Doesn't everybody know that all flash video is easily accessible? Most of the time it's just a case of dragging it out of the cache. Sometimes you need to jump through more hoops, but I thought it was common knowledge that you could download it all.
You have to re-encode it if you want to, say, burn it on dvd, but that's not too hard. I use winFF (yes, I use windows).
I think that even the relatively minor change of not printing any sort of party affiliation on ballots would have a major affect on election results, and I don't see any sort of free speech problem with it. I'm been suggesting that idea in political discussions, and keep getting told to shut up.
The time to panic isn't when the fourth application is rejected, it's when the first application is rejected. Everything after that is just reinforcement.
It's using the default XP skin. I've never left that on a computer for more than a few minutes, and none of my family does either. Switching to the classic explorer GUI really makes a lot of fake popups and malware stand out like a sore thumb.
HD-DVD lost, clearly, but that doesn't mean Blu-Ray won. DVD is winning; and if it can hold onto a lead for several more years, long enough for a substantially better technology to go along, Blu-Ray will fade away just like LaserDisk.
Blu-Ray is better than DVD, but I don't know if it is enough better to survive and conquer.
Obviously, we disagree that it was better; I understand that designers have to draw a line somewhere, they can't make every user happy, etc., etc.
But there were a lot of complaints about the awesomebar all through development, through the beta releases, and so forth. It's ongoing, and I'm sure it's by far the feature of firefox 3.0 that has drawn the most criticism. Why not throw a bone to a sizable chunk of their users and allow a choice? I'm sure the code for the old locationbar is a fraction of the size devoted to the awesomebar.
I see that my original post is now "1, troll", although it can't be interpreted as a troll by any honest moderator. I say that most new features of Firefox are clear improvements, then make a specific criticism. It was not rude or argumentative. Are suggesting ways to improve an already great browser verboten here now, because it implies that it isn't already perfect?
Oh, there are add-ons that get rid of most of the awesomebar. There are programmers that hate it just as much as I do! Several versions popped up pretty quickly. I use "oldbar". I'm one of those guys that puts Firefox on friend's and family's machines... now, oldbar is part of the standard install for me, just like adblock and flashblock.
Strangely, it was a real struggle downloading it from the firefox site; It's listed, but didn't allow downloads. I had to go to a 3rd party site, which I've never had to do for an add-on before.
I'd rather have the option built in, than use an add-on, though. It's a little cleaner, more efficient. As I said, the code was all there; it was stripped out. Why?
There's more than one new feature. Most of the new features were clear improvements. The awesomebar wasn't, it was a backward slide into Microsoft-style "usability enhancements" with no ability to disable. Heck, even Microsoft allows you to disable "smart menus".
3.0 isn't better in every way than 2.0; but it is better in most ways. It's worth upgrading to, despite the awesomebar. I just hope that in some future version they add in some sensible config options to revert the location bar back to a straight and simple alphanumeric match to previously typed URLs. Some people like it, and that's great; but why remove the prior functionality?
You seriously don't see the difference between "I Agree" and "Next"? Clicking one means that... you agree. The other doesn't. Sometimes the difference of one or two words makes a huge difference. The problem was never the hardship of having to click a button. It was the requirement of mandatory consent in order to use the program.
The "I Agree" button was the problem. If it had said "Continue", I don't think there would have been a problem. Attempting to force the user to agree to a license was silly, especially when the license itself (if I understand correctly) doesn't allow users to be restricted in such a way.
'We consider Facebook and MySpace their personal space,' the dean of undergraduate admissions said. 'It would feel somewhat like an invasion of privacy.'"
They're being overly sensitive. MySpace isn't private. Information put on the internet, publicly available without a password or other security, should be considered as public as anything on a community bulletin board.
That's why deeplinking is legal, to refer to the discussion from a few days ago.
Also, a simple MySpace check can probably tell the college a vast amount of detail about the student... and their level of stupidity. Responsibility and Judgment should be rewarded.
Wow; that was a really quick whipout of a conspiracy charge. While I haven't taken a survey, I'd say 80-90% of readers would interpret Moore's comment to mean that 79p was the ripoff... since that was what his statement was in response to.
Can you even conceive that maybe there isn't a group of PAID CONSPIRATORS POSTING TO SLASHDOT TO BOOST MOORE AT THE EXPENSE OF JOBS, but maybe your interpretation is just flawed?
He's saying, and this is pretty obvious, 99 cents is less than 79 pence, so being charged 79 pence is a ripoff. It's pretty clear.
Texture mapping the dreamcast did well. The capabilities of the Dreamcast were very close to the PS2; even better in some ways. It died because of Sony marketing, plus the fact that the PS2 included a DVD... which I think was the biggest advantage of the PS2 over the Dreamcast.
