed to be replaced.

Yeah stupid people making UIs for end-users and not for programmers!

Wow, nice either or.

In between clueless people who want to access the intertubes and programmers is pretty much everything else computers are ever used for.

And business software users do not gain a damned thing from Metro. They gain a clunk interface which is useless to them.

So, while Metro has its place for some people ... it is completely unsuited for the tasks of what many many people do with computers.

So Microsoft (and idiots like you) can keep pretending that Metro is a suitable interface for everything. Or Microsoft (and idiots like you) can actually realize that "one size fits some" isn't going to cut it.

You sound like a whiny graphic designer who still doesn't understand that a GUI which doesn't suit the task is fucking useless.

Yes, for many home users Metro will probably do everything they need. For for people with more demanding tasks, and most people in business ... Metro is utterly useless as a UI.

I can assure you, Metro is not all of "simple, clean, aesthetically pleasing, intuitive, and functional" ... it's anything but, in fact unless you're doing fairly trivial tasks on a tablet.

With a keyboard and mouse, on a large screen with no touch ... Metro is a completely fucking useless UI.

So you can boo hoo about how the graphic designers will save the day. But if all they have is eye candy which impedes function compare to existing UIs ... all they're doing its making pretty garbage.

But people who use computers for grown up things will simply not benefit from Metro. Because it's the completely wrong interface paradigm for many things, and Microsoft (and idiots like you) whining it's the wave of the future doesn't make it a good universal UI.

This isn't about the interface for normal people and programmers ... this is about the entirety of human computer interface design, and is much more sophisticated than your clueless reductionism.

No, apparently US business interests are far more important.

I think it's time the rest of the world told the US: we don't give a fuck about your business interests, we care about not putting toxic crap on our foods.

"Aggressive US lobbyists" should be told the STFU or simply shot.

Free trade with the US is "we will ignore any obligations, and we will cram our laws down your throat."

If diplomacy with the US is entirely about advancing US business interests to the detriment of local industry and environment ... the response should be a big giant "fo fuck yourself".

Because the US pushes for trade deals, and then still reuses to ignore them ... things like steel subsidies, massive corn subsidies, and country of origin labeling requirements are things they've repeatedly lost in WTO arbitration.

So why the hell do countries keep putting up with this shit?

Such horseshit. It's time the rest of the world stopped giving a shit about US business interests ... because they never actually coincide with domestic interests.

We may end up with intuitive and user-friendly software, oh no!

You know, if people are actually doing proper user interface design, that might be true.

But having seen Metro on a Windows 8.1 box ... that's not what is happening.

Graphic designers focusing on pretty, but with no understanding of functional are producing shitty interfaces which, while they might be fine for a tablet or a handheld, are complete garbage for a desktop machine with no touch screen and operated with a keyboard and mouse.

So, I don't care which shade of pastel and crayons the useless interface is. I want to turn off the useless interface entirely, because it provides nothing in the way of utility.

Windows 8.1 is fast and stable, and has nice features. But it's only usable as a desktop once you install something like Classic Shell and turn off the crap that these "designers" have put in.

They're spending all the time tweaking the wrong things.

What I can not understand is why aren't there a unified solution to provide tracking data to all different underlying tracking systems.

Because there's more than one set of greedy bastards, each of which have their own branding, and feel they deserve a slice of the pie -- because they all have executives who need hooker and yacht money.

Are you expecting greedy advertisers to pool their resources so users only see a single greedy embedded in their web pages? Or that somehow having the big giant clearinghouse of everyone's data would somehow be good?

I have an alternative, block the shit out of all of them, and then nuke the offices of tracking and advertising companies from orbit.

Just because a bunch of advertising agencies thinks they own the internet doesn't mean we should play along. In fact, we should try to weed them out entirely.

So, instead of trying focus on what kind of user experience we're going to have (which sounds like they think the tablet interface is what people actually want for everything) ... and focusing on making all of that good and usable ... why does it sound like throwing out new sets of icons means someone has lost the plot and is focused on the eye candy, and ignoring the fact that for a desktop machine Metro is a completely garbage interface?

I like my Windows 8.1 machine. But it was really only useful once I basically removed all of the stuff that Microsoft thinks they innovated or that was valuable.

Metro on a 23" non-touch screen monitor is a pathetic interface for Windows. If Microsoft is going to think everybody is running everything on a touch screen interface, instead of a mouse and keyboard ... they're doing a shitty job of knowing what people actually use computers for.

But, hey, we've been working diligently on the icons. 'Cuz, that's what people really want.

It's not bullshit, it's an ex-Mozilla employee discussing just how bad the situation is.

Fair enough, but TFS makes it sound like this is a speedup due to how super awesome the tracking protection is, as opposed to the default crap of letting everything from a zillion other domains run by default.

Run everything from every cross domain crap and advertising the crux of the problem here, because ads and other tracking crap have fucked up the internet to the point that dozens of other domains get to know every page you visit.

Those entities, and the people whose websites use them, should not be rewarded for putting shit all over the internet.

+ NoScript + Ghostery + AdBlock + Block 3rd Party Cookies

For Chrome: ScriptSafe + Chostery + HTTP SwitchBoard + Disconnect

The internet is full of shit which needs to be ruthlessly blocked.

I'm going to call complete bullshit on this.

Because disabling 3rd party cookies and setting cookies to "ask before setting" will probably also have the same effect, because once you hit a site you've said "no" to, you never get asked again.

This is saying "our awesome tracking protection is faster than promiscuously accepting all cookies and running scripts".

The slowness comes from letting 3rd party tracking sites set cookies and run scripts ... which modern browsers seem to treat as the default, or letting any crap set cookies or run scripts.

Their tracking protection isn't magic, it's just blocking crap. Some of which can be blocked by default anyway.

And it's a setting which Mozilla backed down on enabling by default because advertisers whined at them.