Unless things have changed, Im pretty certain Microsoft doesnt use posix or "unix" time...
Windows NT time is specified as the number of 100 nanosecond intervals since January 1, 1601. UNIX time is specified as the number of seconds since January 1, 1970. There are 134,774 days (or 11,644,473,600 seconds) between these dates.
Maybe things have changed since NT... but Id have my doubts.
Not that that changes your point. It doesnt. Just sayin.
If you set the value of this to "2", you will get what you're looking for. Sort of... This will cause Firefox's "awesome" bar to match "LIKE 'foo%'". However, it will still look at page titles, not strictly URL. Still, this is the closest Ive been able to come to replicating old behavior.
It's important to note this, from the oldbar site:
Note that the underlying autocomplete algorithm is the Firefox 3 algorithm, not the Firefox 2 algorithm. oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
Oldbar, while nice, only changes appearance, not functionality.
Im with you guys, though. I despise the awesome bar, and dont understand why there isnt an easier/obvious way to get the old, URL based behavior. A URL bar that works based on URLs?! Blasphemy!
This seems like a really pointless line of reasoning, and not at all parallel to the Microsoft situation at hand. I use Fedora, and update via yum every time the new core drops (about once every 6 months). I have a Nvidia vid card, and an Audigy. You say "Things dont go smoothly without text editor!", yet I never have to touch a text editor to get either my sound OR my video working. They always come up 100% perfect, since about Fedora Core 5. You then CHANGE your argument to say, "Well your Audigy doesnt have full features! HA!" This has NOTHING to do with your original "running smoothly" argument. My OS still runs smoothly, WITH sound, after an update. The fact that Linux doesnt have a driver that gets full Audigy support is an aside argument. In addition, I have had *no* problems with my Audigy card ever. I dont even know which "features" Im missing, because I dont particularly care, because it already does everything perfectly for my needs.
Your entire argument is rambling bunk. The fact is, Ubuntu and Fedora Core both DO still do OS updates more smoothly than this Vista SP1 has gone over. There hasnt been a Fedora upgrade issue this rough since going from FC1 to FC2. And as someone else pointed out, Microsoft is such a large, "professional" company, with so many "talented" programmers on staff, that they should easily be able to make this AS smooth as the competition.
If you'd like to change your argument now, perhaps to suggest that the only reason Microsoft has so much trouble is because they have a much larger install base than the Linux distros (something that is probably true), then go ahead. But it wont change the fact that your last round of arguments were still pointless.
Do a little cogitive followthrough & you'll see that anti-competitive behavior which does not tend to market domination or even tends to open up a market dominated by other companies is thus permitted.
How in the world does "not allowing the competing web browsers to work" fall under this??
The issue here is about Apple using their strength in one arena to push their mechanisms in others. It's the EXACT same thing Sony did with the Playstation 3. They used their console success to try to push Blu-Ray out to everyone. People complained that it was "wrong". It's the same as when Windows uses the fact that they push an OS out to try to push a browser out with it as well. It applies to Apple just as much here. They are trying to use their phone to push out ObjC over Java.
Im willing to bet you're one of the same people who cries out how wrong it is when Sony or Microsoft does it. Why isnt it wrong when Apple does it? Is this because, yet again, it's Apple?
This is not true at *all*, and is a downright falsism and an incredibly weak defense. Anti-competitive activity is classified as "banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position."
Notice the keyword there. Whether or not you already have a monopoly is NOT relevant. Only if you're doing actions that could eventually help to create one.
You realize, of course, that this very post is a RESOUNDING defense of Microsoft and all of their business practices, right?
This sword cuts both ways. What's wrong (or right, in your case) for one is wrong or right for the other. And according to reason litigation against M$, it would seem that those practices arent "fine and dandy" at all, and they ARE being forced to support competitor software. The same rules could apply down to Apple here.
