Of course the start menu isn't live, has limited area to pin applications, is forced to being in a single list rather than multiple categorized lists/groups, and eats up task bar space that could be used for better things.
Ok, so the start menu is very bad. Got it. People have paid billions of dollars to its creator. Now they should pay MORE money to get rid of it?
Do you even know what "apples and oranges" means? Which is the apple and which is the oranges?
There is also a minimum standard of conduct and behavior most Christians expect from a Christian church (eg. charity, forgiveness, grace, loving thy enemy, etc.) that these spawn fail at miserably (by the way, they aren't the only church to fail these standards.)
Listing the (subjective) properties does not "define". Definition of Christian church is an objective way to differentiate between Chrisitian church and NOT Chrisitian church. Lacking that, there is no point in discussing whether or not a particular thing is a Chrisitian church, period.
So while they may be able to legally claim the name, they failed the accountability.
First "sort of" objective trait, though mentioned without any context. So accountability is what makes a thing a "Christian church" ? One needs a chartered accountant to prove it?
if you don't have answers, we can do without more of ignorant conversation here, thanks.
I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches.
Can you define Christian churches? We can then see whether WSBC fits it or not. There is no other way to prove whether WSBC is a "Christian church" or not.
It is already established that legally, WSBC IS is Christian church, so by one definition you are already wrong. You can declare how your definition differs from the legal definition (quite plausible).
Everyone I know enough to know this aspect of their lives who uses email (at least 300 people who use email). They haven't configured it themselves , they use the spam filter of gmail, yahoo, and even hotmail (is it "live" these days?). They don't have to make a decision to use the spam filter as webmail comes preconfigured with spam filter, and good ones at that.
So yes, an AV company is more like the SWAT team that comes after you shot the policeman, but that's nitpicking
No, an AV is just not involved at all. If an AV is dealing with this kind of problem at all, such an AV comes bundled with a spam filter and the spam filter part of the AV is dealing with this problem rather than the core AV part. And this spam filter part of the AV doesn't work on webmail, which an overwhelming majority of email users are using these days.
Is it nitpicking? No. Saying an AV is involved in this kind of problem is simply wrong. And it gives undue credit to popular AV companies, which I consider to be parasites on the computing world. Webmail is fighting all the spam out there, not some stupid AV.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
One of the really dumb omissions in the HTTP and/or HTML protocols is that they don't provide a standard way for a client app to inform a server about the size of its window/screen. This is an ongoing frustration among web developers
The robot will look (and emote too) just like a human. So the perception of the viewer is unchanged. Nobody need even tell the viewers whether it is a "real" human or not. So why not?
Do you really believe that ethics stops and starts with the law?
So how much tax exactly should Google have to pay? What if the next "ethical" person disagrees? We can vote our representatives to a group, call it Parliament or Congress, and settle it once and for all? We can call them laws, sounds catchy. Revolutionary idea, isn't it?
It's complaining about having to charge Apple customers 50% more than it'd like
The Apple terms also include best price condition i.e. Microsoft cannot charge less elsewhere for the same service as on iOS. So not true.
but the logic had nothing to do with trying to screw anyone over.
The logic was not logical, so it is immaterial anyway. If I say give me ten thousand dollars, it will be good for you and for world peace. It has everything to do with my being greedy and trying to screw you over even though it is supposedly for your own good.
Personally if it were me I'd cut off support at the P4
No, either cut at P3, or cut at Athlon 64 / Intel core. P4 was a pure space heater, P3 was an actual computer processor. Pentium D was similarly useless as P4.
If someone is running a P4 / P3 today, he is obviously not looking at cutting edge performance. It is most likely running since decades so why disturb it. P3 had a far better performance / watt ratio than P4, and could run well on minimal cooling as well.
My school's dual seat P3 server ran circles around a single seat P4 server even while 2xP3 running typically larger loads.
Yes, chrome is fine but I still prefer dolphin. Though Firefox for android doesn't even reflow text (yet, it's fixed in 18 which is not available yet). New users will never discover the joy of small screen simple web browsing without reflow.
If your delusion is so complete, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter about ipad 9 and galaxy VIII too. I am tired of fact, take me to the fantasy world, my saviour.
It should serve the phone owner by allowing the phone owner to connect securely to a larger selection of websites.
Ok, so Android almost does, by allowing users to replace default applications. I agree it is less elegant than SSL stack being upgradeable as a single component.
Now while from absolute design perspective, this might sound like a good idea, but it is useful only if every browser is forced to use the SSL stack that is upgradable. Which in turn isn't such a great idea because
1. It is fundamentally against "freedom" 2. There could be multiple issues with the SSL stack, and users and application developers will not be able to work around those issues.
