GraemeLion

6 ms·

1.
by GraemeLion 9y ago
The only thing I can guess is they thought that to succeed in convergence, they would have to win the phone market, and that was the harder market to design for and react to. So, they built for that and tried to win the hardware developers
2.
by GraemeLion 9y ago
https://vizzzion.org/blog/2016/10/plasmas-road-ahead/ Global Menu being implemented in KDE 5.9.
3.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
It seems I run into far less assholes driving for Lyft, though. Maybe their QC is better? EDIT: I mean, they can start out driving for both, but if you get fired by Lyft, you can't ever come back in most cases.
4.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
Did you request this with your plugin/addon developers, or with mozilla yourself through their many methods of contact for this if you are a plugin/addon developer? I don't get why addon/plugin developers not communicati
5.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
Firefox is not removing those plugins. Vimperator has an issue in it's github referring to e10s and webextensions from 2015. It was commented upon a few times through 2015, more in 2016, and obviously more now. Nobody ever started mo
6.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
Partially because when Mozilla initially said "XUL is going away, what do you guys need?" Everyone just laughed at them and said "No, it's not, you'll never replace it because it is too important in extensions&quot
7.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
See, I don't think it was poorly communicated by the Mozilla team. I've been reading their volunteer emails and their public facing blogs, and seeing their commentary on e10s all along. What HAS been a problem is that they keep p
8.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
But this is not a secret. This has been discussed repeatedly for at least 5 years now. The current XUL methodology CANNOT sustain, and everyone knew this. But everyone also knew Mozilla was famous for putting off being confrontational, so
9.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
There's no option to outright buy a property. I might not want a loan because I can purchase the property for list. While tax benefits factor into loan interest and what not, purchasing outright allows for a much better roi.
10.
by GraemeLion 10y ago
The other side to that argument is, people who are wronged by Gawker need at least a billionaire to be able to get their day in court. It should concern you that it took money from an outside source to get an alledged wrong by a massive com
11.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
True, but to be fair, their power has GREATLY diminished from what it was back in the days of the Robber Barons. It seems like they have a lot of control because we get to see behind the curtain now more than ever, but it's way less ho
12.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
There were rumblings about a company that could do this weeks ago. Snowden brought up it was possible, and likely even hit upon the method. I think the "mysterious third party" absolutely exists. I just think that the plan all alo
13.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
Why would the company used have any responsbility? Remember, the phone is owned by San Bernadino county. They wanted it cracked. The holder was the San Bernadino Sherrifs', they want it cracked. The FBI wants it cracked. The judge iss
14.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
Somewhat agree, but Apple DID have a court order they were fighting. They did choose to fight this legally adjudicated and issued order. The owner of the phone and the law enforcement both wanted the phone decrypted. FWIW, I agree that priv
15.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
None.
16.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.
17.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
There was an active warrant allowing it.
18.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
Apple has, as part of the case, admitted that data access was obtained by the FBI. Unless they're in on it too, of course.
19.
by GraemeLion 11y ago
Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious a
20.
by GraemeLion 14y ago
OH! Right :D Yes, I mean you can go on ad nauseum with it, definitely. But RMS is saying he's a better person because of this one singular thing. He's the one who makes the claim that he's better than me because he uses 100% free softwa
21.
by GraemeLion 14y ago
I've found the whole rubyist community to be somewhat hateful towards any other languages. It makes it hard to want to use the language when the suggestions I get on my "gems" are "that's not ruby-enough of a name" or "You need to break ou
22.
by GraemeLion 14y ago
But it's not . I agree that his computer has 100% free software, and that's a good thing. But he paid for that 100% free software by sacrificing good care of workers. And when he paints his laptop and computing as "more ethical" than oth
23.
by GraemeLion 14y ago
Its actually kinda gotten nicer. IN the past, one RMS zealot would litter your project's mailing lists with inane ramblings if you even DARED approach businesses. Then those kids got out of college and had to figure out how to solve probl
24.
by GraemeLion 14y ago
The one that strikes me as the most obvious is the RMS one. Richard Stallman goes out of his way to scream at people because "software must be free", and he points to his laptop , which has 100% free software on it. That's admirable.. but