Yeah plenty of competition in the social media space is important but I can't get much use out of G+. It comes across as a clumsy answer to a question nobody was really asking.
Oh, it was an attempt at answering a question Google most certainly was asking - how can we get some of those Facebook ad billions and additional user tracking info.
Gloat? About what? This only provides proof of the benefits of open source - a significant flaw was discovered, which is exactly the claimed advantage - the more eyes, the better.
But it wasn't found by eyes, in the source. It was found by automated testing tool that would have just as easily found it in closed source.
In the self-mythology of FOSS, bugs like Heartbleed aren't supposed to happen when the source code is freely available and being worked with daily.
False. Bugs can and do happen. However, what can also happen with open source software is that entities other than the group working on the project can find bugs. In this case, Google found the bug. If the source were not open, maybe it would have never been officially recognized and fixed.
The Hartbleed bug was found using automated testing by two researches from Codenomicon and one from Google, and they disclosed it with enough detail to replicate. Closed or open source wouldn't have made a difference in how this was discovered or reported. It might have made a difference in how it was responded to, but that is hard to prove.
Why is this modded as "troll"? The points raised are valid. How many accounts have you lot created on the billion sites and how many are actually used?
I don't think he deserved troll at all, but I do think he is mistaken. Not about the dead accounts, they obviously exists in great volume, but the assumption that these are counted in quoted user numbers. Almost all large online services, and third party statistic sites like Comscore, use "logged in at least once last month" as the metric for their user count. Where there is inflation in user numbers are when multi-service companies are making sure that users that intended to go to one service also "visits" another (looking at you Google+).
I see dozens of computers a year running modern operating systems with up-to-date anti-virus software and firewalls installed that are full of viruses and other malware. User behaviour is the major problem here and his paranoia and your wisdom are probably what protect you the most, not the version of Windows you do or do not run.
Still, most research show that as much as 90% of real world infections are happening through already patched vulnerabilities, eg. could have easily been avoided without changing user behaviour - except the update or not behaviour (not only Windows, but Adobe, Java, browser, office, etc.). There are good cross-vendor patch & remediation solutions for business that solves this for you, I'm surprised this is not offered as a managed solution to consumers as well (or perhaps it is? I have not seen it).
Forgive my cynicism but I doubt you are actually curious. I suspect you're fishing for something to attack me with... but I'll play along.
There are two points there... trillions and control of industry to unelected international authorities.
1. Trillions: I can get citations if you'd like, but the cost of complying with the Kyoto protocol was trillions of dollars. And those were optimistic projections.
2. Most of the "plans" for dealing with global warming involve giving directorship of the program to the UN or some body of the UN which will hand down judgments. No better is when the EPA or its equivalent in the EU does the same thing. These bodies often act without legislative authority or public mandate. They are given broad powers that are open to the interpretation of the people that work for them. These people are not elected by the people and their actions are largely unresponsive to public redress or even legislative pressure. They often become petty tyrants that do what they want when they want and none short of the high level executive authority can check them.
Its a problem.
Listen... I'm okay with spending trillions if I must to survive. Its money well spent. But if you ask for that kind of money you're going to get audited and you have no right to refuse the debate. If you demand trillions and then say the science is settled... You get a fight.
You really can't expect otherwise.
You know, I actually agree with you on your last point. But since none of the fight is coming from scientists, that is my answer.
"Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes."
It's not a "worldwide" scheme, it's a UN scheme. Hardly the same things. Rather than implying I am a "creationist", why don't you try refuting what I actually wrote? You know, facts and all that.
Evolution has about the same level of scientific consensus supporting it as climate change. And very similar arguments against (it is to complex, data keep changing, this doesn't make sense to me, there is a conspiracy by the government).
And it is a world wide scheme and not a UN scheme, since all scientists across the world are saying the same, independently of UN and US actors in the debate. Close to all of the scientists in this field are repeatedly refuting what you claim. Do you want me to refute intelligent design, homeopathy, vaccine skeptics, fake moon landing? Same answer.
And even if this were the case in the US, the world is more than the US, all the scientists in all countries agree on this. This conspiracy is happening everywhere? I don't see any scientists or climate change "supporters" getting rich where I live, they still say the same.
"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"
What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill. That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.
Worst thing is that it is a world wide scheme. All scientists and all the world's governments are in collusion on this. It is even worse than how they all try to brainwash our kids into thinking we are related to apes.
>> VGA cable + Audio Patch Cable + Capture Card = rip almost anything. > > Yeah that'll look great on your 70" 1080P television.
It's Netflix. It's not going to look that great on your 70" TV anyways. '-p
Every glitch in the stream caused by network congestion or rogue garden gnomes is going to show up in the end result. You will get to snicker at Netflix, your ISP, and the FCC every time you watch it again.
Is this how you really experience Netflix or just assuming? For me it looks much better than DVD on my 1080p 50" media center/TV, and extremely seldom glitch/stutter/buffer.
Word processing was a solved problem in 1997, but Microsoft still has to continuously "upgrade" their software to be able to sell it again. They are out of good ideas, so they end up implementing bad ideas like adding system access to a simple protocol.
For me, one of the absolutely most useful aspects of a word processor is to let multiple people (across teams, partners, consultants, customers, etc.) edit and comment the same document, propose changes -- with author-specific version history tracking, sidebar comments, approve/reject functionality, etc. This has improved greatly not only since 1997 but over the last few generations of Word IMHO. Problem with the "people only need and use 20% of the features of modern Office" reasoning, is that different people use different 20% and tend to make assumptions based on their own anecdotal experience.
It's Window 8 only, right?
It is more likely for Windows 9 (not a joke).
Bit coin is reliable. The shitty exchanges are not. If you have someone access to your paper wallet then the effect would be the same.
Why compare to paper? If I have bitcoin stealing malware on my computer (and there is like 150 variants of that in the wild) it will get the bitcoin even if I keep my wallet offline and encrypted, because I have to access it sometime. But, it won't get my online banking money, because they use a challenge-response protocol. Very different.
On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.
