Slashdot Mirror

> I'd go far enough to say that a Blu-Ray disc exhibiting this kind of visual anomaly would probably be subject to a recall.
I'm afraid this is not quite true. Let me present you two screenshots from an official japanese BluRay disk: Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2

I have seen similar from live action sources.

> I'd go far enough to say that a Blu-Ray disc exhibiting this kind of visual anomaly would probably be subject to a recall.
I'm afraid this is not quite true. Let me present you two screenshots from an official japanese BluRay disk: Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2

I have seen similar from live action sources.

Yahoo already taught us that one illegal download is equal in value to three and one third dead family members...

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6486/valuemusicvslife.jpg

"As far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the image in question is just used to illustrate how this patented technology might looked like .. Instead of mocking up the screen, some guy at Apple though he would save time by using an existing app that sort of looked like what he needed to show"

How the f**k do you illustrate something new and innovative with an illustration of an existing device. Stop would you, I just snorted some coffee out my nose. By that logic and in that case, please take a look at what my patented portable media player is going to look like. MyPOD :)

reCAPTCHA is already on the road to beating this. When your images are on the verge of being discovered algorithmically, use Hebrew.

Because their DRM denial of service'd thousands of people, some up to 2 weeks. Makes sense.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6773/steam2n.gif

I'm curious, is there a precedent for a third company pressuring Dell to drop Linux, under threat of retaliation?

"We should whack them, we should make sure they understand our value .. I want them to understand that every day they lead with Linux over Windows in Unix migrations they turn our field against them (take the southeast region mail thread as an example). I want them to think very very carefully about when and which forums they decide to push Linux very, very hard. Today, they do not. When they do, you can bet, behavior will evolve"

"HP discontinued its Linux SKUs beginning on November 18th. This is based on joint marketing effort that spans six months to promote low cost Windows SKU's with $30 extra channel incentives that focus on white box resellers"

It'll be interesting watching the MicroAstroturfers try and put a positive spin on the above statements.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1872/dellbeforeafter.png

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/8219/lag.jpg

OK, here it is... the official flag of the Evil Empire:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5555/evilempire3.jpg

Join the 'Droid Liberation Army. Fight the Power. Er, and stuff like that... ;-)

(Image released under the Creative Commons License)

I'm not aware that this is the case. Do you see this when you visit The Times [thetimes.co.uk]? I am able to read the front page.

How?? Seriously, you can click on any front page story and read it? No referral spoofers or anything? (If so, that's cool too, but please share the trick!)

When I load thetimes.co.uk I see all the summaries of what articles are available, but when I click any article to read it, I am unable to do so like you can. I see a pay wall.

Here, maybe this will help in case we are misunderstanding.

I simply copied "thetimes.co.uk" to my address bar and let it correct things. At that point I was redirected to the URL http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ which displays summaries of all the front page articles.

Being a news paper, this will change fairly soon I suspect, so this is a screenshot of that page as of right now:
http://img153.imageshack.us/i/18684894.png/

The summaries titled 'Ex-MI5 chief...', 'Nato split on afghan...', lower down 'Reunions', and even the ad looking 'latest news' first story.

All of those front page articles are unreadable. I see this pay wall:
http://img514.imageshack.us/i/33791945.png/

I just now noticed the sections at the top, and I did not try any other section than the default 'News', but we ARE talking about the front page here, which 'news' decidedly is.

Now granted, the message isn't identical, but I'm pretty sure he was parapharsing to make a point.

GP said: But I never would have even considered subscribing if, on my first visit to the site, I had been greeted with a big wall that said "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us."

So replace "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us." with "Available exclusively by subscription."
Not as rude (as expected) but decidedly not allowing me to see anything without paying them.

I'm not aware that this is the case. Do you see this when you visit The Times [thetimes.co.uk]? I am able to read the front page.

How?? Seriously, you can click on any front page story and read it? No referral spoofers or anything? (If so, that's cool too, but please share the trick!)

When I load thetimes.co.uk I see all the summaries of what articles are available, but when I click any article to read it, I am unable to do so like you can. I see a pay wall.

Here, maybe this will help in case we are misunderstanding.

I simply copied "thetimes.co.uk" to my address bar and let it correct things. At that point I was redirected to the URL http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ which displays summaries of all the front page articles.

