lomegor

At least with Chrome on Linux is really sluggish when scrolling. It's like they have something on place to make the scrolling slower... or a lot of JavaScript code on each scroll event.

I think I've read somewhere that none of the jury's had a Samsung phone or an iPhone and that few of them had smartphones.

I find this strange as it has been explained a lot of times that the reason they will not question him on the UK is because he not only may be arrested after the questioning, but he may need to do more questioning after one round is done. Basically, they need him in Sweden because anything can happens in the questioning. Also, although it has been done in the past (the questioning not in Sweden soil), it wasn't done to the accused but to people related with the case.

Also, did he really said that or are those quotations mark artistic license?

Well, not technically. He isn't being persecuted for being a whistle-blower and there isn't any hard evidence that he is. Of course, you can always assume that all the problems that exist with his extradition and all are caused by his whistle-blowing, but that's not an objective fact.

What I don't get about this change is why. I maybe OK if they did these change saying that users want to find content from webpages with mostly legal content, or that content from those website almost always have better quality. But this is not the case here.

The only thing I can argue here is that they may be doing it to receive fewer takedown requests in Google Search. But I'm not defending them, as that probably isn't the case.

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce these results. I'm not saying they are false, but that maybe they have to do with personalized results for the author. Did you try logging out and doing the same searches? There was a maximum of results from the same page that could be shown (I think it was about five), so I'm not sure how you can get this results.

Also, there's another issue. Even if you get the same webpages all the time, that doesn't mean that those aren't the same results. Especially when webpages today have a lot of different content. I.e. diversity != quality.

One thing I love about zsh that I think bash doesn't have is shared history between terminals. Nothing groundbreaking but it's great if you have multiple terminals enabled.

Also, autocompletion in zsh is vastly superior, especially with options to commands.

That title is really confusing. Samsung is not guaranteeing no one will update to Android 4.0?

There are two possible reasons for this. This most probably is a small patch. just disabling a feature and not removing it completely from the phone; as such, it would not affect drivers and such like other Android updates. The second reason is that it may be just an app update for Search if they have that well separated from the OS, which would mean that it would not change any of the bloatware carries and hardware makers put in.

This article only makes sense if you think that Google did violated Apple's and Oracle patents. Otherwise, it's just trying to shift the blame.

It's seems that what the author has against responding publicly is that he cannot control himself when someone posts a bad review. If you can't do that, then do not respond, it's as simply as that. The rest of us, who want to read discussions between users and developers, and see how developers care about the problems would like to see public responses.

In fact, I think the developers could greatly benefit from public responses by doing PR and by explaining that some bugs have already been fixed or that they are going to be fixed in the next version. Or by explaining that some problem is due to user configuration or at least post a workaround publicly in the store.

Don't get me wrong, some ideas from the post are great. Like upvoting and downvoting, somewhat like many other e-commerce sites that have "Was this answer heplful?". But that doesn't mean that having public responses is a bad idea. Maybe he's not good are answering questions, but the rest of the developers would like to do so. So, no, the lack of a feature is not a feature.

I'll tell you my experience with iOS. I bought an iPod Touch, and there was no way to put music on it. Because I run GNU/Linux the only way I could do that was with a Windows virtual machine.

I click on a link on an e-mail an it opens Safari, when I want to use Opera. I have to kill all the applications living on the down thingy (multi-tasking), although I do know that they may not be using any memory, but they do feel like slowing things down. And of course, I almost lost all my apps, had problems with my iTunes and lot's of other issues when I moved country.

That's not exactly 'just works'.

Of course, YMMV. And that's why we don't use personal examples to say that something is better than the other.

EDIT: OK, not exactly better, but to say something 'just works' or is 'airtight' and things like that. Android works pretty well too.

Just because it's fun, this was posted a few weeks ago on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4099985

Opened the link to see what they thought was broken with some webapages and webdevelopers (i.e. NOT the Internet) and was pleasently surprised with a well thought discussion of the underlying technologies.

