Re: No face blurring ?
Why should they have to?
6848 publicly visible posts • joined 28 May 2010
I find more frustrating that some sites automatically trigger PDF loading in the browser, and others force you to download. I use Chrome and the PDF integration is really good since I don't have to both downloading files.
I imagine this being a new project, it will be worse than Adobe's version for now but if they have drawn a line in the sand, it will inevitably improve if people report bugs. Not totally convinced JS is the right tool for the job though personally; on a mobile device CPU is a precious resource.
Does this work on Mac - is it fully web-based or does it [still?] require a downloaded component?
What about the instant-download feature... Windows only?
I was interested when browsing my local Fapple store, to note that they had MSOffice installed on all the demo machines. I'd never thought it was a big deal to Apple users but maybe it is now Apple has managed to get a half decent slice of market share.
On Chrome browser you can indeed login to multiple accounts at once... it's a bit flaky but WAY better than it used to be.
But I was wondering more about the machine login... and how tightly integrated your google login id is to the OS. If you can simply do "login to another account" from the browser/gmail that would be fine.
>>Curtains?
So if I live somewhere not overlooked by any neighbours or roads, I have to make sure to close the curtains in case someone is looking through the window with a drone? Or make sure not to sunbath topless in my private garden which can't be seen any other way?
Considering how frothy-mouthed you lot get about anyone knowing what you're doing on the internet, I'm surprised you're in favour of people spying through your window.
I think having a drone with camera is an absolutely wonderful toy, if the range and battery life get a bit better than current consumer versions... you'd essentially be able to fly!
But one can definitely imagine a massive use of these for watching people in the nude either for personal use, 'journalism', blackmail, or peep-show porn sites.
Even if it's illegal to peep on people, catching anyone who is using a drone would be a nightmare so banning the sale of such products might, unfortunately, have to be the reasonable solution. Of course people can still built their own but then it goes from a mass-consumer-problem to a minority problem as few people could be bothered.
There's an Arthur C. Clarke story (with Baxter I think) which talks about the death of privacy. In that case it's due to the ability to open mini-wormholes but the principle could be the same.
... is predicated on the axiom that there is some special reason why our race should survive. Evolution/natural selection inspires life-forms which seek to stay alive but by avoiding predators and so on, not planning centuries ahead. Perhaps the blind assumption that we must/should spread from Earth is part of the same thing?
In my opinion, any impact other than one which would literally destroy the planet would not wipe out humankind or life in general, and would leave behind more people than we could set up on a colony. We're not dinosaurs, reliant on a certain climate or delicate environment, but tool-users able to survive a wide variety of conditions.
Putting the time/money into building a framework - libraries, tools, etc - that would allow a remnant of the population to survive the harshest conditions following a major event seems better. For the cost of a program to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars, we could surely build 100 equivalent kits which could be used to re-colonise Earth!
Several of the sections on html5test are not part of HTML5, they are 'related' technologies or unratified standards. We're back in the land of "standards are what the majority support" since the official HTML5 stuff is such a small subset of "HTML5".