Being a news paper, this will change fairly soon I suspect, so this is a screenshot of that page as of right now:
http://img153.imageshack.us/i/18684894.png/

The summaries titled 'Ex-MI5 chief...', 'Nato split on afghan...', lower down 'Reunions', and even the ad looking 'latest news' first story.

All of those front page articles are unreadable. I see this pay wall:
http://img514.imageshack.us/i/33791945.png/

I just now noticed the sections at the top, and I did not try any other section than the default 'News', but we ARE talking about the front page here, which 'news' decidedly is.

Now granted, the message isn't identical, but I'm pretty sure he was parapharsing to make a point.

GP said: But I never would have even considered subscribing if, on my first visit to the site, I had been greeted with a big wall that said "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us."

So replace "You can't see ANYTHING here until you pay us." with "Available exclusively by subscription."
Not as rude (as expected) but decidedly not allowing me to see anything without paying them.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7033/achievement.jpg

Additionally it would be good to note that nokia is seen as "lamer's choice" by only one crowd - the hip people who look at ANYONE not wearing certain brands, going to certain restaurants, etc as "lame".

This hasn't changed in any way for last couple of decades, other then the fact that the crowd got as passionate about phones as it was before about clothes, fashion, accessories and cars. It also doesn't change the fact that this crowd is, and always will be a very small minority at best.

In Sweden hipsters are called "brats"

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1600/bratsb.jpg

"Scratch their cars, pinch their 3G mobiles, crash their parties and drink their booze. Tell them that icing sugar is cocaine. Short change them"

UT3 was disregarded because it was inferior to UT2004, plain and simple. They took an extremely successful game and turned it into a Gears of War clone. UT2004 looks gorgeous with its bright skies and vibrant colours. UT3 looks like a generic grey-and-brown shooter with a ridiculous overabundance of bloom effects and hdr lighting. When did shiny surfaces become so popular?

UT2004 vs UT3:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1154/ut20041mz3.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2244/ut3texturehiworldhipostad9.jpg

Not only did it look inferior, but the gameplay was inferior aswell. End result was a shitty game that didn't sell well.

UT3 was disregarded because it was inferior to UT2004, plain and simple. They took an extremely successful game and turned it into a Gears of War clone. UT2004 looks gorgeous with its bright skies and vibrant colours. UT3 looks like a generic grey-and-brown shooter with a ridiculous overabundance of bloom effects and hdr lighting. When did shiny surfaces become so popular?

UT2004 vs UT3:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1154/ut20041mz3.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2244/ut3texturehiworldhipostad9.jpg

Not only did it look inferior, but the gameplay was inferior aswell. End result was a shitty game that didn't sell well.

Well... I'd do that but I don't have that option and if I go to the customize appearance, the option is grayed out.

http://img443.imageshack.us/f/tabbar1.png/
http://img145.imageshack.us/f/tabbar2.png/

Well... I'd do that but I don't have that option and if I go to the customize appearance, the option is grayed out.

http://img443.imageshack.us/f/tabbar1.png/
http://img145.imageshack.us/f/tabbar2.png/

Example: Opera, Firefox and other browsers

My html got filtered out by slashdot (my mistake, I put a TD tag within < and > without using HTML entities), the problem occurs when blockquotes are within TD tags and is not the result of any filtering software.

Filed a bug report with Opera software, never heard back.

Example: Opera, Firefox and other browsers

My html got filtered out by slashdot (my mistake, I put a TD tag within < and > without using HTML entities), the problem occurs when blockquotes are within TD tags and is not the result of any filtering software.

Filed a bug report with Opera software, never heard back.

I'm not really able to understand the technical details of both codecs, but what I did find out is that youtube webm videos look better than their flash (h264?) counterparts even if they have nearly the same filesize. http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/985/youtubevergleich.png was a picture I made back when that blog entry was a few days old, and as you can see the webm-Video on the top in Opera looks much smoother than the normal flash based one in firefox (both have about the same filesize). It's not really possible to get the exact same frame in both videos, of course, but please trust me when I tell you that I didn't pick the best or worst pictures for either webm or the flash based video, I could see that the frames of each video are of similar quality as the one I chose in the picture when I tried to stop both videos at the exact same frame.