It's pretty clear. He mentions that songs on iTunes are 99 cents, and asks what they are in the UK. The interviewer says 79 pence. He says "oh, you're being ripped off."
Aren't the first two clauses simple facts? I don't see why stating "Don't use this in a way you can't legally use it" in a license is a problem. The third clause I understand, because it is an additional requirement or restriction added to the license.
There is one set of laws that cover federal presidential elections. That governs the electoral college. All this voting you do in November is not federal, it's to pick your state's representatives to the real voting, done the second week in December. States are free to use whatever method they wish (well, not totally free). It's interesting how many people misunderstand how our elections work. There is not, never has been, a national vote on anything in the United States.
No, it's similar to saying "if you outlaw killing, only outlaws will kill."
The difference is that killing may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, just like using a knife or gun; but if you unilaterally outlawing it, you're ensuring that all killers are murderers, even in self defense.
The proper stance is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of killing, as it is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of behavior with knives and guns.
That's the crux. Displaying information about the license isn't the problem. It's the "I Agree" button. The user doesn't have to agree with the license to use the program, they only have to abide by the terms of the license, which I believe only concerns itself with reproduction and distribution.
If they got rid of the "I Agree" and replaced it with "Continue", "Next", or even "Skip", it wouldn't be a problem.
That was interesting. I wonder if the very profession of Economist presumes a liberal bias. After all, if your ideals about the market are that free trade is good, controls are bad, and that manipulating and putting controls on the market will be harmful, what's the point in becoming an economist in the first place?
I heard a commercial on the radio once from the national association of podiatrists... they said that you should get your feet checked by a professional twice a year. They said that with a straight face. Feet are what they deal with, and it probably seems so important to them to keep your 'feet health' a priority. Similarly, economists probably have to believe that more is going on in the market than Adam Smith's invisible hand, if only to justify their own existence.
Slashdot Mirror
This announcement brought to you by the freedom-loving Chinese Press at 7:20am.
Doesn't everybody know that all flash video is easily accessible? Most of the time it's just a case of dragging it out of the cache. Sometimes you need to jump through more hoops, but I thought it was common knowledge that you could download it all.
You have to re-encode it if you want to, say, burn it on dvd, but that's not too hard. I use winFF (yes, I use windows).
Unfortunately it's been proven that dogmatism is the ONLY non-self-delusional behavior.
Yeah? How?
You see there is no rational basis for the universe.
Really? Why?
I hate amateur philosophy.
I think that even the relatively minor change of not printing any sort of party affiliation on ballots would have a major affect on election results, and I don't see any sort of free speech problem with it. I'm been suggesting that idea in political discussions, and keep getting told to shut up.
The time to panic isn't when the fourth application is rejected, it's when the first application is rejected. Everything after that is just reinforcement.
It would be doomed to failure, like its cousin the pc. What a horrible flop that was.
Don't underestimate my fanaticism.
Most obvious clue for me?
It's using the default XP skin. I've never left that on a computer for more than a few minutes, and none of my family does either. Switching to the classic explorer GUI really makes a lot of fake popups and malware stand out like a sore thumb.
HD-DVD lost, clearly, but that doesn't mean Blu-Ray won. DVD is winning; and if it can hold onto a lead for several more years, long enough for a substantially better technology to go along, Blu-Ray will fade away just like LaserDisk.
Blu-Ray is better than DVD, but I don't know if it is enough better to survive and conquer.
Obviously, we disagree that it was better; I understand that designers have to draw a line somewhere, they can't make every user happy, etc., etc.
But there were a lot of complaints about the awesomebar all through development, through the beta releases, and so forth. It's ongoing, and I'm sure it's by far the feature of firefox 3.0 that has drawn the most criticism. Why not throw a bone to a sizable chunk of their users and allow a choice? I'm sure the code for the old locationbar is a fraction of the size devoted to the awesomebar.
I see that my original post is now "1, troll", although it can't be interpreted as a troll by any honest moderator. I say that most new features of Firefox are clear improvements, then make a specific criticism. It was not rude or argumentative. Are suggesting ways to improve an already great browser verboten here now, because it implies that it isn't already perfect?
Oh, there are add-ons that get rid of most of the awesomebar. There are programmers that hate it just as much as I do! Several versions popped up pretty quickly. I use "oldbar". I'm one of those guys that puts Firefox on friend's and family's machines... now, oldbar is part of the standard install for me, just like adblock and flashblock.
Strangely, it was a real struggle downloading it from the firefox site; It's listed, but didn't allow downloads. I had to go to a 3rd party site, which I've never had to do for an add-on before.
