Well before the launch codes were FORCED onto the generals, there were supposedly about a dozen generals who could launch nukes on their own without specific authorization from the POTUS.
Understand this was allowed initially in case POTUS was incapacitated or cut off from communication but still...
The moment they start to integrate somekind of ads (yes, I heard the rumor/plans) in Firefox they are dead. It doesn't even matter if they don't track, aren't intrusive or whatever. The users will run away.
Run away to what? An ad-supported, privacy-undermining browser like Chrome? A constantly outdated and insecure browser like IE? Safari? Don't be ridiculous.
I'm with sleepyhead - what exactly is wrong with Safari? I'm a web developer and I use Safari almost exclusively. Hardware-accelerated (on OSX, anyway), good performance, accurate rendering, no privacy intrusions.
Safari's a joke. Only runs on mac, ships support for key platform features late (and ships subpar support when it comes to things like video/audio codecs), and delivers slower performance.
I respect the JSC team a lot but Safari is an active hindrance to anyone trying to ship HTML5 games. It's just a poor-quality browser.
It sounds like you are coming from a web development direction, and are frustrated that Safari doesn't support the web APIs that you care about. As a software engineer, I can sympathize with that.
But as a user, I prefer Safari, because I find that it prioritizes user experience over fidelity to the web page. Examples:
1. Safari was one of the first browsers to ship with a popup blocker
2. Safari defaults to blocking third party cookies
3. Safari Reader cuts out distracting ads and other crap, improving nearly every article. I click it whenever I can.
4. Safari Power Saver defeats annoying animations while saving battery life
I love that Apple is able to deliver features like these, because their fortunes are not tied to advertising.
I also strongly dispute that Safari is slower. For example, I visited cnn.com with Safari and Chrome, and attempted to scroll while the page loads. Safari scrolls responsively, while Chrome and Firefox stutter until the page finishes loading. Things like scrolling performance have a much bigger impact on how my browser feels than any JavaScript benchmark.
It's true that some websites don't work well in Safari, especially HTML5 games. For pages where I want to see that stuff in action, I'll switch to Chrome. But frankly, most web pages are made more usable by disabling newer features. Chrome then becomes a poor man's opt-in.
Scroll latency has nothing to do with performance. You can achieve low scroll latency by doing scrolling and composition on a worker thread - which, IIRC, is more or less what OS X and iOS do, and is something Safari can take advantage of freely because it's not portable.
If memory serves, recent builds of Firefox (on the non-release channels) are actually starting to roll out OMTC (off main thread compositing) which delivers the same sort of 'performance' you like about Safari, while keeping the perks of Firefox having a faster parser, faster JS runtime, and modern feature set.
You are generally correct that latency is important, though. I don't know if the Chrome dev team prioritizes it much, but Mozilla recently started putting more effort into measuring and reducing latency in various parts of the browser (inattention had let latencies get pretty bad in some places.)
Safari's fortunes aren't tied to advertising because Apple already extracted a payment for every user that runs Safari. They're free to do those things like disable cookies and bundle an ad blocker because they don't have to consider the desires of content creators or generate a revenue stream via their browser. It's the same set of tactics Microsoft was free to use with IE. It's impossible for Firefox or Chrome to offer similar features without directly undermining their revenue sources.
Scroll latency has a lot to do with "perceived performance" and that's the only measure a user cares for - Chrome might be 1000x faster for SunSpider / whatnot benchmark but if it stutters and stalls when scrolling a page, users will consider it slower.
If in one browser an asm.js compiled Unreal Engine 4 game loads in 5 seconds, and in Safari it loads in 2 minutes, you better believe users will notice. JS performance matters.
Yes, they'd notice that. But how often does that scenario (running Unreal Engine 4 under asm.js) happen, would you say, on a day to day basis? Compared with trying to scroll a loading webpage, I mean. We're probably talking orders of magnitude difference, I suspect.