I also wondered why HD material and a high video bitrate(~14mbit) was used by the x264-developer to test baseline h264, VP8 and h264. Isn't it possible that 640x480 videos get compressed better in VP8 than with h264 baseline if the bitrate has to be lower? And isn't the used video (the one the pictures you linked to come from, watched it when that article came out so I don't remember it perfectly) rather 'slow motion', making it possible that VP8 is better suited for videos with fast scene changes (game trailers, mobile phone videos, ...)?

I'm not trying to spread FUD, as I said in the beginning I don't know much about this whole codec stuff. But personally I just don't see how we can really compare the subjective quality of these two (or three) codecs when both articles only show a few sample videos (only one with only one scene, or just the frames) or present them in a suboptimal way (lossy comparison pictures) :-)

Of course google, you can play nicely with us, just jump through our hoops!.

North china is best china.

DISCLAIMER: "iPhone" and "iPod Touch" are registered trademarks of Apple, Inc.

as if Apple are going to try and sue him for mentioning their products, yet all the while he flagrantly copies/reproduces SCEE's IP.

Curious to see how this relates to ocean flow, I superimposed the ocean currents ontop of this. This was too interesting for me not to post!

Oceans Flow and Gravity Deviations

Note: Sorry that this is a poor edit, but I had to use MS Paint! :)

How is this insightful?
It is simply wrong and misguided.

You're talking about 2.5" SATA drives running only off of the data cable (which is impossible, as you state).

The GP was talking about 2.5" drives running off a single USB cable.

For a SATA drive to run off of USB at all, there would need to be a controller between them. You can't power SATA drives via the SATA data connection. But you can power it via the SATA power connection. Simply take the power lines from the USB cable and pull them over to the appropriates pins in the SATA power connector.

You can easily power many 2.5" SATA drives via the 5v @ 500 mA USB provides. A decent 2.5" enclosure will have a USB hookup, an eSata hookup, and a 5V barrel jack hookup. They'll often provide you with a USB Y passthrough cable. One end plugs into the drive, the other end has two USB connectors. One goes into the PC, and if the drive works, you're done. If not, plug the other connector into another USB port for more power. The second connector is a passthrough connector, so you don't lose 2 USB ports. Low-power or self-powered devices (mice, keyboards, scanners, printers) can run off of that passthrough connection unimpeded.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8284/splittedcable.jpg

This explains everything.

I think he's hosting the website on his iPhone.
I managed to grab the page after hitting F5 a few times
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8107/lemmings.png

Are you sure?

Sorry, but there is only one correct way to hold a phone

Indeed. Death threats are just that - threats.

You give me such a threat, and you'll find one right back in your face.

On one hand you say that Compressor blades / turbines are light and fluffy, and then you say that a carbon fibre fly wheel is the stuff of instantaneous death and destruction. I can see that this argument will not be one by words. It is time to resort to pictures.

These are all picture of the effects of parts of the engine flying off and traveling through the housing.
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/12/Bad%20Looking%20Engine-thumb.jpg
http://img406.imageshack.us/i/img0163gu3.jpg/
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/AA763EngineFire-3_files/aa2.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=16268

Wikipedia has an article about a plane that was brought down by one of these fluffy engine parts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

The idea of powering something with a burnable fluid dangersous fluid would not be acceptable today.

Failure of gasoline: Fire.
Failure of a flywheel: Explosion.

You really don't notice the difference?

You really have never heard of the Ford Pinto? If you get gasoline and air in the right mixture, you can get an explosion. However, just because something does not EXPLODE holywood style, does not mean it is not dangerous. Ask an someone who has had to watch someone being burned alive in a automobile gasoline fire. It happened quite a lot before proper engineering controls were put in place. The generations before our had to deal with this. It took the previous generation(s) to build the automobile. They were noisy, dangerous, and unreliable, but they built them nonetheless. The truth is that anything powerful enough to power and automobile whether it be a Gasoline, Steam, flywheels or batteries packs enough energy to cause significant loss of life. My point is not that flywheels are necessarily the safest thing around, nor even that flywheels are necessarily the best solution. My point is that in today's political climate new inventions can not be brought to bear unless they are so safe that they are practically useless. Do you really think the lawyers would have allowed automobile / airplanes to be created if they were invented today? Hydrocarbon fuels were grandfathered in from a previous century. As for batteries, the public has the impression that batteries are safe and environmentally friendly. This may change over time when the energy density of batteries starts to compete with fossil fuels, and more laptop batteries start catching fire.

