Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Care to explain why a mere week ago, we successfully used piriforms free "recuva" utility to recover around 12GB of data that was wiped out from DFS-- none of those overwritten or corrupted?
The summary clearly says this was about copyright and not trademarks.
Summary is full of crap, as it never (either in this or prior article) linked to ANY warnings by Activision/Blizzard. Nowhere in this or the prior articles do I see any C&D, or anything more than what appears to be a forum rant by the mods creator.
Im really not sure where this story came from; it appears that Blizzard is just as confused as I am, and unless someone can produce said C&D Im not sure why I am expected to believe it exists.
there are still more than 100 "hardblocker" bugs, more than 60 bugs affecting Panorama alone and 10 bugs affecting the just-introduced Tabs-on-Titlebar
So, in other words, Firefox 4 will be buggy because it wont ship until those bugs are fixed. Makes sense-- wait, what?
Some long-standing bugs wont' be fixed in time for Firefox 4 final either
So its a super buggy version of firefox, and shouldnt be shipped because there are bugs that had been present for a long time, and are still present (flash stealing keyboard focus, etc).
Many startup bugs are currently pending, although Firefox 4 starts much faster than Firefox 3.6
So they made major inroads, but theyre not "good enough" yet.
unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test,
....Which, AFAIK isnt really that important as firefox 4 scores a respectable 97 out of 100 (firefox 4 beta 9), and its an artificial test anyways testing how well a browsers CSS breaks. However, I will note the bug's assignee: "Nobody; OK to take it and work on it"-- so if someone feels its worth the extra bragging rights they can fix those last 3 issues in a pointless test?
Perhaps we'll have to wait until Firefox 4.1 to have this "huge pile of bugs" (mostly) fixed."
This is perhaps the dumbest article criticizing a new firefox release ever. Firefox 3, yes, I can understand awesome bar pissed some people off. But firefox 4 brings tons of improvements, and even from reading the summary you get the impression that it has fewER bugs than prior versions; and yet the submitter seems unsatisfied that bugs yet remain. Perhaps you can point us to a major, complex project such as an HTML interpreter that ISNT a "huge pile of bugs"? Couldnt I label Linux a "huge pile of bugs"? Perhaps Linus should stop shipping kernels until all problems are solved, or perhaps revert to using 2.6.37.0.0.1 to denote the fact that there are still many bugs in there. Perhaps we should put the pressure on for him to get on it and release a new kernel absent all these bugs.
Its like submitter feels entitled to a pristine bug free experience. Firefox 4 doubtless took a phenomenal number of man hours to make as much progress as it did; perhaps some gratitude for what a phenomenally high quality piece of volunteer effort it is, rather than whining about bugs that remain open, would be in order.
I must have missed the memo where a cop is able to stop you for no reason. Last I checked they have to have a reason to stop you, and "he didnt have his papers" doesnt really cut it.
creationists will simply claim their creator is even more ingenious than they previously imagined.
You took an argument that stated "X is irrelevant" and turned it into "X shows Y group is retarded", im speechless.
The creationist stance doesnt make claims about what the universal constants are, so its pointless to pontificate about what a creator would have chosen for said constants, and remarkably arrogant that anyone would speculate about what the full ramifications of such a decision might be. I would hope that any remotely professional scientist would recognize the enormity of changing eg the gravitational constant even slightly.
None of these arguments have any bearing on the subject, because in the end you are speculating on what said creator "would have done". Would constants be biased in favor of more favorable, or less favorable conditions? Noone knows, and those arguing against a creator will make the argument that the results of their studies disprove said creator.
At the end of the day, the statement on creation tends to be "things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way." Showing that X constant makes such an existence less or more likely doesnt in the least affect that statement.
A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims
but its good to know you place high value on such things without (apparently) reading into it further. What was it you were lambasting, "faith...which is not scientific"?
and the possibility arises that maybe it'd be possible to find a 'better' place.
The definition of "universe" as I understand it means that there is no chance for contact, influence, or observation across its "boundaries".
As we have no knowledge of what all the cosmological constants are (or whether they are truly constant), nor even the slighest inkling of whether it would be possible to change them (definition of "constant" seems to suggest that, no, you cant), its not really optimistic at all. You seem to be trying to find a silver lining to a speculation where none seems to exist.
IIRC it also costs oodles for licensing for those making browsers, which in turn raises the costs of making a browser, which in turns hurts competition.
If you offer them a path to citizenship, you just make a mockery of the legislative system-- it ends up saying "Dont do this, but if you really want to you can, and you wont be punished for it". Illegal immigration is illegal (duh), and rewarding it encourages more of it.
Youre better off reforming immigration laws than undermining the legal system.
3) Additional options mean additional complexity and testing.
Its not "free code"; its subject to bitrot and maintenance costs the same as every other code, and Im kind of astonished that a community with so many coders doesnt understand this.
Having tons of different GUI options increases the complexity of maintaining it; as versions progress, more and more things have to be checked for regressions and breakage. If it is implemented as an addon (as the new tab button, plugin manager, close buttons on tabs, etc used to be), it will run with a small performance degradation but will be easily maintained.
