Yep. Whatever opinion you hold, that payment demand does change everything.
Yes, at that time websites also didn't have images, and about nobody could get to see one.
Anyway, the web has ads because there are enough people to see them. Remove the people and the ads will go away, but there's nothing you can change on the software stack that'll get ride of them.
Point is, they are making it opt-out, but saying it won't track you. And you have the code, so they are probably honest (no doubt somebody will check).
Yes, it does look bad. But no, it's not as bad as most people here are making it sound like.
If you remember a bit less than a decade ago, the consensus was that every open source software should get UX experts to review them, and designers to help create their appearance.
That was also the time Mozilla started to get some real money, and went out to hire a team, so it's not surprising that they have a lot of UX experts and designers. And when you have a team of experts giving you advice, why wouldn't you listen to it? Did you make a mistake by hiring them at first?
In all seriousness, do you ask those questions when you board a plane?
Yes, you should look up Rice's Theorem.
With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that.
Yes, one'd have to hard-code it. It's up to the developer to decide what server to hard-code, obviously. Context will tell what's more appropriate, by I'd gess most big projects would use their own servers.
I bet you don't read 90% of what's written on any subject.
No need to make your applications stop working. Just try the default DNS, and if it fails use another server. Also, cache the failure during the session, so the ISP will lose your metadata.
The registart choice is up to you. Just choose one that offers DNSSEC.
The ISP part is harder, but if applications stopped using their DNS when DNSSEC is not available, they would adopt it in a heart beat.
How is referencing some syntax on google any different from referencing something in a book? Apart from the 8 seconds it takes to look it up on google vs. the 38 seconds it takes to look it up in a book?
Unless you have just a couple of books, that'll probably take something in the 90-6000 seconds interval. Also, Google can point you into many more "books" than what fits your bookcase. This is one of those cases where a quantitative difference is so big that it becomes a qualitative difference.
The internet is just a terrible source for up-to-date information.
What better source do you know? Do you know how we used to find up-to-date information before the Internet? We didn't, we relied on months old printed articles or years old books.
Nope, there's no easy way to remove Kerberos dependency on time synchronization.
The only thing needing notice is that Kerberos requires closks to be synced within about a second (could be increased to a few minutes of error easily), while NFS reuires a few miliseconds of error at most.
No idea at all.
I'm calling it Red-Hattitis, expecting it to be a kind of mental disorder. But if somebody does really know what's the cause, I'l love to hear.
RFID is still easier than either OCRng tags or silikscreening QR codes. It lasts way more than the clothes, it can be read on both sides, it's faster to read, and it can be read while wrapped. Also, it can be mass produced, easily fixed, and given a meaning only after the fact.