The 'article' is an editorial presented as something to be taken as representative of the community at large. My impression is that Canonical is losing mindshare quickly to Mint on the desktop, that Canonical really doesn't care that much about desktop anyway as they pin their business hopes and dreams on servers and embedded (where it also is failing to get much traction business wise).

Note that none of this has to do with the parents referenced points: Gnome 3 (which is largely defined by Gnome Shell, which Ubuntu doesn't even use by default) and systemd (I'm sympathetic, but not sure it's making much of a difference either way in the desktop distribution selection right now).

Remember 7/11 buddy. 7/11. ... I think today is 2 for 1 Slurpee day.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't look it up, but I'd be pretty sure that the maintenance interval is shorter than 5,952 hours.

I suspect that the situation is more complicated than that. Multiple recording labels, multiple interests. All the licensing of the music would revert to square one, with all the current copies having to be disposed of.

The world of intellectual property is too complicated for this sort of thing to be easy, sadly. I also never used Grooveshark. I'm still mostly a broadcast radio kind of person when it comes to music.

Yes, in that scenario, you aren't restricted by firefox's proposed BS. Disabling https would break mozilla browser access, but not such software.

I still think it's an inadequately thought out concept (I also question the wisdom of 'the only network protocol is http' mentality in the world), but out-of-browser development shouldn't be hurt too badly.

Now I won't go that far. 'everywhere' is a pretty gigantic scope. There are many scenarios where there are no viable debug capabilities on either end of the connection (either because no such capability is implemented *or* you are dealing with some 'clever' appliance that blocks you from access.

Besides, wireshark's dissectors are incredibly useful, and usually beyond other things ability to decode. In the case of *browsers* specifically it's not true these days, but plenty of networking things aren't at that level.

While TLS *could* be secure, I've been in too many discussions where it is assumed to be the only way to be secure and that it is secure in spite of the current state of CAs and the practical behavior of internal servers with respect to certificates.

There really needs to be more critical discussion along this front, as I see quite reasonable security strategies that fare well in the *real* world torn up and replaced with TLS because of an idealized view of how it could be implemented.

Wireshark is a useful debugging tool. The ability to snap off encryption to analyze things at the wire is a lifesaver.

That said, if I'm debugging something a browser is doing, the developer console is usually better anyway. There remains the case where you are trying to debug a tester's experience without access to their browser, but the scenarios where that is true *and* it would be a good idea to disable TLS are limited. Being able to disable encryption is more important for clients that aren't so developer-enabled.

I agree that the more intelligent thing would have been for the site branding to be used for legitimate service rather than trying to shame the users while pointing out other services and hoping for the best.

However, the likelihood that they could have modified it 'slightly' while 'not pissing off the listeners' is pretty slim. The music selection would have had to be torched and started over from scratch (too many content owners without an agreement between them) and something would have had to give to actually extract revenue.

They didn't quite get to 'just walk away'. They were given a choice, an impossibly high fine to pay or hand over all their patents, copyrights, infrastructure, software, basically everything while very publicly scraping the ground about how wrong what they did was.

Essentially, they had something of value that was interesting to the plaintiffs that was bigger than their realistic chances at getting actual money out of them.

We could send up a shuttle to retrieve it ... oh ... mothballs.

Ah, I see they do offer comparable pricing to Boost. 1GB with service is $30. 2GB is $40, but if I use 1.5GB they credit the difference. Sounds like it's worth trying.

You can change his plan too. Boost offers 2GB/mo 4G LTE for $30/mo, which simply degrades to 3G when he hits 2GB.

I don't bother with the higher plans. I play Ingress a lot, use it constantly for mail, and I do a lot of web stuff when not home. Like searching for reviews and price comparisons when I'm out shopping. I also occasionally tether my laptop if I need to do something and don't have wifi available. At home and when I'm in an office, I get on wifi. It's not a bandwidth saving measure though, it's just faster to be on a fat pipe than anything wireless trying to penetrate buildings. When I check my usage, I'm usually only at 1.2 to 1.5 GB per month.

I ran into my first problem with Boost a month ago. They messed up provisioning Visual Voicemail when I switched phones, so it isn't sending transcribed messages to me.

It would seem that they're targeting a small market with this new plan.

Ah, they got their site up. It was throwing an error last night.

If that's the story I'm thinking of, we're not resurrecting the mammoth, we're cloning it. Those are usually introducing the DNA into somewhat comparable modern animals. It's not like the mammoth would wake up and say "Hey, what happened? Last thing I remember was eating frozen grass in the tundra." That's assuming mammoths could talk. :)

So you're saying that a dead 2 year old, who had already had half her brain removed and the other half was seriously damaged, and dunking that in liquid nitrogen with the hope that someday a new body could be built for her and she'd be perfectly normal again ... is a con?

Oh ... ya ... it is ...

I don't know how the fuck anyone falls for it. Really... Why would they think that even if their bodies were preserved that long, and the technology was invented to create what's missing, and repair all the damage done by the freezing process, that anyone would spend the 14 bazillion New Earth credits (or whatever currency there is in futureland) to bring some old fucker back?

In her case, the could have just saved a DNA sample. The story is clear about the condition her brain was in. Half was gone. The other half critically damaged.

I'd have to think that it would be questionable in futureland to resurrect a 20th century person, even if they were in pristine condition. Say 21 years old with much above average intelligence, who was taught everything that there is to know, with no medical issues, no trauma. Just frozen as-is without cellular damage. Why would anyone opt to wake them up? Just to ask "Hey, so what was life like in the 20th century?"

The whole cryogenics "industry" is a huge con.

If these people are religious in the least, they'd have to believe that the soul was trapped in that frozen body until it was awakened. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to reincarnate them. What if they picked the wrong part to freeze? Like, if the soul was really in the liver, or maybe in the spinal cord between C1 and C3. Oops, sorry, we cut that part off.

And if they aren't religious in the least, why bother? So they can wake up as a curiosity in the future? "Hi Cro-Magnon. Fire hot. We have spoken languages you don't understand. And try to wrap your mind around these three seashells. No more poison ivy toilet paper for you. No, don't hit females with a club to make them your mate/slave."