I'd rather have the option built in, than use an add-on, though. It's a little cleaner, more efficient. As I said, the code was all there; it was stripped out. Why?
There's more than one new feature. Most of the new features were clear improvements. The awesomebar wasn't, it was a backward slide into Microsoft-style "usability enhancements" with no ability to disable. Heck, even Microsoft allows you to disable "smart menus".
3.0 isn't better in every way than 2.0; but it is better in most ways. It's worth upgrading to, despite the awesomebar. I just hope that in some future version they add in some sensible config options to revert the location bar back to a straight and simple alphanumeric match to previously typed URLs. Some people like it, and that's great; but why remove the prior functionality?
You seriously don't see the difference between "I Agree" and "Next"? Clicking one means that... you agree. The other doesn't. Sometimes the difference of one or two words makes a huge difference. The problem was never the hardship of having to click a button. It was the requirement of mandatory consent in order to use the program.
The "I Agree" button was the problem. If it had said "Continue", I don't think there would have been a problem. Attempting to force the user to agree to a license was silly, especially when the license itself (if I understand correctly) doesn't allow users to be restricted in such a way.
'We consider Facebook and MySpace their personal space,' the dean of undergraduate admissions said. 'It would feel somewhat like an invasion of privacy.'"
They're being overly sensitive. MySpace isn't private. Information put on the internet, publicly available without a password or other security, should be considered as public as anything on a community bulletin board.
That's why deeplinking is legal, to refer to the discussion from a few days ago.
Also, a simple MySpace check can probably tell the college a vast amount of detail about the student... and their level of stupidity. Responsibility and Judgment should be rewarded.
Wow; that was a really quick whipout of a conspiracy charge. While I haven't taken a survey, I'd say 80-90% of readers would interpret Moore's comment to mean that 79p was the ripoff... since that was what his statement was in response to.
Can you even conceive that maybe there isn't a group of PAID CONSPIRATORS POSTING TO SLASHDOT TO BOOST MOORE AT THE EXPENSE OF JOBS, but maybe your interpretation is just flawed?
He's saying, and this is pretty obvious, 99 cents is less than 79 pence, so being charged 79 pence is a ripoff. It's pretty clear.
The Wii is plenty powerful enough to run Ubuntu; but it is too locked down.
Texture mapping the dreamcast did well. The capabilities of the Dreamcast were very close to the PS2; even better in some ways. It died because of Sony marketing, plus the fact that the PS2 included a DVD... which I think was the biggest advantage of the PS2 over the Dreamcast.
Great little console.
It's pretty clear. He mentions that songs on iTunes are 99 cents, and asks what they are in the UK. The interviewer says 79 pence. He says "oh, you're being ripped off."
I think it's both clear and accurate.
Aren't the first two clauses simple facts? I don't see why stating "Don't use this in a way you can't legally use it" in a license is a problem. The third clause I understand, because it is an additional requirement or restriction added to the license.
There is one set of laws that cover federal presidential elections. That governs the electoral college. All this voting you do in November is not federal, it's to pick your state's representatives to the real voting, done the second week in December. States are free to use whatever method they wish (well, not totally free). It's interesting how many people misunderstand how our elections work. There is not, never has been, a national vote on anything in the United States.
No, it's similar to saying "if you outlaw killing, only outlaws will kill."
The difference is that killing may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances, just like using a knife or gun; but if you unilaterally outlawing it, you're ensuring that all killers are murderers, even in self defense.
The proper stance is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of killing, as it is to outlaw [i]types[/i] of behavior with knives and guns.
"If you've already decided what you believe, no point in studying it; Hooray for blind faith!"
I have no intention of becoming a priest, and yet I've dismissed religion. Is that blind faith?
That's the crux. Displaying information about the license isn't the problem. It's the "I Agree" button. The user doesn't have to agree with the license to use the program, they only have to abide by the terms of the license, which I believe only concerns itself with reproduction and distribution.
If they got rid of the "I Agree" and replaced it with "Continue", "Next", or even "Skip", it wouldn't be a problem.
That was interesting. I wonder if the very profession of Economist presumes a liberal bias. After all, if your ideals about the market are that free trade is good, controls are bad, and that manipulating and putting controls on the market will be harmful, what's the point in becoming an economist in the first place?
I heard a commercial on the radio once from the national association of podiatrists... they said that you should get your feet checked by a professional twice a year. They said that with a straight face. Feet are what they deal with, and it probably seems so important to them to keep your 'feet health' a priority. Similarly, economists probably have to believe that more is going on in the market than Adam Smith's invisible hand, if only to justify their own existence.