Planes and cars were engineered before during a time when people were willing to live with a little danger

Ah, the old "golden age" myth. The good old days when women weren't even supposed to ride in planes because of the danger.

Just because you scoff at an argument does not mean you actually answered the argument. As for women flying in planes, I don't know what that has to do with the argument. There are plenty of women aviators.

But to be perfectly honest with you I really don't know what you are arguing about, unless you just like arguing.

With 128-150 tabs open

No offense, but I think you're doing it wrong.

I routinely open that many tabs. But then, I work in a dynamic environment where I'm often being asked to do a dozen things at once, including several open-ended research projects, plus a handful of web-based apps, plus casual browsing, reading news, etc. And Slashdot, of course.

I'll put in a plug for my favorite extension here: TreeStyleTab. Rather than limiting tabs to a linear strip, this gives it a 2D structure. When I surf, inevitably one thing leads to another thing, which leads to a site which leads to six more things. So I middle-click almost every link, and it all gets organized into a hierarchical history. It helps me organize my thinking when I'm researching something, especially when I don't know exactly what I'm looking for.

TreeStyleTab demo shot

It's got a million options. You can configure it for all sorts of things. You can even have it put a 2D tab strip across the top of the window, if you like that.

The lack of a working TreeStyleTab clone on Chrome meant I went back to Firefox. Everything else was great, but I can no longer do serious web browsing without TST, and so that killed Chrome for me. Yes, it's that important.

TreeStyleTab: Don't leave your home page without it.

Now true - it would be a hell of a lot easier if we, as customers, had a list of options that we could choose from so we could make the best decisions possible. But the rub is - what company would ever go for that?

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/7383/tmobileplans.png

This is my selection screen that I have today. It changes about biannually, and always had for the better.

http://img389.imageshack.us/f/sciencevfaith20yp6ds3.png/ 'nuff said. What blows me away is how severely they contradict themselves in their own faith. From the Book of Revelations, Ch. 22, Vs. 18-19 (NIV): I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. This isn't some obscure verse that is little talked about, It is in the closing if the New Testament, in the Book of Revelations, the cornerstone of the Modern Christian Faith in the Second Coming and The End Times. YET, there are currently SEVENTEEN modern translations of the Bible... and each one paraphrases the above verses a little bit differently. That issue is so bad, that when quoting the Bible in print, for clarity you need to reference the translation it came from. http://bible.cc/revelation/22-18.htm Additionally, the Bible has gone through many translations changes, revisions, additions and edits over several thousand years. Largely based on political influences. Eg: why is the Book of Tobit only found in the Catholic Bible? Why does the Bible end with The Book of Revelations according to John and not Peter? What happened to The Gospel of Thomas? What of the legendary book suposed to have PRECEDED The Book of Genesis, co-authored by an Angel? Languages have changed SO much in the past 2-3 thousand years that things have been badly lost in translation. This just doesn't wash with Rev.22-18/19. Followed to the letter, the Old Testament should have never been translated from ancient proto-Hebrew and the New Testament should not have been translated from Aramaic and Latin. How do they reconcile these facts? They don't. It is more or less ignored, or decried as an attempt to undermine the faith. Hey bro, I'm not trying to undermine anything, I'm only pointing out what's there in the book and in the history of it. Not only do they ignore the Scientific Method in the Sciences, it is ignored internally for the faith as well. The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gospel of Judas and the Nag Hammadi Library are some examples. Again, decried as an attempt to undermine the faith. Yeah, sure. That is what the authors were thinking 2000 years ago when those passages were penned. Recent evidence also suggests that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was planned between the two and intentional, not really a betrayal. This translation error seems to have occurred about 2000 years ago when translating a Gospel from Aramaic to Greek. Many American Christian Fundamentalists want to say that the Constitution of the United States is not an interpretable document, that it is meant to be taken as it is written. Yet the Bible is open for all forms of interpretation. Pick a standard and stick to it people. All anti-science ignorance and rhetoric aside, I cannot take them seriously when they can't even get and keep their own faith in order.

maybe a better practice would be to store a thumbnail size image of the screenshot.

