WTF? You are the one insane...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
>"Not depending on which display so much, but with LCD displays, depending more on what angle you are looking at. Look at it straight on, and the dress is white and gold"
Well, in my case, when I look at the photo in any light, on any monitor, at any angle, at any time, I have and have always seen only light blue and brown/gold. There is no situation where it is either "blue and black" or "white and gold".
The question is what we see in the photo, not what the dress ACTUALLY is- we can't know that because all we are allowed to see is a [poor] PHOTO of the dress, not the actual dress. And it is obvious the camera white balance and exposure is way off, trying to compensate for something, resulting in a photo with a probably very false representation.
> "We needed a plan to make it easy for Web developers to build compatible sites regardless of which browser they develop first for."
Can you even IMAGINE Microsoft saying that 15 years ago? 10 years ago? So is it because they are a better company now before... or is it just because they have no choice but to cooperate (since people left IE in droves for Firefox, Opera, and Chrome)?
>" They also explain how they decided against using WebKit so they wouldn't contribute to "a monoculture on the Web."
Oh right.... because Microsoft would never want to support a monoculture... Hmm... I need to go find some Twilight Zone episodes to watch, now.
That is not a real smart watch. There is no matrix display, no text, graphics, no apps. I wouldn't be able to see my appointments, no notifications, no weather info, no Email, no voice response, no wikipedia lookup, just time.
>Waiting for a 2+ year battery life which is what I expect of my watches.
I assume you are joking? A "dumb" watch battery life can't be compared to a smart watch. And if you are seriously waiting for a year year battery life, you will be waiting decades (or longer). Of course, if all you want is time/date and maybe an alarm or stopwatch, then you should be fine with a traditional watch.
Meanwhile, I have been VERY happy with my Moto 360 and its 2-day battery life. As long as I can reliably get 24 hours, which is extremely easy on the 360, I (and most people) are set.
The e-ink (and now color e-ink) in the Pebble is what makes it neat and interesting, not the [claimed 1 week] battery life. But I will still choose the 360 over it every time (speed, style, functionality, compatibility, etc).
I think you hit on the solution: A hard power switch.
And better yet, also add: A hard microphone switch and a physical shutter for the cameras. I wouldn't mind having a hard radio switch and/or GPS switch too.
No software can work around that when you need real privacy.
>"Ubuntu is now the leading cloud and scale-out Linux-based operating system"
More than CentOS/RHEL? I would want to see real numbers to back up that claim or at least a clarification of their definitions.
I agree that the results are interesting and the three possibilities you listed are exactly what I considered (except that in #3, you don't have to be altered to have no accidents
Here are some other confounds and factors off the top of my head without even thinking about it very much:
* If any people were THC high (which we don't know and isn't even defined), it doesn't relate HOW altered they might be and how that relates to safety.
* I doubt there were many controls for all possible other chemical factors that could be present beyond alcohol and THC (cold medications, dozens of other illicit drugs, etc).
* One can be altered in such a way that causes OTHER (non-altered) people to have more accidents even if the THC-positive people don't (for example, driving too slowly or staying in the wrong lane, causing other people to get irritated and more aggressive/dangerous (this seems to be common with "older" drivers, for example)).
> So, wait... The THC-positive group, you are saying, would have included both people who are sober and people who are high?
The group might have even contained NOBODY that was high. We simply don't know. The presence of THC metabolite doesn't mean someone is high/altered at the time the sample was taken.
> So, then, if they were only including people in that group who were actually high, there would be a much smaller number of accidents in the group? Got it.
No. And I don't see how anyone could logically reach that strange conclusion. The article concludes that "Marijuana Use Doesn't Increase Auto Crash Rates" and probably 99.9% of people would read that as "being high on marijuana doesn't cause any additional danger when driving" and the study proves no such thing at all.
>So, you are saying it's possible that the 'high' drivers in the sample hadn't actually smoked any pot before driving their car. So what?
In the study, there is no evidence that ANY of the drivers were high. Only that at some point they were exposed to or consumed THC.
>Let me guess, for one reason or another, you don't smoke pot.
What I choose to or not to do has nothing to do with my posting, which is based on fact, logic, and reason... not emotion.
The study is relatively meaningless because it wasn't collecting data about people who were HIGH on marijuana, but people who tested positive for having consumed it at some point. It could have been many hours ago or even days ago.
The conclusion reached by the horrible article is outright wrong and doesn't even have face validity. In fact, it is actually irresponsible and could cause society great harm by spreading possibly wrong information about the dangers of driving while altered.
>Also, don't crash constantly.
Hmm, Linux Firefox almost never crashes here, and I run it for many weeks at a time with many dozens of tabs and windows open at a time.
Yes, well, that and this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... (Classic Theme Restorer)
But why should the basic UI choices be an addon while they add useless stuff like developer tools, voice chat, text chat, etc directly into the program? Seems very backwards to me.
Oh and one thing I left off the list that is perhaps the most important and likely never to be added:
>"Firefox Succeeded In Its Goal -- But What's Next?"
Here is what I *HOPE* is next:
1) Stop trying to be and look like Chrome. Just stop.
2) Stop trying to force users to not have tabs on bottom, having a menu bar, having separate buttons, etc. Let users control their user interface how they want.
3) Remove all that developer stuff that 99.99% of users don't use or care about and put it in an addon.
4) Remove all that chat and conferencing stuff that 99% of users don't care about and put that also in an addon.
5) Focus on speed, security, stability, bug-fixing, and documentation. You don't have to be a feature-of-the-month club.
6) Continue to support as many platforms and systems as possible, including old ones.
Oh- and thank you for all the hard work that went into Firefox- the browser of my choice (and that for my users, family, and friends) for the last decade.
>"Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox,Phoronix notes how it has been a long time since last hearing of any major innovations or improvements to VirtualBox"
And this surprises anyone? This is what happened with most everything Oracle acquired from Sun- they poisoned everything. It is what they do best. It is also why OpenOffice was forked.
Fortunately, VirtualBox still works very well... for now. And I, for one, like that it is stable.