In Unreal, there are actually competitive games that are sorted according to which type of interface people are using. So you can specify if you want to only fight gamepad users, or only keyboard/mouse users, or a mixed bag.
Okay, so now you're suggesting that the console-makers should FORCE the developers to include mouse/keyboard support? You're encouraging full content-control of that level??
Do you even know where you're posting, dude? Because you may be lost.
Except that this simply isn't true. If nobody notices trivial information, why does so much of the criticism of Wikipedia consist of complaints that it's full of trivial information? The simple truth is that practically every major article has a "Trivia" section, or an "In Popular Culture" section, or whatever, that takes up a massive amount of space, sticks out like a sore thumb, contains absolutely no information of any significance whatsoever, and yet cannot be deleted because any attempt to do so causes a million schoolchildren to scream with rage.
See, it's this mentality that ticks some people (like me) off. I dont use Wikipedia as "a replacement to an encyclopedia". Why would I do that? I have google if Im being lazy, and if I want to trust my information, I go to the library and get a real, tamper-proof encyclopedia regardless. When I want to *really* research a topic, I ignore the wikipedia links and try to find something I consider more reliable, like online documented medical journals, or whatever.
What I *really* use Wikipedia for, and what I loved it for, is the vast amount of human knowledge floating around the internet that cant be found in any other form. The "trivia" section is the most useful part of an article to me, because it's the only way to see all of the various references to something in pop culture. How the heck else am I supposed to find a comprehensive (or at least nearly) list of all the places the Grauman's Chinese Theatre is ever referenced in television or movies? Anything else in the Wikipedia article, I could look up... ANYWHERE ELSE.
It's the constant attempts of Wikipedia editors right now to kill any of the "flavour" of wikipedia out that has made me stop going to the website altogether. In *my* opinion, it had one use. It cant be trusted for encyclopedic information, because it's in constant flux, so I go get a *real* encyclopedia for that stuff. But it was great for obscure referential stuff that cant be found elsewhere. For example, this. Which is an article that they have attempted to delete like 4 times now, and probably will before it's all said and done.
Again with these posts. Clearly Im going to have to give up on pointing this out, but:
I cant speak for the 360 (I just dont know), but the PS3 already supports mouse/keyboards fully. It uses USB interfaces, so there's no difficulty finding a mouse or keyboard to hook up to it. If you want to go wild, you can buy an expensive bluetooth keyboard for it and save a port. Game support might be running a bit lower. I dont know about CoD4, but UT3 fully supports playing with the mouse/keyboard on the PS3. You have to set it up, but it's not a hard process and can be googled.
Im not sure what more people are looking for with this "I demand full support NAO!" thing.
It's Hillary's extremely slim margin in the primary that MAKES the Texas Caucus a big deal. I wouldnt call a 4 delegate gain a "telling" loss by any stretch of the imagination. And before this is done, it may drop to 2. Hillary didnt drop anyone's pants here (especially not Bill's).
You've got to understand, this is a very difficult sentiment to get behind.
What if one particular teacher really hates Jews, and truly feels they are an inferior race that need wiped out? Should that teacher be allowed to actually teach a classroom of children about how inferior the Jews are? Obviously Ive reached for a deliberate hyperbole here, but it applies to many less radical things as well. You cannot simply stand up firmly and say, "Teachers have the right to teach whatever they want!" Look at the people who become teachers in our system. They're not Newtons, by any means. Many of them are people who just kinda fell into their current position, and arent particularly wild about being there. A lot of them probably have a *lot* of crackpot ideas they'd like to teach. And Im not even saying ID is a crackpot theory, for the record. Im just saying, at a certain point, you *have* to put a limiter on what teachers are allowed to teach. I personally am against my child going to school and learning racism of any sort. If one of the teachers happens to have racist ideas, I expect them to keep their tongue in check and not spread it to my child.