Yeah, I don't think it's a serious study (nor that it meant to be), but really fun nonetheless.

Nice project. Are you planning on open source it?

You do realize that by expressing your opinion you opened yourself to the discussion? And I do want to refute your point: some of us do not believe that these private businesses own the culture they or their artists create, and that society has inherent rights to their consumption and distribution.

I'm sorry if I missed the point of the article, or if it seems like it when I say this comment, but I hate it when people say that lacking a feature is a feature; it just seems like a lame excuse.

Probably inside intelligence. It would be really weird otherwise Google announcing their 3D map just before Apple announced theirs.

I meant that are hard to see implemented on websites, not hard to find. Sorry

I find it really incredible that this companies were so careless. Really. I know that security practices are rare to come by, but come on! LinkedIn, eHarmony and last.fm! These are some of the biggest websites.

Google's response: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/setting-rec...

> But even if you wanted to include the "application layer". Who are the women that contributed to developing it?

That's not my point in that part. I was questioning the invention of the Internet as an easy to identify fact, while trying to explain that what we understand from the Internet is much much more than TCP/IP, for example HTTP, SSL, SMTP, IMAP, and many many more. And that's not even counting all the programming languages like HTML, CSS or even JavaScript. On the other end, you have all the different routing algorithms and all the hardware created to support the Internet. Where does it start being the Internet and where does it stop? That's why the list would never stop and/or be enormous.

> No it doesn't. It means that women did not contribute to the invention of the Internet. Anything else you read into that is purely your imagination.

I think that's clear because otherwise you wouldn't say it. It's like saying that the car's invention was a white people thing. Just look at the first paragraph: "Without men, we would never know what our friends were doing five minutes ago." We wouldn't have it if we didn't have women and if we didn't have humans and if we didn't have children. That sentence is true, but it does not do any good or adds any information more than implying than men were the only capable of creating the Internet.

But that's part of the interpreting part of the article. Of course we can differ. I think, in this case, either way could be a possibility, but from the tone of the article I believe that it is implied that women could not have created the Internet.

You are right. I meant more of the kind "Hey, before your interview, do this". I misspoke when I said "interview problems".

You are right. I was just saying what I thought the article was saying not what I believe personally. Saying that the article's argument is saying the NYT is sexist and male-dominated is an over-simplification, and in it's essential part, not true.

I haven't read that book, so I cannot talk about it specifically. But I'm sure that if you try to create an exhaustive list of people involved in creating the Internet, you would wind up with an enormous list, if you are even able to complete it.

Either way, I think the problem is that we have differing views on what a particular invention is. First of all I think it's hard to define the Internet: is it just the networking? Do you count the application layer?

The problem is not that women did not contribute to the Internet, the problem is saying that this means that women cannot make productive contributions to technology or the Internet or computers in general.

No, it's not racist. When you use it to say that black people don't know anything about cars or that they can't influence the future of that, then yes, it is.

Of course they don't deserve credit for every invention after them. I think the basic premise is that if you are going to say that only men's contributions to computers and the Internet are important, you are probably wrong as many women have advanced the field.

If we are talking about a particular invention we can talk about specific inventors. But the Internet is not one but many technologies put together invented and developed by different people, which include men and women (maybe not specifically Lovelace).

Apart from that, saying that women did not contribute enough to the Internet, is like saying black people did not contribute enough to the invention of cars; it's mostly true, but it could be argued that that's because they were an oppressed group.

Maybe you are right and it's an old discussion. But repeating things and repeating discussions is in no way a bad thing. In fact, most of the ideas presented here on Hacker News are repeated ideas, maybe with a twist.

Either way, if you are tired of this discussions don't participate on one, but don't tell other people to not discuss. Maybe someone new here wants to express his/her ideas or maybe someone old really loves discussing this topic.

Really? Maybe BB did say that, but that's not of the point of the article at all. Most of it is just criticizing the NYT views that men's contributions to computers and the Internet were more important than women's contributions.