anon1385

84 ms·

691.
by anon1385 12y ago
>Focusing on governments seems like a good focus. They aren't really focusing on governments plural, just government singular: the US government. To comply with US law these American companies must provide information about non-US u
692.
by anon1385 12y ago
Most users are not technically savvy enough to have the choice to stop 'using' Google Analytics. Is it really possible to exercise a choice about something when you don't even know it exists?
693.
by anon1385 12y ago
Doesn't that apply to FirefoxOS as well? You can't write a JIT in Javascript. So for example Google wouldn't be able to port Chrome with V8 to FirefoxOS, as far as I know.
694.
by anon1385 12y ago
The issue that started of this thread was: >I've always wondered whether Google ever digs into communications in a situation where they're trying to decide whether to acquire a company. It seems like reading a company's em
695.
by anon1385 12y ago
Here you go: http://www.wired.com/2010/09/google-spy/ In brief, a sex predator was working at Google and accessing the email accounts, GTalk and Google Voice accounts of minors to manipulate them. Considering
696.
by anon1385 12y ago
>Search quality evaluation can't really be done without humans in the loop. I wasn't talking about search though. I was talking about the map rendering.
697.
by anon1385 12y ago
>This is very similar to what we do with the search box: we choose Google as the default because we think they're the best default for the users, not because they got to us first or paid us the most Is there a public record of this
698.
by anon1385 12y ago
>At that time amazing amounts of CPU and engineer time would be spent on verifying the quality of all algorithm and data changes, both during development and during launch. Changes that were unevaluated or were a net negative on quality
699.
by anon1385 12y ago
Well, I've yet to see a video player done in a browser that didn't use the <video> element, or call out to some native plugin (flash, or realplayer, quicktime etc back in the day). I wouldn't be surprised if it had been
700.
by anon1385 12y ago
>Heck, it may even be significantly faster. Without native code, hardware doesn't have to care about backward compatibility any more! Just patch the suitable GCC or LLVM back end, and recompile the brO-Ser. New processors will be ab
701.
by anon1385 12y ago
>What's the long term? The long term is a platform that can feasibly be implemented in higher level, safer languages and still give acceptable performance. We sacrificed that when we decided to put millions of dollars of resources i
702.
by anon1385 12y ago
There are several posts on this page touting the security benefits of PDF.js, and it's almost certainly true that PDF.js is more secure than a new pdf implementation in C or C++ would have been[1]. In the short term PDF.js makes sense.
703.
by anon1385 12y ago
>I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. O wait isn't that GPL? No. The GPL says nothing abo
704.
by anon1385 13y ago
>instead of CVEs we're now getting marketing. Well that is what patio11 and other were calling for after heartbleed. More marketing! More selling yourself! Always be selling!
705.
by anon1385 13y ago
>Is this a joke or he is he just unable to separate "tests" from "test driven development"? I'm not sure I've ever seen a debate about TDD without at least one TDD advocate conflating testing in general with
706.
by anon1385 13y ago
The 'LOLITROLLU' response? At least put some effort into your trolling. Elsewhere in this thread we have people talking about the problem of putting a lot of emotionally immature people with limited ability to emphasise together i
707.
by anon1385 13y ago
>Well, to be fair, the character who initiated the whole thread comes off as rather obnoxious, occasionally rude and offers clearly unreasonable suggestions such as "remove the templates". Sure, I mostly agree with that. I main
708.
by anon1385 13y ago
There was quite a lot of debate about it at the time as far as I recall but the core devs seemed set on it and have since stated that they aren't planing any more syntax changes[1] so I think it's pretty unlikely they will change
709.
by anon1385 13y ago
Well my own personal perspective is that I'd like to live somewhere that I can do gardening, grow veg[1] and sometimes go for a walk and see some wildlife. I'd also like to live in a place where the average age isn't 40 years
710.
by anon1385 13y ago
Just to emphasis that, here is the (former) top man Brendan Eich on the topic: >"Proprietary" as in "sole proprietor" is appropriate for a project with zero governance, launched by Google after some incubation closed-
711.
by anon1385 13y ago
>A codec is an implementation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec "A codec is a device or computer program" and "VP8" is a standard not an implementation (libvpx is an implementation). So the ori
712.
by anon1385 13y ago
>You are, apparently. Why do you think that's what anyone else is talking about? This thread started with the quote "proprietary codecs vs vp8". That is clearly talking about standards not implementations. The very post yo
713.
by anon1385 13y ago
That is a page about software implementations not standards. We are talking about standards. For example, there are various implementations of both H.264 and VP8 that meet that definition of non-proprietary software. The licence of those im
714.
by anon1385 13y ago
None of that changes the fact that it is proprietary. Free to use does not mean the same thing as non-proprietary. The definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by a single corporation (Google), not by a standards body. For examp
715.
by anon1385 13y ago
>proprietary codecs vs vp8 VP8 is proprietary. I'd appreciate it if downvoters could point me towards the standards body that oversees the VP8 standard. Apparently I just missed the news when it was submitted to an independent stand
716.
by anon1385 13y ago
>If Apple and Google put half as much effort into mobile web browsing as they did in proprietary platform development, we'd be further by now. I doubt it. More likely we would have a bunch of browsers that followed an even more dive
717.
by anon1385 13y ago
>do you know all the board members stances on this issue? We do now…
718.
by anon1385 13y ago
>Would a clause in LGPLv3 that exempts the publisher/distributor from limitations beyond their control (console/iOS restrictions) help? I doubt very much that RMS would want to add such a clause. Remember, the GPL and LGPL are
719.
"OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make sure it's exploitable"(article.gmane.org)
497 points by anon1385 13y ago|236 comments
720.
by anon1385 13y ago
>Why being insanely profitable is bad for Apple Microsoft fans have been making this argument for 15 years or more. They said Apple should copy Dell and sell cheap enterprise desktops with low margins because that was where the money wa

More ›