So some sort of stance has to be taken somewhere here. As lovely as "dont repress any information from teachers!" might sound on paper, it's a TERRIBLE idea. You cannot assume that 95% of all teachers are actually thoroughly ingrained with nothing but the types of knowledge and information that you would want being passed on to your children. Heck, Id be surprised if even 30% of them are. The Catholic church branding Newton and heretic was far more extreme. Newton was trying to take his findings to ADULTS. He did not have a classroom of impressionable young minds sitting underneath him who believed pretty much whatever he told them.
A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract. In formal court procedures, a material fact is anything needed to prove one party's case, or tending to establish a point that is crucial to a person's position.
Material matters have to be related to the events in question. If I kill you, and then someone asks, "Didnt you also kill Buddy Holly?", whether or not I killed Buddy Holly is NOT material to my trial over your murder. It sets up character, yes, but it is not legally material, and therefore lying about it cannot be perjury.
Clinton was under trial over Paula Jones when he lied about Lewinsky. He did lie under oath, of that I'm certain. But the question was not material, so he did not commit perjury.
We could argue about this all day, I'm sure, but I see no need for it when it's pretty simple.
I know this is an old thing, but it apparently still hasnt gone away, so...
Lying under oath isnt illegal. Perjury is.
As to the difference, Ill borrow from Wikipedia: Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.
Ill leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a media frenzy.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
I think this is a great post, in spite of the backlash against it. I support your cause, and fully agree. If I had mod points, I'd give them to you rather than posting here.
The general defense I keep seeing for X seems to be that people "aren't criticizing it properly". As if to say that just having problems with X isnt sufficient if you don't fully understand and can vocalize on those problems in a tech-savvy manner. In the past year, I don't know how many X problems I've run into, *most* of them being related to the fact that X itself is single-threaded, and there's a whole can of worms related to that when something minor in X happens to go wrong. There are certain issues that can be triggered in either KDE or Gnome (since X is beneath both of them), and some of them are fairly crippling. Maybe most users don't have the issues with X that I do. I find that very easy to believe, since I tend to be one of those users who manages to scrape even the most insignificant bugs out of any software.
I would think open-source users would be more akin to a certain way of thinking. For example, a piece of software isnt good "just because" it's entrenched. If that's the case, then that just creates a whole boatload of defenses for the proprietary softwares like Microsoft. X has issues, it's fairly limited as far as a display protocol goes, unless I'm misremembering it is the *only* display manager between Linux, Apple, and Microsoft systems that is single-threaded... and the main reason it's not replaced is that it's such a very daunting task. Now I'm not saying that's not a good reason (I certainly don't have the gall to try to replace X), but it's a very poor defense of it.
Maybe that's a fair point (I'm not saying the title created was unbiased, at all), but I think that this is put into a different perspective in the wake of Microsoft attempting to buy Yahoo, as well.
There's a chance that this sudden surge of purchasing, if it's anything out of the ordinary (maybe it isn't, I don't personally keep close enough tabs on Microsoft acquisitions), is a sign of some sort of desperation on Microsoft's end. Rather than attempting to come up with any further new ideas (something I'm not certain Microsoft has really been interested in for a while now), they just seem to want to buy enough bits and pieces of the industry to increase their foothold.
But then, Im just speculating. Appearances may be deceiving, but this appears to be an indicator that something's up over at M$. I just wonder the impact it will have if they were to go through with all of these acquisitions--including Yahoo--and none of it did them any good. Seems like that'd put a big dent even into Microsoft's daunting coffers.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless things have changed, Im pretty certain Microsoft doesnt use posix or "unix" time...
Windows NT time is specified as the number of 100 nanosecond intervals since January 1, 1601. UNIX time is specified as the number of seconds since January 1, 1970. There are 134,774 days (or 11,644,473,600 seconds) between these dates.
Maybe things have changed since NT... but Id have my doubts.
