devcpp

Woah what the fuck. Thank God I don't have to use this crappy browser except for a few pages that break in FF.

Chrome lets you install .crx extensions on your own too, although it's harder.

Not that I like the proprietary Chrome or the fauxpen Chromium...

Most people would be okay with plaintext content sitting on your server and even publicly accessible by anyone.

But this is HN, and we wouldn't use even an AES-512-encrypted service if it has to leave our computers. Our password could still be cracked with enough computing power. So, we'd all be extremely happy if you could make a version for paranoid people like us.

Also, I don't know how your indexing works, but please make it easy to backup (just allowing us to define the index folder would do). Possible data loss is the tradeoff with local content.

>It seems the naysayers are doing nothing to try and change the situation

You can thank the naysayers for serious research, otherwise people would just come up with stupid abstract ideas since no one would be skeptical or pessimistic.

I agree with your second point, but I also think we shouldn't rush for a temporary solution that would give people a feeling of "we have at least done something about this, now let's stop worrying about it". Startup culture shouldn't apply to public- or crowd-funded solutions.

The view makes sense. We don't want it to happen because it's unlikely to go well. But if it does happen that corporations acquire power, we express our wish that it goes well, however unlikely that is.

Single features don't make up my mind when choosing an OS. By that logic, the only deciding UI feature would be a mechanism to switch between tasks. I don't think anyone will stop using Windows because of the lack of widgets or of a find feature or of a crappy task manager.

You want a cost/benefit criteria? How about (number of people who care) * (how much they care) instead of just (number of people who care)?

What's so awesome about Android is that Google can't reject you, since you can just install any APKs you want. If you can't appreciate that (among all the other freedom features, like root, ADB, customization, etc), you don't really get Android's philosophy.

The entire American tip culture seems very weird to me as a Frenchman, where it is always included as a fixed percentage in the price. It looks to me like every waiter becomes a beggar when it's time to pay. Some of them are outraged when you pay too little; other times someone leaves a huge tip because he liked the waitress and the other waiters feel bad. It's just an unfair lottery and it's always awkward anyway.

Even the logic of promoting good service seems useless. The manager could easily take care of that (it's kind of his job) and if for some rare reason I had a bad experience, I can voice my opinion and not come back.

Post-Microsoft Bill Gates*

I will never completely excuse him in my mind for what he did as the CEO of Microsoft in the 90s in the name of profit. No matter how much he gives back. After all, we still suffer from it today.

Don't blame it on bad intentions. It just happens to be four 1920x1080 screens for scaling purposes. Much like bytes and kibibytes. I'm okay with this.

So much argument... I can't believe some people get this offended by simple words. In this case, Miley doesn't even deny it, she's trying hard to give that image, so it's really childish to complain about it.

I hate this attitude that makes people watch their words. It may be true of public and influential personalities, but who cares your choice of words as long as you convey the message? I believe that everything and everyone can be laughed at.

Sure, you may feel offended inside. But you should at least understand that it makes no sense and refrain from sharing your "I'm offended" feelings. Same thing goes for the other end of the spectrum by the way: you can be sexist but as long as you don't act on it, I don't see a problem. That's what freedom is about.

Same way the NSA would be regulated against spying on the general population: remove money from the equation.

Think about it, the only reason Comcast is doing all this is so they can charge premium fees on certain services. If you don't allow them to do so (which is very easy to enforce, as customers can report such pricing policies), they have no incentive to be against net neutrality.

This is why the current status quo has worked for so long: ISPs have no way to legally make profits out of "premium" traffic, so they (generally) don't apply outrageous QoS measures. Money is the only incentive, and removing that incentive solves the problem without the need for active policing.

>Companies like Comcast have no interest in slowing down web site traffic

Yeah? How about money?

As a comms engineer, I too think about the technical implications of this.

But you have to remember that the people who push for the abolition of net neutrality are mainly the finances guys, i.e the ones responsible for bringing as much money as possible to the company. And when you put yourself in their shoes, all of a sudden you get dreams of Comcast turning the Internet into the same kind of market it has in cable television. And you very quickly forget about QoS, bandwidth, latency and the job of "delivering the bits" and just think in terms of profits. You wouldn't know what most of those terms mean anyway...

Also makes me much more trustful about the openness of Atom. Much better than the closed development processes that I usually see from big corporations (e.g Google, Apple, Samsung, EA, at their respective open-source websites).

>This is why we can't have nice things

More like this is why we can't have nice promises. Promises, on their own, are useless. Why should you get the PR boost from an openness promise if you don't actually end up fulfilling it? This is pretty much like false advertising, where you promise some aspects of a product and end up delivering something different. No matter your excuse, this is wrong and unfair to competitors.

But business is business and companies still end up making those weak promises to grab some more market share.

Well, the decision to make electricity forbidden was a mix of building (by closing a circuit, not relevant to 100% capacitive systems), spark (ditto), heating and adding power consumption. There is some debate as to whether those last two still always apply to 100% capacitive devices (as this is important to Israeli soldiers and hospital workers).