You can say there shouldn't be any issues with the "golden SSL stack", but then you wouldn't be reasonable any more.
Though the "browser" makes sense as a "Google Play" application, I think, similar to Google Maps. Easier to test independently on various Android versions as it is a separate "product".
Well, it is not that I didn't explain further than the part you quote. So, you are expecting next week's (or even next decade's) cereal box to come with "modern user interface"?
Wow, let the accusations of shilling fly. That totally reinforces your argument there
I've read at least 50 of your posts. All of them strongly agreeing with Microsoft, and none of them disagreeing and none of them on any other topic. General Patten was a bit too spot-on when he said "When everyone's thinking alike, someone isn't thinking". So the kindest explanation is that you are an unthinking fanboy.
I right click *everything* that looks like it's interactive,
Looks? Well, the kindest explanation can be that English isn't your native language, but "looks" is not a word typically used for invisible, ninja-style, intentionally hidden things.
Start -> Shut Down
This is stupid doesn't mean a ninja start button is any better.
As for "deliberately hidden", you realize there's a "Turn off your PC" Search result on the Start menu that come up if you type "turn" or "shut" into the Search
Well, when I was a kid, my little cousin who was visiting once put my toys under the bed. I had to, you know, "search" for my toys. It is called deliberately hiding when things you are used to finding without effort needs "searching". Again, English. I know, a funny language, "deliberately hidden" does mean something awfully inconvenient to your masters.
No one knows. Intel is not a very transparent company as far as future roadmap is concerned. This gives news outlets a fertile ground by first publishing rumors and then news of Intel clarifying.
But at least Intel doesn't lie outright like Apple does e.g. about mini ipad; so their reassurance is not meaningless, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the start menu isn't live, has limited area to pin applications, is forced to being in a single list rather than multiple categorized lists/groups, and eats up task bar space that could be used for better things.
Ok, so the start menu is very bad. Got it. People have paid billions of dollars to its creator. Now they should pay MORE money to get rid of it?
So, they just have subpoena Google to get you? Cool.
I think you two are arguing apple and oranges
Do you even know what "apples and oranges" means? Which is the apple and which is the oranges?
There is also a minimum standard of conduct and behavior most Christians expect from a Christian church (eg. charity, forgiveness, grace, loving thy enemy, etc.) that these spawn fail at miserably (by the way, they aren't the only church to fail these standards.)
Listing the (subjective) properties does not "define". Definition of Christian church is an objective way to differentiate between Chrisitian church and NOT Chrisitian church. Lacking that, there is no point in discussing whether or not a particular thing is a Chrisitian church, period.
So while they may be able to legally claim the name, they failed the accountability.
First "sort of" objective trait, though mentioned without any context. So accountability is what makes a thing a "Christian church" ? One needs a chartered accountant to prove it?
if you don't have answers, we can do without more of ignorant conversation here, thanks.
I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches.
Can you define Christian churches? We can then see whether WSBC fits it or not. There is no other way to prove whether WSBC is a "Christian church" or not.
It is already established that legally, WSBC IS is Christian church, so by one definition you are already wrong. You can declare how your definition differs from the legal definition (quite plausible).
You are right, I was mistaken in believing the effecs would be similar. Thanks.
How many people actually HAVE a spam filter?
Everyone I know enough to know this aspect of their lives who uses email (at least 300 people who use email). They haven't configured it themselves , they use the spam filter of gmail, yahoo, and even hotmail (is it "live" these days?). They don't have to make a decision to use the spam filter as webmail comes preconfigured with spam filter, and good ones at that.
So yes, an AV company is more like the SWAT team that comes after you shot the policeman, but that's nitpicking
No, an AV is just not involved at all. If an AV is dealing with this kind of problem at all, such an AV comes bundled with a spam filter and the spam filter part of the AV is dealing with this problem rather than the core AV part. And this spam filter part of the AV doesn't work on webmail, which an overwhelming majority of email users are using these days.
Is it nitpicking? No. Saying an AV is involved in this kind of problem is simply wrong. And it gives undue credit to popular AV companies, which I consider to be parasites on the computing world. Webmail is fighting all the spam out there, not some stupid AV.
One of the really dumb omissions in the HTTP and/or HTML protocols is that they don't provide a standard way for a client app to inform a server about the size of its window/screen. This is an ongoing frustration among web developers
Is javascript not acceptable?
Longer exposure time of the camera or high response time of the display.
Yes, but the spam filter is the policeman here instead of the AV. This particular security problem is likely to be entirely based in the "cloud".