Not that that changes your point. It doesnt. Just sayin.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.urlbar.matchBehavior
If you set the value of this to "2", you will get what you're looking for. Sort of... This will cause Firefox's "awesome" bar to match "LIKE 'foo%'". However, it will still look at page titles, not strictly URL. Still, this is the closest Ive been able to come to replicating old behavior.
It's important to note this, from the oldbar site:
Note that the underlying autocomplete algorithm is the Firefox 3 algorithm, not the Firefox 2 algorithm. oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
Oldbar, while nice, only changes appearance, not functionality.
Im with you guys, though. I despise the awesome bar, and dont understand why there isnt an easier/obvious way to get the old, URL based behavior. A URL bar that works based on URLs?! Blasphemy!
"It comes as plugins for the popular Instant Messenger Pidgin and is running under Linux and Windows."
Generally things that have to be added on separately cant be counted as "bloat". It's just not the nature.
This seems like a really pointless line of reasoning, and not at all parallel to the Microsoft situation at hand. I use Fedora, and update via yum every time the new core drops (about once every 6 months). I have a Nvidia vid card, and an Audigy. You say "Things dont go smoothly without text editor!", yet I never have to touch a text editor to get either my sound OR my video working. They always come up 100% perfect, since about Fedora Core 5. You then CHANGE your argument to say, "Well your Audigy doesnt have full features! HA!" This has NOTHING to do with your original "running smoothly" argument. My OS still runs smoothly, WITH sound, after an update. The fact that Linux doesnt have a driver that gets full Audigy support is an aside argument. In addition, I have had *no* problems with my Audigy card ever. I dont even know which "features" Im missing, because I dont particularly care, because it already does everything perfectly for my needs.
Your entire argument is rambling bunk. The fact is, Ubuntu and Fedora Core both DO still do OS updates more smoothly than this Vista SP1 has gone over. There hasnt been a Fedora upgrade issue this rough since going from FC1 to FC2. And as someone else pointed out, Microsoft is such a large, "professional" company, with so many "talented" programmers on staff, that they should easily be able to make this AS smooth as the competition.
If you'd like to change your argument now, perhaps to suggest that the only reason Microsoft has so much trouble is because they have a much larger install base than the Linux distros (something that is probably true), then go ahead. But it wont change the fact that your last round of arguments were still pointless.
Do a little cogitive followthrough & you'll see that anti-competitive behavior which does not tend to market domination or even tends to open up a market dominated by other companies is thus permitted.
How in the world does "not allowing the competing web browsers to work" fall under this??
The issue here is about Apple using their strength in one arena to push their mechanisms in others. It's the EXACT same thing Sony did with the Playstation 3. They used their console success to try to push Blu-Ray out to everyone. People complained that it was "wrong". It's the same as when Windows uses the fact that they push an OS out to try to push a browser out with it as well. It applies to Apple just as much here. They are trying to use their phone to push out ObjC over Java.
Im willing to bet you're one of the same people who cries out how wrong it is when Sony or Microsoft does it. Why isnt it wrong when Apple does it? Is this because, yet again, it's Apple?
This is not true at *all*, and is a downright falsism and an incredibly weak defense. Anti-competitive activity is classified as "banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position."
Notice the keyword there. Whether or not you already have a monopoly is NOT relevant. Only if you're doing actions that could eventually help to create one.
You realize, of course, that this very post is a RESOUNDING defense of Microsoft and all of their business practices, right?
This sword cuts both ways. What's wrong (or right, in your case) for one is wrong or right for the other. And according to reason litigation against M$, it would seem that those practices arent "fine and dandy" at all, and they ARE being forced to support competitor software. The same rules could apply down to Apple here.
At what point did Captain Obvious start working at Google?
In Unreal, there are actually competitive games that are sorted according to which type of interface people are using. So you can specify if you want to only fight gamepad users, or only keyboard/mouse users, or a mixed bag.
Okay, so now you're suggesting that the console-makers should FORCE the developers to include mouse/keyboard support? You're encouraging full content-control of that level??
