testbro

> Society can hardly intervene in every individual's self destruction. But it cannot allow drugs which are not useful for anything BUT self destruction.

Why not? Should I not be permitted to destroy myself if I so choose?

Doesn't Reader automatically infer which parts of the page to style rather than just applying a custom stylesheet?

In a phrase: "does this just go into my iTunes then?". A large majority of Apple's customers presumably doesn't care about anything you mention, given by the simplicity of the iTunes model: you get music from the same place you listen to it and you put it on your iPod from there too.

The strategy of "few things, well executed" seems to be working fairly well too.

IIRC most of these bugs arise because of things that should be available while the device is unlocked: the dialler and camera for example. Camera is supposed to restrict gallery access and the dialler is supposed to only permit emergency calls. I'd expect that every app trusted with running while the device is locked will have these bugs as Apple goes forward too.

The bugs seem to a bit more nuanced than just testing for a locked device; the attacks seem to rely on performing actions simultaneously to exploit race conditions much like weird glitches in games. This class of bugs is really hard to test for due to the large search space. Model checking might offer a solution, but it's not a magic bullet by any means.

Scientific publishing isn't just about putting stuff somewhere for people to read it. Publishers, through their parasitic relationship with academia, have kept themselves relevant through the critical mass of people continuing to use them.

The purpose served by publishers isn't really the hosting of articles, it's the names of journals the publishers own which carries an implication that top-tier journals get better reviewers and therefore higher quality articles. As long as academia values impact factor and journal rankings, the parasite can subsist.

Most academics tend to self-host preprints, or stick them on arXiv so the publisher as a hosting service isn't really the "value-add" offered.

Isn't the point of dynamically loading content to reduce the perceived waiting time though? I wonder if focus on cleanly showing the user the page is rendering might be better placed on getting content to load faster instead.

Scrollbars aren't but they still show on a scroll event (unless I'm mistaken - I'm only using 10.8).

For anyone wanting to liberate their data from here, paste this into the JS console with the history page open (only tested in Chrome):

    var time = time=new Date("2010/01/01").getTime(); //set this to start date
    setInterval(function(){
	window.location="https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0/kml?startTime=" + time + "&endTime=" + (time + 2678400000);
    	time += 2678400000
    }, 2000)

Doesn't know when to stop, so close the tab when you have all the data you want.

There'll never be a way of filtering it correctly (is ASCII art of sex acts posted to reddit porn?) so the only real option is ensure people are aware of the risks (whatever they might be). Opting out is already possible today - don't visit porn websites if you don't want to see it.

Is a government mandated filter the best way to allow parents to go beyond just educating their children? As a childless person who isn't petrified of naked people, why should I pay for a service that's only any good for lazy parents?

Mission creep is a concern I have with this though. It's a short jump to go from optional blocking to mandatory blocking (as we already have with CleanFeed). The proposal is for it to be on by default - that's censorship in my eyes since you have to ask for the perverse content you're already being protected from.

I don't agree with the notion that the freedoms offered by the internet need to be curtailed to bring it back into line with the rest of life.