slowpoke

68 ms·

451.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> I look forward to the day when an algorithm tells me my taste buds prefer extra spicy beef panda express, order now and have it air delivered to you in ten minutes. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's degenerate, plain and simply. If th
452.
by slowpoke 15y ago
That would make him closer to Dennis Ritchie, eh?
453.
by slowpoke 15y ago
This. It's the most important thing to stretch by far. One can definitely argue about whether or not people using Facebook should be allowed to complain that they are giving their data to them. I do not use Facebook. They still try to get
454.
by slowpoke 15y ago
Or better (as in, sturdier, not necessarily more powerful) and more compatible hardware. Also, I can't see any good reason at all to put Windows on any PC, but that's another story ;).
455.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I'm saying that "financial incentives" is no valid argument to excuse the stuff that G+ and Facebook do, and so far it is the only. Do we justify all shady, if not borderline criminal business with "financial incentives"? Besides, there hav
456.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> The problem is that Secure Boot may remove the option of buying a Windows PC and then at some later time deciding that you want to run an open source operating system on it from those who weren't thinking about open source operating s
457.
by slowpoke 15y ago
It's not nearly as irresponsible as countless of companies straight out ignoring or even denying security breaches while trying to shoot the messenger. The sad truth is, you can only make these companies move by hurting them. Another sa
458.
by slowpoke 15y ago
>There is a HUGE financial incentive to force people into using their real names. "Financial incentive" is not, or rather, should not be a valid argument, ever. Especially not for infringing on fundamental principles of personal rights
459.
by slowpoke 15y ago
It's not. You seem to have misread the article. moot's saying that it's important "who you share as" not "who you share with". G+ doesn't allow you to have multiple identities, it allows you to share in different contexts with the same iden
460.
by slowpoke 15y ago
You're completely missing the point. Nobody is saying or implying that people are perfect. Rather, it's the opposite - we acknowledge that people are imperfect - and that's exactly why we need anonymity and different identities. moot also
461.
by slowpoke 15y ago
Congratulations on not getting what I was saying. But carry on, I'm out.
462.
by slowpoke 15y ago
>While in theory it's nice that people can run any application they wish, in practice, it sucks. While in theory it is nice that people enjoy essential liberties, in practice, they suck. Franklin sends his regards. > it won't steal
463.
by slowpoke 15y ago
Just look at the removable of co.cc a while ago. While they had some reason (malicious subdomains etc), it was still highly arbitrary and kicked out a lot of legit sites too.
464.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I think this too will fade with time as gaming moves to the tablet/other platforms. My prognosis is that the only people using desktop machines in the future will be scientists, professions performing heavy computing and programmers/develop
465.
by slowpoke 15y ago
Seeing as Metro/Win8 is MS last desperate push to enter the market for tablets that in the near future will replace the market where they currently hold almost all their monopolies (the desktop), that's a very accurate description of what w
466.
by slowpoke 15y ago
First off, excellent post. Honestly, I find it quite baffling that people think (or imply) that you need some commercially backed, locked down system to assure software quality. It's simply not true, it's quite the opposite actually. The op
467.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> But Minecraft and Angry Birds show that it's easier than ever for a single person/small team to create and sell an extremely successful game. More so, they prove (again) that the technology arms race in today's video games is utterly
468.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I disagree heavily. Treating more and more people like they are idiots in all areas of life is the reason we've become a lethargic, consume-drunken shade of society. This needs to stop. We need to force people to think. Think for themselves
469.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> What, exactly, is the definition of "meaningless" here? Convenience means nothing without freedom. > Customising your search engine beyond a choice of search providers that >95% of users use is not basic functionality. Oh yes
470.
by slowpoke 15y ago
The fact that you are willing to trade away freedom for meaningless and short-term convenience does not necessarily qualify you as a sane man. Also, "blocks basic functionality for absolutely no reason whatsoever" is not - or rather, should
471.
by slowpoke 15y ago
>Assuming Apple maintains its policy of only allowing the Big 3 (Google, Bing, Yahoo) as default search engines in iOS I know I will probably get downvoted for this, but here you have another glaring example why closed and locked system
472.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I can support this. Even trivialities like a (slightly) miss-categorized !bang got fixed in hours.
473.
by slowpoke 15y ago
Definitely agree. I set DDG as Firefox' default search engine (about:config --> keyword.URL) and it has come to the point that searching with the dedicated search bar has begun feeling clunky. I think there are no important sites which
474.
by slowpoke 15y ago
>and can't stand Python/Ruby/C#/OtherNewFangledLanguage types Can you not stand them because you tried them and decided that they don't fit you, or because you refuse to acknowledge progress? I won't commit an appeal to novelty by claim
475.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> Personally, if you can get one pedophile or terrorist I wouldn't care if the whole police of Germany would share my Jena Jameson collection. In Germany we call this line of "argument" the "Kinderpornokeule" (which roughly translates t
476.
by slowpoke 15y ago
> If you are selling software product Well then, there is your problem. Your business model does no longer work (or rather, is slowly but inevitably failing) - you cannot force people to pay for the distribution of infinitely copyable d
477.
by slowpoke 15y ago
>We "refuse to be terrorized" but instead we give up liberties like they are tumors that we will gladly shed to increase our perceived chances of survival. I don't know if it is appropriate here on HackerNews, but there's this one Philo
478.
by slowpoke 15y ago
You're arguing definitions while the grandparent argues features. I do believe that emacs can be considered on par with an IDE in terms of possible features. I personally prefer vim, but that's a completely different story.
479.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I don't think you need a CS degree to enjoy this. I'm a CS student, and I did. :)
480.
by slowpoke 15y ago
I do believe there is some positive wisdom to be found in the bible - especially in the teachings of Jesus, and I tell you that as an agnostic atheist. Pity only a tiny fraction of the people who call themselves Christians actually act on t

More ›