Do you even know where you're posting, dude? Because you may be lost.
Except that this simply isn't true. If nobody notices trivial information, why does so much of the criticism of Wikipedia consist of complaints that it's full of trivial information? The simple truth is that practically every major article has a "Trivia" section, or an "In Popular Culture" section, or whatever, that takes up a massive amount of space, sticks out like a sore thumb, contains absolutely no information of any significance whatsoever, and yet cannot be deleted because any attempt to do so causes a million schoolchildren to scream with rage.
See, it's this mentality that ticks some people (like me) off. I dont use Wikipedia as "a replacement to an encyclopedia". Why would I do that? I have google if Im being lazy, and if I want to trust my information, I go to the library and get a real, tamper-proof encyclopedia regardless. When I want to *really* research a topic, I ignore the wikipedia links and try to find something I consider more reliable, like online documented medical journals, or whatever.
What I *really* use Wikipedia for, and what I loved it for, is the vast amount of human knowledge floating around the internet that cant be found in any other form. The "trivia" section is the most useful part of an article to me, because it's the only way to see all of the various references to something in pop culture. How the heck else am I supposed to find a comprehensive (or at least nearly) list of all the places the Grauman's Chinese Theatre is ever referenced in television or movies? Anything else in the Wikipedia article, I could look up... ANYWHERE ELSE.
It's the constant attempts of Wikipedia editors right now to kill any of the "flavour" of wikipedia out that has made me stop going to the website altogether. In *my* opinion, it had one use. It cant be trusted for encyclopedic information, because it's in constant flux, so I go get a *real* encyclopedia for that stuff. But it was great for obscure referential stuff that cant be found elsewhere. For example, this. Which is an article that they have attempted to delete like 4 times now, and probably will before it's all said and done.
Again with these posts. Clearly Im going to have to give up on pointing this out, but:
I cant speak for the 360 (I just dont know), but the PS3 already supports mouse/keyboards fully. It uses USB interfaces, so there's no difficulty finding a mouse or keyboard to hook up to it. If you want to go wild, you can buy an expensive bluetooth keyboard for it and save a port. Game support might be running a bit lower. I dont know about CoD4, but UT3 fully supports playing with the mouse/keyboard on the PS3. You have to set it up, but it's not a hard process and can be googled.
Im not sure what more people are looking for with this "I demand full support NAO!" thing.
If M$/$ony will EVER gets some balls and support a mouse
Hmm?
Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 can be played with mouse and keyboard just fine.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/03/05/clintons_delegate_lead_is_4_an.html
It's Hillary's extremely slim margin in the primary that MAKES the Texas Caucus a big deal. I wouldnt call a 4 delegate gain a "telling" loss by any stretch of the imagination. And before this is done, it may drop to 2. Hillary didnt drop anyone's pants here (especially not Bill's).
You've got to understand, this is a very difficult sentiment to get behind.
What if one particular teacher really hates Jews, and truly feels they are an inferior race that need wiped out? Should that teacher be allowed to actually teach a classroom of children about how inferior the Jews are? Obviously Ive reached for a deliberate hyperbole here, but it applies to many less radical things as well. You cannot simply stand up firmly and say, "Teachers have the right to teach whatever they want!" Look at the people who become teachers in our system. They're not Newtons, by any means. Many of them are people who just kinda fell into their current position, and arent particularly wild about being there. A lot of them probably have a *lot* of crackpot ideas they'd like to teach. And Im not even saying ID is a crackpot theory, for the record. Im just saying, at a certain point, you *have* to put a limiter on what teachers are allowed to teach. I personally am against my child going to school and learning racism of any sort. If one of the teachers happens to have racist ideas, I expect them to keep their tongue in check and not spread it to my child.
