Why wouldn't they believe in protecting their customers privacy? In Apple's case there is no conflict of interest to make you doubt that statement. If it came from Google or Facebook I would be more skeptical.
I agree, thinking the politicians can handle anything is naive. Politicians seldom make the situation better, mostly they make it worse while enriching themselves.
Socialism don't work in the Nordic countries either. In Denmark where I am from we were in the top 5 richest countries only 60 years ago, before we introduced the Welfare State. Back then we actually had lower taxes than in the US.
Since then we have been sliding fast down that list, so we are today around 20th place. We now have an absurd situation where a small minority of ~33% in the private sector has to pay for ~66% of people on welfare or working in the public sector. And we are past the point of no return, we can not make any reforms to cut the public sector or welfare, because the majority is obviously against.
A high earner often pays 80% counting both taxes and levies/duties. It has killed almost all initiative in Denmark. People prefer time off instead of working extra hours, we are one of the countries with the lowest amount of entrepreneurs percent wise, like in France young people and entrepreneurs are fleeing the country in hordes.
I myself moved to Switzerland to start my startup.
We're on a website called "Hacker News." We have the ability to make innumerable improvements to the way governments work. There is no reason to pick 1, 2, or 3. We can have anything in between. We can make something new, we can figure shit out. Not that it'll be easy, but we can...and we should.
All I'm reading in this thread is:" ______ system of government isn't perfect, so our only option is to keep doing what we have been doing even though we know it sucks."
60 years ago, Denmark was one of the few industrialized countries other than the United States which was not extremely devastated and still in the rebuilding process after WW2...
I'm also from Denmark, and I find it hilarious that you think it's a problem that people prioritise free time. Do you think that all a society should aspire towards is to have people working as hard as they possibly can? To what end? So that a few people can get so rich that they (and their heirs) don't have to work hard while the rest of us do? Isn't it a testament to the success of the nordic model that most people, not just the elite few, can afford to prioritise leisure?
Your statement about how 66% of the population is payed for by the private sector is not only not right, it's not even wrong. It assumes that the public sector does not create any wealth at all. But obviously it does. And all the money that is spent in the public sector, eventually ends up in the pockets of private citizens or companies in the private sector. The public sector is as much a boon to the private sector as it is a burden.
There has been a lot of growth in the States and the UK over the last 40 years. yet within both of those countries inequality has grown a lot. Few people under 40 can afford to buy a house in the UK these days, as opposed to 20 or thirty years ago.
Maybe I am just more politically aware than I used to be but I feel discontent is rising.
Heh, exactly my thought when I saw the headline. As a webdeveloper since 1995, I can only say "phew, finally" - that browser probably cost me 2-3 years of my life, spent hacking various webprojects to make them work in IE.
March 1998, and it underwent a pretty well-publicized rewrite as well... Firefox is not built on top of what was released back then (Communicator 4.x); it's built on top of its rewrite.
I cannot believe that Seamonkey still lives! In fact they just had a release a week ago. And by looking at the features, I think you are right. Netscape lives on as Seamonkey in its most complete form.
Some of us remember times before Opera, Galeon et al. (and I am one of those people who actually paid for Internet Explorer when it only shipped with the Windows 95 Plus Pack).
I remember the day IE introduced Javascript (v.3 I think it was) & going round chatrooms that let you post HTML and griefing with inline images.
IE was very forgiving with its HTML engine. There was a time when missing a /td or /tr would leave you with a blank page in Netscape but IE rendered the page just fine. This led to hundreds of websites that only rendered in IE because that's what people checked them with.
So in this way it was the "best" browser because you needed it to browse half of the web!
IE 4 was far and away the best browser in its day. Nothing else was as fast and as reliable. Netscape had devolved into a steaming pile of garbage which had horrible resource usage problems aside from being massively unstable. Other competing browsers weren't much better than netscape either. It wasn't until years later that things changed.
But Netscape ran cross-platform, without which the WWW would have devolved into a Windows-only niche product. And that would have meant the only tablets today would be running Windows.
I don't think that follows. Also, it's not as though Netscape didn't have it's moments either. There was a time where it was better, a time where IE was better, a time where firefox was better, a time where chrome was better, and so on. Time marches on.
The original idea came from ActiveX, but it didn't take off until it was implemented across browsers via JavaScript as XMLHttpRequest over the next 6 years, and didn't become "Ajax" until the Adaptive Path blog post about Google's innovations with Maps and Gmail in 2005. Microsoft then added support for XMLHttpRequest a year and a half later in late 2006 with IE7, which of course had very little adoption, particular among businesses, because of IE6 (see IE6 @ 49.8% and IE7 @ 17.1% IE market share at beginning, March 2007, of this graph: http://www.w3counter.com/trends).
IE4 was the first browser with dynamic HTML (DHTML).
Microsoft evangelized the combination of DHTML, Javascript and ActiveX data controls to build applications similar to what we now call AJAX. Microsoft was ignored for various reasons.
Microsoft introduced XMLHttpRequest and evangelized DHTML, Javascript and XMLHttpRequest. They were ignored again.
It was not until the introduction of Gmail and Adaptive Path's coining of the term AJAX that people finally got it. By this time, Microsoft had already put IE on the back burner.
Isn't this just a marketing stunt? The article contains no engineering facts, just the branding thing. I mean: I expect the "new IE" to inherit code and practices from the "old IE". Unless I'm proven otherwise.