The robot will look (and emote too) just like a human. So the perception of the viewer is unchanged. Nobody need even tell the viewers whether it is a "real" human or not. So why not?
Do you really believe that ethics stops and starts with the law?
So how much tax exactly should Google have to pay? What if the next "ethical" person disagrees? We can vote our representatives to a group, call it Parliament or Congress, and settle it once and for all? We can call them laws, sounds catchy. Revolutionary idea, isn't it?
Define profitable. There are inevitably some transactions with entities outside UK, so do take them into account when defining.
It's complaining about having to charge Apple customers 50% more than it'd like
The Apple terms also include best price condition i.e. Microsoft cannot charge less elsewhere for the same service as on iOS. So not true.
but the logic had nothing to do with trying to screw anyone over.
The logic was not logical, so it is immaterial anyway. If I say give me ten thousand dollars, it will be good for you and for world peace. It has everything to do with my being greedy and trying to screw you over even though it is supposedly for your own good.
Personally if it were me I'd cut off support at the P4
No, either cut at P3, or cut at Athlon 64 / Intel core. P4 was a pure space heater, P3 was an actual computer processor. Pentium D was similarly useless as P4.
If someone is running a P4 / P3 today, he is obviously not looking at cutting edge performance. It is most likely running since decades so why disturb it. P3 had a far better performance / watt ratio than P4, and could run well on minimal cooling as well.
My school's dual seat P3 server ran circles around a single seat P4 server even while 2xP3 running typically larger loads.
offshore friends who only definition
At least their grammar is better.
No, you could be a user as well. I said nothing that amounts to saying you can't be a user.
You might be correct this moment, it's summer down under and winters in the 'states. Argue in this vein like a true slashdotter.
Mods : -1, not argumentative enough.
Yes, chrome is fine but I still prefer dolphin. Though Firefox for android doesn't even reflow text (yet, it's fixed in 18 which is not available yet). New users will never discover the joy of small screen simple web browsing without reflow.
I genuinely don't see anyone expecting Apple to provide interfaces to be used in Android and vice versa.
From a user's perspective, future devices include Apple devices and Android devices.
Aw, you ran out of arguments already. :(
No, you ignored them. Ipad and galaxy, remember? Inconvenient?
If your delusion is so complete, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter about ipad 9 and galaxy VIII too. I am tired of fact, take me to the fantasy world, my saviour.
It should serve the phone owner by allowing the phone owner to connect securely to a larger selection of websites.
Ok, so Android almost does, by allowing users to replace default applications. I agree it is less elegant than SSL stack being upgradeable as a single component.
Now while from absolute design perspective, this might sound like a good idea, but it is useful only if every browser is forced to use the SSL stack that is upgradable. Which in turn isn't such a great idea because
1. It is fundamentally against "freedom"
2. There could be multiple issues with the SSL stack, and users and application developers will not be able to work around those issues.
You can say there shouldn't be any issues with the "golden SSL stack", but then you wouldn't be reasonable any more.
Though the "browser" makes sense as a "Google Play" application, I think, similar to Google Maps. Easier to test independently on various Android versions as it is a separate "product".
Well, it is not that I didn't explain further than the part you quote. So, you are expecting next week's (or even next decade's) cereal box to come with "modern user interface"?
Wow, let the accusations of shilling fly. That totally reinforces your argument there
I've read at least 50 of your posts. All of them strongly agreeing with Microsoft, and none of them disagreeing and none of them on any other topic. General Patten was a bit too spot-on when he said "When everyone's thinking alike, someone isn't thinking". So the kindest explanation is that you are an unthinking fanboy.
I right click *everything* that looks like it's interactive,
Looks? Well, the kindest explanation can be that English isn't your native language, but "looks" is not a word typically used for invisible, ninja-style, intentionally hidden things.
Start -> Shut Down
This is stupid doesn't mean a ninja start button is any better.
As for "deliberately hidden", you realize there's a "Turn off your PC" Search result on the Start menu that come up if you type "turn" or "shut" into the Search
Well, when I was a kid, my little cousin who was visiting once put my toys under the bed. I had to, you know, "search" for my toys. It is called deliberately hiding when things you are used to finding without effort needs "searching". Again, English. I know, a funny language, "deliberately hidden" does mean something awfully inconvenient to your masters.
No one knows. Intel is not a very transparent company as far as future roadmap is concerned. This gives news outlets a fertile ground by first publishing rumors and then news of Intel clarifying.
But at least Intel doesn't lie outright like Apple does e.g. about mini ipad; so their reassurance is not meaningless, I think.