So some sort of stance has to be taken somewhere here. As lovely as "dont repress any information from teachers!" might sound on paper, it's a TERRIBLE idea. You cannot assume that 95% of all teachers are actually thoroughly ingrained with nothing but the types of knowledge and information that you would want being passed on to your children. Heck, Id be surprised if even 30% of them are. The Catholic church branding Newton and heretic was far more extreme. Newton was trying to take his findings to ADULTS. He did not have a classroom of impressionable young minds sitting underneath him who believed pretty much whatever he told them.
This might be a good time for me to try to sit through Star Trek IV or Highlander 2 again.
Blu-Ray: making crappy old movies only half as crappy.
A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract. In formal court procedures, a material fact is anything needed to prove one party's case, or tending to establish a point that is crucial to a person's position.
Material matters have to be related to the events in question. If I kill you, and then someone asks, "Didnt you also kill Buddy Holly?", whether or not I killed Buddy Holly is NOT material to my trial over your murder. It sets up character, yes, but it is not legally material, and therefore lying about it cannot be perjury.
Clinton was under trial over Paula Jones when he lied about Lewinsky. He did lie under oath, of that I'm certain. But the question was not material, so he did not commit perjury.
We could argue about this all day, I'm sure, but I see no need for it when it's pretty simple.
The Emperor and Vader were republicans?
How come Bush doesnt get a cool mask?
I know this is an old thing, but it apparently still hasnt gone away, so...
Lying under oath isnt illegal. Perjury is.
As to the difference, Ill borrow from Wikipedia:
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing.
Ill leave it at that, since getting into the full history would take way too long. That said, I dont *support* what Slick Willy did, but his impeachment was nothing more than a media frenzy.
I think this is a great post, in spite of the backlash against it. I support your cause, and fully agree. If I had mod points, I'd give them to you rather than posting here.
The general defense I keep seeing for X seems to be that people "aren't criticizing it properly". As if to say that just having problems with X isnt sufficient if you don't fully understand and can vocalize on those problems in a tech-savvy manner. In the past year, I don't know how many X problems I've run into, *most* of them being related to the fact that X itself is single-threaded, and there's a whole can of worms related to that when something minor in X happens to go wrong. There are certain issues that can be triggered in either KDE or Gnome (since X is beneath both of them), and some of them are fairly crippling. Maybe most users don't have the issues with X that I do. I find that very easy to believe, since I tend to be one of those users who manages to scrape even the most insignificant bugs out of any software.
I would think open-source users would be more akin to a certain way of thinking. For example, a piece of software isnt good "just because" it's entrenched. If that's the case, then that just creates a whole boatload of defenses for the proprietary softwares like Microsoft. X has issues, it's fairly limited as far as a display protocol goes, unless I'm misremembering it is the *only* display manager between Linux, Apple, and Microsoft systems that is single-threaded... and the main reason it's not replaced is that it's such a very daunting task. Now I'm not saying that's not a good reason (I certainly don't have the gall to try to replace X), but it's a very poor defense of it.
Terms seem reasonable. Granted. Get back to work. ~The Management
I can get back to enjoying "The Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report", instead of those generic knock-offs, "A Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report".
Maybe that's a fair point (I'm not saying the title created was unbiased, at all), but I think that this is put into a different perspective in the wake of Microsoft attempting to buy Yahoo, as well.
There's a chance that this sudden surge of purchasing, if it's anything out of the ordinary (maybe it isn't, I don't personally keep close enough tabs on Microsoft acquisitions), is a sign of some sort of desperation on Microsoft's end. Rather than attempting to come up with any further new ideas (something I'm not certain Microsoft has really been interested in for a while now), they just seem to want to buy enough bits and pieces of the industry to increase their foothold.
But then, Im just speculating. Appearances may be deceiving, but this appears to be an indicator that something's up over at M$. I just wonder the impact it will have if they were to go through with all of these acquisitions--including Yahoo--and none of it did them any good. Seems like that'd put a big dent even into Microsoft's daunting coffers.