There is thus a tradeoff, and taking common requests and implementing them, while also pruning less good UI elements and letting them become addons, is IMO generally good. Choice is maintained the way it always has with firefox-- through addons.
There are absolutely no users who think that getting rid of the status bar is a good idea.
Citation needed please. I rather suspect that, other than the poster who directly contradicts you below, that the only ones shouting about this are the ones who DONT like it. Its called "the vocal minority"; being loud doesnt mean that everyone agrees with you.
Just keep in mind that every additional option like that has to be maintained, whereas if it is implemented as an extension, it gets a dedicated maintainer.
, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.
Apparently you dont realize that one of the biggest features of 3.6 was its massively improved JS rendering? Or that 4.0s big name features include such things as separated processes for plugins (easier to manage bloat and memory usage, plus stability), massively imroved javascript, hardware accelerated page rendering, hardware accelerated videos, HTML5 (for a speedier multimedia experience), and a handful of other performance optimizations?
Listen, Ive been using firefox since the.9 days, and I live on the bleeding edge. Firefox has progressively gotten faster, and a lot of that "bloat" (fixing the retarded options menu of yore; adding a "new tab" button; improving the download manager; a plugins manager) were all blamed for bloat at one time or another, but they filled roles that were done quite a lot by extensions, with the result that the "complete package" (browser + addons) was a slow, buggy mess.
Firefox 3.0 I can MAYBE accept that you feel it was slower than 2.x, but 2.0 was generally better and smoother than 1.5, which was better than 1.0, etc. 3.6 is NOTICABLY faster (go to chrome experiments on 1.5, see how it croaks) than all of its predecessors, and 4.0 blows them all out of the water.
Anyone who remarks on "can you notice a difference between 1.5 and 4.0" -- no less, on a site as heavy in JS as slashdot-- really doesnt have a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Modern file systems such as NTFS and anything used by the *nix world use a completely different allocation system than FAT, and as a result a simple "undelete" utility would be worthless.
Care to explain why a mere week ago, we successfully used piriforms free "recuva" utility to recover around 12GB of data that was wiped out from DFS-- none of those overwritten or corrupted?
And you appear to be doing the same with the "they" (shadowy government folk?).
The summary clearly says this was about copyright and not trademarks.
Summary is full of crap, as it never (either in this or prior article) linked to ANY warnings by Activision/Blizzard. Nowhere in this or the prior articles do I see any C&D, or anything more than what appears to be a forum rant by the mods creator.
Im really not sure where this story came from; it appears that Blizzard is just as confused as I am, and unless someone can produce said C&D Im not sure why I am expected to believe it exists.
Kind of like how canonical asks that people not use the -buntu suffix on non-official remixes of their distro? Seems kind of reasonable to me.
No, see thats where your (hopefully competent) lawyer gets the entire case thrown out.
This is whats known as "process", and you have a lawyer to make sure it all goes down properly.
Lets look at OPs list.
there are still more than 100 "hardblocker" bugs, more than 60 bugs affecting Panorama alone and 10 bugs affecting the just-introduced Tabs-on-Titlebar
So, in other words, Firefox 4 will be buggy because it wont ship until those bugs are fixed. Makes sense-- wait, what?
Some long-standing bugs wont' be fixed in time for Firefox 4 final either
So its a super buggy version of firefox, and shouldnt be shipped because there are bugs that had been present for a long time, and are still present (flash stealing keyboard focus, etc).
Many startup bugs are currently pending, although Firefox 4 starts much faster than Firefox 3.6
So they made major inroads, but theyre not "good enough" yet.
unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test,
....Which, AFAIK isnt really that important as firefox 4 scores a respectable 97 out of 100 (firefox 4 beta 9), and its an artificial test anyways testing how well a browsers CSS breaks. However, I will note the bug's assignee: "Nobody; OK to take it and work on it"-- so if someone feels its worth the extra bragging rights they can fix those last 3 issues in a pointless test?
Perhaps we'll have to wait until Firefox 4.1 to have this "huge pile of bugs" (mostly) fixed."
This is perhaps the dumbest article criticizing a new firefox release ever. Firefox 3, yes, I can understand awesome bar pissed some people off. But firefox 4 brings tons of improvements, and even from reading the summary you get the impression that it has fewER bugs than prior versions; and yet the submitter seems unsatisfied that bugs yet remain. Perhaps you can point us to a major, complex project such as an HTML interpreter that ISNT a "huge pile of bugs"? Couldnt I label Linux a "huge pile of bugs"? Perhaps Linus should stop shipping kernels until all problems are solved, or perhaps revert to using 2.6.37.0.0.1 to denote the fact that there are still many bugs in there. Perhaps we should put the pressure on for him to get on it and release a new kernel absent all these bugs.
Its like submitter feels entitled to a pristine bug free experience. Firefox 4 doubtless took a phenomenal number of man hours to make as much progress as it did; perhaps some gratitude for what a phenomenally high quality piece of volunteer effort it is, rather than whining about bugs that remain open, would be in order.