They _are_ only storing a thumbnail; the article just sucks.

C:\android-sdk-windows\tools>adb shell
# cd /sdcard/.bo*
# ls -l | wc -l
62
# du -h .
2.0M .
#

Here, I uploaded the largest one out of the 62 for your review.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7158/58ff46ba1d2b8741bd40c6enx2.jpg
http://www.quazacolt.com/dmmlq/2009cowgirl.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/DarkestAngel5804/The%20Gals/cow-girl.jpg

Take a look at the Dow Jones average over the past 30 years. Take note of how in the past 12 it has huge fluctuations. The current system of trading stocks is broken. The market moves so fast it is all in the hands of computers. It needs to slow down.

This is an artifact of using a linear scale, so that a 10% fluctation when the index is 10,000 is much larger than when it is 2,000, and the fact that the market has, in retrospect, stagnated for the past decade.

Here is linear plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 linear
Here is a linear plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 linear
I don't think that algo trading started in the 1970s, ceased from 1980 to 2000, and then resumed. Of course, there is still more contrast between the 2000s and the previous two decades than between the 1970s and the previous two decades. This is because in the latter case the market increased about 4 or 5 times to get to the level where it stagnated, while in the former it increased 10 times, so the effect of earlier years being muted in a linear scale is stronger. In particular see the market lose and regain 40% of its value from 1973 to 1976. The past decade is not unprecedented.

The correct way to look at this is with a logarithmic scale. Unfortunately, the graphs I have are vertically compressed in a log scale, but you can still compare the fluctuations in the last ten years of the graph to the fluctuations in the first twenty years of the same graph. Coincidentally, in each graph there is a large dip at or near the end, due to actual recessions.
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 log
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 log

Take a look at the Dow Jones average over the past 30 years. Take note of how in the past 12 it has huge fluctuations. The current system of trading stocks is broken. The market moves so fast it is all in the hands of computers. It needs to slow down.

This is an artifact of using a linear scale, so that a 10% fluctation when the index is 10,000 is much larger than when it is 2,000, and the fact that the market has, in retrospect, stagnated for the past decade.

Here is linear plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 linear
Here is a linear plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 linear
I don't think that algo trading started in the 1970s, ceased from 1980 to 2000, and then resumed. Of course, there is still more contrast between the 2000s and the previous two decades than between the 1970s and the previous two decades. This is because in the latter case the market increased about 4 or 5 times to get to the level where it stagnated, while in the former it increased 10 times, so the effect of earlier years being muted in a linear scale is stronger. In particular see the market lose and regain 40% of its value from 1973 to 1976. The past decade is not unprecedented.

The correct way to look at this is with a logarithmic scale. Unfortunately, the graphs I have are vertically compressed in a log scale, but you can still compare the fluctuations in the last ten years of the graph to the fluctuations in the first twenty years of the same graph. Coincidentally, in each graph there is a large dip at or near the end, due to actual recessions.
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 log
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 log

Take a look at the Dow Jones average over the past 30 years. Take note of how in the past 12 it has huge fluctuations. The current system of trading stocks is broken. The market moves so fast it is all in the hands of computers. It needs to slow down.

This is an artifact of using a linear scale, so that a 10% fluctation when the index is 10,000 is much larger than when it is 2,000, and the fact that the market has, in retrospect, stagnated for the past decade.

Here is linear plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 linear
Here is a linear plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 linear
I don't think that algo trading started in the 1970s, ceased from 1980 to 2000, and then resumed. Of course, there is still more contrast between the 2000s and the previous two decades than between the 1970s and the previous two decades. This is because in the latter case the market increased about 4 or 5 times to get to the level where it stagnated, while in the former it increased 10 times, so the effect of earlier years being muted in a linear scale is stronger. In particular see the market lose and regain 40% of its value from 1973 to 1976. The past decade is not unprecedented.