I use Safari as my main browser for the reasons you mention, but it is slower. It just feels like a cumbersome dinosaur compared to FF or Chrome. And the navigating back flow is less than desirable. I find myself navigating too often to a blank page, or it just seems like Safari doesn't know what to do.
Basically, it does everything great except for the actual browsing part.
I use a Mac and I am not one of the "willing to lock themselves into Apple's" crowd. I use a Mac because it's reasonably fast, exceptionally well-built and has a reasonably good Unix OS (a very good one if you count MacPorts).
IE is outdated and insecure? IE6 - IE8 could have that label applied but IE9 - IE11 have incorporated major web standards, are quite fast, and have closed many security holes. At least you gave reasons for swiping at IE, what's up with Safari?
Safari doesn't solve anything for people not willing to lock themselves into the Apple walled garden (at present, the vast majority of desktop/laptop computer users)
Modern IE is a lot better than old IE, certainly; it runs some small subset of HTML5 applications, the javascript performance is adequate, and they have a faster release cycle. However, it still updates less often than Firefox/Chrome, has a worse security track record, and introduces new features on a longer delay. Moving to IE wouldn't make Firefox users any safer or better-served.
And let's not forget IE, like Safari, is platform-locked. Safari, at least, runs on OSX while IE users have to endure Windows. Most of them don't seem to care.
As an attacker I care only about the data and don't give a a shit if it is a real machine or a virtual one. If I can sniff the passwords in your browser or just have a keylogger in one of the VMs I am fine. Not sure if that solves a thing.
edit:
I remember there were similar concepts a decade or so ago. where you had your "green" desktop for intranet or whatever and then a seperate "red" desktop which you could switch to and go to the evil internet. hint: no benefit gained
If you want some 100% no issues working, just get something with Intel CPu and GPU. Although the free Radeon drivers are pretty good now too. Avoid some kind of integrated GPU+extra discrete chip combination. Otherwise there isn't really anything special to worry about or to buy a special "built for Linux" machine (which I consider marketing bullshit).
I don't know why media is circle jerking about this. I am not a fan of Putin and I can see that he wanted simply to get rid of Chodorkowski and that he may or may not got a real fair trial. But in the end Chodorkowski is a criminal who tried to illegally sell/exploit property of the Russian state.
I am not saying the other oligarchs surrounding Putin didn't do or tried the same, but Chodorkowski isn't a "Putin critic" for political reasons or somekind of activist. He was part of this whole game of corruption and mob crimes and he lost.
The price model of the rail company doesn't make much sense here (germany). I can travel from Berlin to Paris cheaper, than I can from Frankfurt to Munich for example. But then they have special offers for certain regions sometimes, which you can combine with regular tickets for the rest of your route, which makes it cheaper again. Or in combination with a flight ticket. Or traveling in groups with special ticket, or traveling in a certain region with a specific train and so on. It is so complicated and confusing that even the staff at the train station can't always tell you whats the best ticket.
I only see low res shadow maps with an awful filter. Joke aside, I find it always fascinating what detail or references are put in movies which nobody notices.
It's not so much that no one notices these details of composition. If that were the case, who could justify the disproportionate effort applied to engineering every shot? These elements of composition are about emphasizing the storytelling. It's an act of support that takes real craftsmanship and will always serve to make the final product better quality, especially to those who know nothing about composition in a formal sense.
This is how SSL works if you use Cloudflare. You have to hand them your private key. Also the article doesn't state this, I would guess they mean that everyone on their service should use ssl (maybe they will enable ssl on their free plan or something). I may be wrong, lets see what they will write on their blog.
My understanding is that they generate their own ssl key and certificate to use on your site. So they mitm your site, yes (I don't see how their service could work otherwise). If you're worried that they could enable the NSA to decrypt all your site's traffic: yes, they could do that.
But if you're worried that they could enable the NSA to decrypt all your site's past traffic: no, I don't see how they could do that.
edit: found it http://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-u...