I must have missed the memo where a cop is able to stop you for no reason. Last I checked they have to have a reason to stop you, and "he didnt have his papers" doesnt really cut it.
creationists will simply claim their creator is even more ingenious than they previously imagined.
You took an argument that stated "X is irrelevant" and turned it into "X shows Y group is retarded", im speechless.
The creationist stance doesnt make claims about what the universal constants are, so its pointless to pontificate about what a creator would have chosen for said constants, and remarkably arrogant that anyone would speculate about what the full ramifications of such a decision might be. I would hope that any remotely professional scientist would recognize the enormity of changing eg the gravitational constant even slightly.
Those are both lame, acetycholine is clearly the superior neurotransmitter.
They are still working on the same code base as 2000 years ago
I thought the entire argument with the reformers was that they werent, and that they were adding new features.
None of these arguments have any bearing on the subject, because in the end you are speculating on what said creator "would have done". Would constants be biased in favor of more favorable, or less favorable conditions? Noone knows, and those arguing against a creator will make the argument that the results of their studies disprove said creator.
At the end of the day, the statement on creation tends to be "things are as they are because they were intentionally made that way." Showing that X constant makes such an existence less or more likely doesnt in the least affect that statement.
You certainly cant disprove anything with
A University of Alberta theoretical physicist claims
but its good to know you place high value on such things without (apparently) reading into it further. What was it you were lambasting, "faith...which is not scientific"?
and the possibility arises that maybe it'd be possible to find a 'better' place.
The definition of "universe" as I understand it means that there is no chance for contact, influence, or observation across its "boundaries".
As we have no knowledge of what all the cosmological constants are (or whether they are truly constant), nor even the slighest inkling of whether it would be possible to change them (definition of "constant" seems to suggest that, no, you cant), its not really optimistic at all. You seem to be trying to find a silver lining to a speculation where none seems to exist.
"We can't prove it, but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out."
Yes, but thats been known since the start.
what more are you looking for?
With a headline like this, cold hard evidence would be nice.
IIRC it also costs oodles for licensing for those making browsers, which in turn raises the costs of making a browser, which in turns hurts competition.
If you offer them a path to citizenship, you just make a mockery of the legislative system-- it ends up saying "Dont do this, but if you really want to you can, and you wont be punished for it". Illegal immigration is illegal (duh), and rewarding it encourages more of it.
Youre better off reforming immigration laws than undermining the legal system.
You wont find the large body of people who love it complaining on slashdot; that doesnt mean they exist.
3) Additional options mean additional complexity and testing.
Its not "free code"; its subject to bitrot and maintenance costs the same as every other code, and Im kind of astonished that a community with so many coders doesnt understand this.
Having tons of different GUI options increases the complexity of maintaining it; as versions progress, more and more things have to be checked for regressions and breakage. If it is implemented as an addon (as the new tab button, plugin manager, close buttons on tabs, etc used to be), it will run with a small performance degradation but will be easily maintained.
There is thus a tradeoff, and taking common requests and implementing them, while also pruning less good UI elements and letting them become addons, is IMO generally good. Choice is maintained the way it always has with firefox-- through addons.
There are absolutely no users who think that getting rid of the status bar is a good idea.
Citation needed please. I rather suspect that, other than the poster who directly contradicts you below, that the only ones shouting about this are the ones who DONT like it. Its called "the vocal minority"; being loud doesnt mean that everyone agrees with you.
Just keep in mind that every additional option like that has to be maintained, whereas if it is implemented as an extension, it gets a dedicated maintainer.
Anyone begging for verizon hasnt dealt with their customer service.
I often wonder if they genuinely loathe their non-mobile users.
Reread parents post; his point remains.
, tell me about what you REALLY CAN NOTICE is DIFFERENT in the rendering between 1.5 and 3.x or hell, 4.0.
Apparently you dont realize that one of the biggest features of 3.6 was its massively improved JS rendering? Or that 4.0s big name features include such things as separated processes for plugins (easier to manage bloat and memory usage, plus stability), massively imroved javascript, hardware accelerated page rendering, hardware accelerated videos, HTML5 (for a speedier multimedia experience), and a handful of other performance optimizations?
Listen, Ive been using firefox since the .9 days, and I live on the bleeding edge. Firefox has progressively gotten faster, and a lot of that "bloat" (fixing the retarded options menu of yore; adding a "new tab" button; improving the download manager; a plugins manager) were all blamed for bloat at one time or another, but they filled roles that were done quite a lot by extensions, with the result that the "complete package" (browser + addons) was a slow, buggy mess.
Firefox 3.0 I can MAYBE accept that you feel it was slower than 2.x, but 2.0 was generally better and smoother than 1.5, which was better than 1.0, etc. 3.6 is NOTICABLY faster (go to chrome experiments on 1.5, see how it croaks) than all of its predecessors, and 4.0 blows them all out of the water.
Anyone who remarks on "can you notice a difference between 1.5 and 4.0" -- no less, on a site as heavy in JS as slashdot-- really doesnt have a clue.
Providing 2 UIs sounds like a worse option than either copying chrome or rolling their own; you really want them making firefox MORE complex?
This is what themes and addons are for.