The correct way to look at this is with a logarithmic scale. Unfortunately, the graphs I have are vertically compressed in a log scale, but you can still compare the fluctuations in the last ten years of the graph to the fluctuations in the first twenty years of the same graph. Coincidentally, in each graph there is a large dip at or near the end, due to actual recessions.
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 log
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 log

Take a look at the Dow Jones average over the past 30 years. Take note of how in the past 12 it has huge fluctuations. The current system of trading stocks is broken. The market moves so fast it is all in the hands of computers. It needs to slow down.

This is an artifact of using a linear scale, so that a 10% fluctation when the index is 10,000 is much larger than when it is 2,000, and the fact that the market has, in retrospect, stagnated for the past decade.

Here is linear plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 linear
Here is a linear plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 linear
I don't think that algo trading started in the 1970s, ceased from 1980 to 2000, and then resumed. Of course, there is still more contrast between the 2000s and the previous two decades than between the 1970s and the previous two decades. This is because in the latter case the market increased about 4 or 5 times to get to the level where it stagnated, while in the former it increased 10 times, so the effect of earlier years being muted in a linear scale is stronger. In particular see the market lose and regain 40% of its value from 1973 to 1976. The past decade is not unprecedented.

The correct way to look at this is with a logarithmic scale. Unfortunately, the graphs I have are vertically compressed in a log scale, but you can still compare the fluctuations in the last ten years of the graph to the fluctuations in the first twenty years of the same graph. Coincidentally, in each graph there is a large dip at or near the end, due to actual recessions.
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for the past 30 years: 1980 to 2010 log
Here is a log plot of the DJIA for 1949 to 1979: 1949 to 1979 log

Do you mean this FBI?

Or when you use a browser less than 10 years old. Honestly, who ever actually visits the google homepage to do a search?
It's a shame too, cause my google background is awesome.

Who cares.

As far as bang for your buck, if your buck is tied to traffic and traffic can be represented by replies to stories, it looks like both Apple and Microsoft are both reliable topics.

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/9695/historyeraserbutton.jpg

BULLSHIT!

http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/typography.php

You'll need to download Safari to view this demo.

...

http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/photo-transitions.php

You'll need to download Safari to view this demo.

...

Enough said.

BULLSHIT!
I was able to run both demos without any complaint whatsoever using the latest nightly build of Chromium for the Mac:

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6917/screenshot02yl.jpg

Of course I didn't change the User Agent (apparently you need an extension that I don't have for that).

So, the problem may be that you are using an older version of a browser that still does not support these features.

Enough said.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/662/falconknuckle2hl3.jpg

1. First reason I use KDE because it doesn't require me to open gconf to remap my "show desktop" icon. In fact, most key mappings can be remapped by right-clicking. This is an excellent reason to use ANY desktop environment: Customization.

2. Second reason is the idea of Right Click --> Properties on ANY shortcut/icon. Other desktops have different behavior depending on where the shortcut is located, and that makes it hard to learn how to make your own shortcuts. I like making my own fucking shortcuts.

3. Third reason is because it .

4. Fourth reason is to have arguing ammunition with haters (read below, there's plenty of them!).

There are many other conflicting reasons that I like to use gnome (example: Pidgin/Empathy > Kopete, Firefox/Gimp more "native"). I simply use whatever works. I actually enjoy switching back and forth between desktops because the concept of a computer desktop is still young and subject to change.

No one desktop has even come close to perfecting human interaction, so we should praise the work that goes into improving them.

Me too

You can't have that with the base install. But you can have composited fvwm with ascii porn, tetris, and a letter from deraadt@.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9992/snapshot7h.png

fvwm looks 100x better than the best Gnome will ever look.

I remember (well, I remember seeing pictures) those old newspaper headlines that freakin' paragraphs of text. Seriously, like multiple sentences (or at least should have been multiple sentences). Example: http://img219.imageshack.us/i/titanicnytkp7.jpg/

That is single user mode - like I said - command+s while booting, as written in my post.

You need an admin account to invoke root-level commands though, like changing the password.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6517/dirservice.jpg

You'll just have to take my word for it that I didn't uncheck that into the current state - also note that that option to change the root password is disabled since the root account is not enabled.

Here is a page direct from Apple:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.6/en/11778.html

Salient point (emphasis mine):

The root user, or superuser, is a special user account in Mac OS X that has read and write privileges throughout the file system. By default the root account is not active.

So, it seems I am "right", since that is exactly what I said initially.