But ultimately, most Rabbis know that these reasons have mainly been brought up to avoid making those "holy days" look like other days by allowing the use of computers, microwaves and so on, so it's not just going to go. Every practicing Jew has thought about it. Many hope our Rabbis change their mind one day, seeing how hard life without electricity has/will become and how plausible solutions may exist.

Are we sure she knew about it?

>violating the secret and illegal non-solicitation compact

It doesn't say anywhere whether she actually knew about this. That would change my reaction from completely horrified to just utterly disgusted.

And 'rogue' is a... unique way to put it. It's not like she disclosed it to the press so it's a pretty tame rogue.

Legally, you're right. But if you were one of Oculus's founders and you were not a hypocrite, this would be a good way to promote Kickstarters like yours.

Disclaimer: I have never used Kickstarter myself, and this one more data point against doing so. But I'm just pointing out what would be right.

Disney had extensive successful experience with animated movies prior to acquiring Pixar.

Facebook with games? HN's community and most people who would buy something solely for games would disagree. But who knows, maybe we'll see Facebook operate a successful diversification strategy by perfectly catering to both casuals and hardcore gamers. Unlikely but one can dream...

People can just look at the cached version of this page on Google over SSL, I doubt they will ban Google...

Thanks for your reply.

>Unity is not related to standards in any way

I know, I mentioned it. I believe a standard at least has some practical positive impact, unlike the integration of a particular closed platform.

>web content was always non-open

It's true that obfuscated JavaScript makes, in a way, a closed platform, but much less so, in my belief, than straight-up binary code (which Unity delivers and EME enables).

I get your overall point, but it just seems a slippery slope...

>Mozilla doesn't believe an Open Web precludes proprietary applications

By definition, it must. It's a slippery slope and it's the reason Mozilla is vehemently against EME. The rest of that line sounds like nonsense to me in that context.

>The point has also already been made that this makes it possible for Unity games to run on open platforms without requiring closed source blobs.

Awesome, the joys of running proprietary software on Linux. Ah, why even have a FOSS OS then? Ditch it and get Windows! /s

And by then it's too late and becomes painfully difficult to go back.

Examples: Linux, FirefoxOS. On the other hand, no DRM in HTML leads to the platform still being free.

It's easy to integrate proprietary solutions but it's incredibly hard to remove them. IT is way easier to not adopt them in the first place. In that regard, proprietary software is similar to AIDS.

>First, Mozilla has and does assist in the creation of FOSS game engines and tools

Parent comment didn't imply the contrary. "stop promoting nonfree software" doesn't mean "stop only promoting nonfree software".

>even the LGPL shows that absolute avoidance is not always the best thing to do regarding closed-source code

If you ask the FSF, the LGPL should really be used as a last resort. Unity is not too common yet (and hopefully will never be as long as it remains proprietary), so I don't see why we should push it forward by helping its integration. Same goes for HTML5's EME. I'd rather have a purely open platform with less features and popularity than a platform with an open base and countless incompatible binary blobs sitting onto it. And even the abomination that EME is would at least be an actual standard.

>Unity engine is a proprietary codebase, they also have lots of code that is FOSS

If you can't build it, it's not worth integrating. The only thing this is good for is making a FOSS alternative (although I guess they keep the important bits secret). I'd be using Google Chrome if "99% open source" was good enough. By using Firefox (though Chromium would be fine if it weren't for the user-hostile features), I precisely want to keep a clean FOSS platform. Conversely, I only use an Android ROM because there's no good alternative, which is not the case for Unity. So I wish they'd keep it out for now.

I disagree, we already have watches with weak processors (e.g Pebble) but they lack features. Android can bring those, and ARM processors are powerful enough.

Indeed, the only difference between an Android watch and a full-size smartphone would be the smaller casing. The largest component nowadays is the battery, which can be greatly reduced thanks to the smaller screen.

So, I don't see a major obstacle to an Android watch, and the benefits of it are worth the CPU. Of course temperature will be a concern but I'm sure demand will produce lower-powered CPUs powerful enough to run Android.

You could pretend they were perceived as a threat for Facebook and Facebook just bought the peace of knowing they have no remotely significant threat other than Google+.

Although, knowing Facebook, I have a really hard time just taking this guy's word for it. I won't be installing Whatsapp until it's both free software and has end-to-end encryption. I'll tolerate it being centralized because Facebook/NSA having our metadata would be acceptable while we wait for a better alternative.

You can fully disable these apps in Settings and you won;t see them again anywhere. As for the space, unlike iOS, you can install another OS with Gapps at all.

UI performance woes? Coming from an iPhone 3GS, it's flawless to me. As for battery, it fits my bill and it's the price to pay for the huge screen.

CM is not Android, it's AOSP-based. Android is closed source but it's very similar to AOSP. Same goes for Chrome/ium and Chrome/ium OS.

You can indeed say that most mobile users are on a proprietary OS and most desktop users are on a proprietary browser.

Well, it is a publicly-traded company now. When a shareholder sees the opportunity to make a dime, he'll seize it.

If people aren't willing to, nope. This is a slippery slope and we can't afford to pay every employee of dying professions forever.

I think utilities and reasonable physical safety and healthcare should be paid for by the people. But for the rest, the free market will work better than an infinity of laws and incentives to put people in a corner to pay up. Money, uh, finds a way...