While this is true, there isn't really a common browser distribution that uses that setup for non-OS X platforms, though. Chrome/Chromium/Opera use Blink now.
For all practical purposes, Safari is an OS X-only browser.
"Safari" aka WebKit + JavaScriptCore is also on iOS with a separate UI from OS X "Safari," similar to how you'd have a separate UI if you use WebKit + JavaScriptCore on Windows.
Whether it's popular on Windows is also irrelevant with regard to the fact that it does, indeed, work on Windows.
Speaking from practical experience, iOS' Safari is quite a different beast from the desktop version. `position:fixed` in a scrollable, element, for example, has completely different behaviors depending on the platform Safari is running on. You have to treat desktop Safari and iOS Safari as different browsers for development and QA purposes.
Windows Phone uses Trident + Chakra for its IE deployment, as well, so if we're going to make that argument, then IE is multiplatform, as well :P
It's available, but it's not used. I get what you're driving at here, but for practical purposes, Safari-OSX is a single-platform browser and Safari-iOS is another single-platform browser. You can't just target "Webkit" and call it a day.
I don't know what Modern IE is other than a testable version of IE. No version of IE is respectable since it can't hold a candle to any other major browser.
While it is mostly marketing (i.e. still using Chakra and Trident engines), the biggest change from a web developer's perspective is that the new Spartan browser will be evergreen[1].
EdgeHTML.dll is just a fork of mshtml.dll, which started somewhere after IE11 and stripped out all the compatibility modes (except quirks and limited-quirks, both of which are starting to get properly standardised) and then started refactoring the code to get rid of all the less nice design decisions caused by having to keep the IE7 code working through a bunch of ifs.
IE has been evergreen since version 10. The biggest change is that this is not Trident. It is a new rendering engine, called EdgeHTML, which started as a fork of Trident. That might sound odd, but Trident and the rest of IE had accumulated years of technical and backwards-compatibility debt: All the different document modes and obscure features from the ActiveX era that couldn't be removed because enterprise intranet sites relied on them.
So what Microsoft have done is create an entirely new browser, using the EdgeHTML fork, while keeping IE around only for enterprise installs. Then they went on a killing spree in the EdgeHTML source, ripping out all the crap that they were previously stuck with, then adding new features into their newly cleaned-up codebase. This will then form the basis for the new, consumer facing browser in Windows 10.
They should have done this EdgeHTML rewrite/legacy cruft split with IE9 rather than layering on more kludges.
They should eliminated native code apps in user mode in Vista and forced developers to ship only managed code with legacy native code apps running in a virtual machine sandbox.
They should have finished WinFS and transcended the files and folders thang. (No, SQL Server does not count as WinFS, it should have been THE file system in Vista.) They should have fixed the file locking thing on open files, geez I hate hate hate that DOS backwards compatibility.
They should have done something/ANYTHING amazing with WinCE beyond pocket office with the insane lead they had. I was running .exe's and playing DOOM at a decent clip on my Samsung phone in, when, 2004?
There's so many wouldda couldda shoulddas I have lined up in my mind wrt Microsoft. Makes me sad.
I truly hope Microsoft wants to win this new browser war. I truly hope there is some fire left in you M$. Show me what money combined with hardcore computer science can really achieve!
Hm yeah, I must admit I have a hard time understanding the high pricing on cloud storage. I always end up comparing to something like OVH storage servers, and cloud storage seems way overpriced..
Based on the prices I can see on OVH's website you're not going to be able to hit 1c/gigabyte with many nines of durability. And thats ignoring the cost of operating the service yourself.
Nice! ZX81 was my first computer. I didn't even have the tape storage. I just typed some program in from a magazine and left it on for a couple of days. I even got the Lampda 16K memory expansion, which was a big external module mounted on the back :)
I wonder why they didn't choose Go in the first place. Both languages were introduced in 2009, I remember evaluating both, and choosing Go because it was clearly superiour when the goal was serverside, speed, stability, maintenance and simplicity.
>So only now that FB is on board it is real? Sony, Valve, Microsoft and god knows what other big companies, who were working hard on VR, wasn't real?
In a word, yes. Why? Because tech innovation is different from social change.
As of GDC 2013, it was obvious to early adopters that VR was closer than had been believed, and that there was a realistic road-map to getting there thanks to Oculus and Valve. However, there was no way to know whether mass market adoption would happen because the Rift DK1 still made lots of people nauseous, and non VR-o-philes could legitimately claim that it was just a bunch of dorks with ugly boxes on their heads. I mean, how pathetic is that? It could be mocked in the same way that the Segway was mocked, but that the Z-Board is not. Segway == loser dork. Z-Board == cool(ish). To be fair, I have a Rift DK1, and it's a great first step -- much better than any consumer level VR device I've seen in the last 15 years.
I didn't go to GDC 2014 last week, but this was also a huge tipping point. Two of my co-workers who had been debilitated by DK1 nausea just bought DK2's on the spot. That points to Oculus having removed a big obstacle to adoption. People aren't going to adopt something that makes them barf.
Sony has been working on headsets for over a decade, but has failed to deliver on the promise of VR until just now -- after being goaded by Oculus. So, yeah, competition's good, but these guys failed and failed in part because the world still wasn't ready for VR and they didn't want to commit the resources to this.
This move by Facebook signals that the world is or will soon be ready for VR. People who don't "get" VR will be like people who don't see the benefit in texting. Entitled to their opinion, but a diminishing fringe.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/17/apples-new-japan-r...