Everyone being a superstrong giant that eats enough for ten regular people isn't exactly an evolutionary advantage in starved pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer humans.
Even still, those heart and neural problems will probably mean it's still a negative even though food is readily available (in our part of the globe, that is)
Just start "screen" when you log in, and do your regular stuff there, if you want to open new window inside screen, ctrl-a+c, ca+n and ca+p, or ca+[numberofwindow] switch between, when you want to detach screen, ctrl-a+d, and later on you can reattach to that elsewhere with "screen -r".
How's that for a beginner mini-howto, as for the rest... RTFM.
The question isn't if it's dangerous, but if it's more dangerous than letting the cancer cells replicate at will or the previous cures.
So which of these you prefer:
a) Getting injected with a traditional chemotherapy toxin that indiscriminately kills every fast-dividing cell in your body. These include such "useless" things as cells making up immune system and bone marrow, for example.
or b) Getting injected with same toxin in cancer-seeking nano-containers that may have very slight error margin?
Worst-case in b) is that it becomes a), this isn't a self-replicating machine that proceeds to reduce your body and subsequently the entire world into grey sludge.
Patenting the genome of an existing organism sounds like it should be wrong,
Because it is wrong.
until you realize that mapping isn't obvious at all (as far as I know, since I'm just a computer programmer).
Mapping isn't obvious, that's true, which is why you should be (and are) able to patent mapping techniques. Not results. If someone else later maps the same organism using something totally different, why the hell they should not be able to use it because "mapping is not obvious"?
There is no natural wheat, or any other grain, or just about any agricultural plant for that matter.
Grasses evolved in the early neogene age, starting like 23.8 million years ago
Indeed, but they didn't evolve to what they are today. Natural grasses don't much benefit from energy-sucking oversized seeds and the like. Food plants are obviously totally products or artificial selection, oldest ones starting perhaps like 10k years ago and most are obviously MUCH younger than even that.
What new products by the way? I haven't noticed anyone building new "wheat" (it would't be wheat if it wasn't a relative) genome atom by atom. These are patch sets on old wheat.
Indeed. Including all your own satellites and spacecraft.
And not only that but it would prevent or hinder every launch for years onward. Intentionally polluting Earth orbit should be strictly forbidden (not that it's ever prevented US or other idiots from doing whatever they want, but can't hurt either), unintentional orbital trash is bad enough.
Three out of five of those "reasons to switch away from seamonkey" features are in Seamonkey.
Those being keyword bookmarks, adblock and webdev extensions. IMHO search field is negated by keywords (faster to type few letters than "scroll" down to right search engine), so I guess that leaves disabling plugins...
Re:No probs with Tbird, but as for Firefox 0.9...
on
Thunderbird 0.7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm sort of nervous about where Tbird keeps the attachments, if I export the mail / import into another app if Tbird proj goes TU, will I still have everything.
Thunderbird keeps mails as they come - attachments are included inline instead of stripped and saved separately.
And the whole thing is saved in "mbox" format which is so common and simple (basically just message after message in plain text file) that everything should be able to read or import it.
I've updated both Thunderbird and Firefox quite a few times, and profiles have always followed in both without a hitch.
And in fact, those don't sound like profile problems at all. They sound like you're breaking this VERY clean and simple advice:
Upgraders: DO NOT install Mozilla Thunderbird into a directory containing program files from a previous version. Overwriting files from a previous release WILL cause problems. To re-use the directory of a previous install, the directory must be deleted and recreated, emptied, moved, or renamed. You should not file bugs in Bugzilla if you choose to ignore this step.
The program directory does not contain profile information; any existing accounts, account settings, options, e-mail, and news messages will remain intact. This release does not require changes to your profile to function properly.
I agree that they could and should automatically clean up old stuff from old directory now that they have an installer, but it doesn't take more than few seconds to delete the damn directory and it doesn't cost you any preferences so it can't be that hard. JUST DO IT manually until such time as it is automated.
Have you filed bugs and/or RFE's for these minor annoyances?
Nothing happens if you whine on/., but if you make it known to delelopers there's a problem, changes of it getting fixed improve 100% (can't fix something if you don't know its broken).
For some reason, Mozilla/Thunderbird do not appear to offer any way of doing the same thing. All my email is on an IMAP server which has specific flags for doing this. It really bugs me that an email disappears when I delete it!
You're not looking very hard...
account settings -> server settings -> when I delete a message: mark it as deleted.
If you don't check the 'clean up ("expunge") inbox on exit' button, expunge happens when you right click on folder and select "compact this folder".
Actually, the numbering will be: 0.9, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, etc.
That is not correct.
Some projects (like the Linux kernel) use numbering like that, but Mozilla does not, Seamonkey went from 0.9 to 1.0 and so will Firefox (scheduled somewhere between august and october), it's all in the roadmap.
1. Two on the same row is definitely possible on ff.
2. "pop-outs" are not, though.
3. Mind pointing out something in the original Googlebar doesn't do?
4 & 5. Taskbar is a function of Explorer the file/desktop manager, not just IE, it's going to be enabled and usable no matter what _browser_ you use. If you mainly use bookmarks from taskbar, you can even use the ie ones, Windows opens them in default browser whatever that might be, and you can file new ones by dragging the favicon/handle from urlbar to whatever toolbar(s) you have in taskbar.
There has indeed been a bug in/. rendering for some time, but it's fixed now in trunk (though not in time for 1.7 and 0.9). Granted, it took half a year to get it done but then again, it WAS fixed, unlike IE bugs.
However, the another poster is correct. Slashdot doesn't conform to any real or imaginary standard, and is incredibly broken. Small wonder it works at all, in any browser.
Well, that's a lose-lose situation really, people are lazy whether or not you provide them with even semi-secure solution that at least allows a master password or locked-up or logged-out workstation.
If people can't save their passwords to browser, then they do the old-fashioned and tape them to their desk or monitor, which is obviously even less secure.
If you set "browser.xul.error_pages.enabled" to true in about:config, Firefox doesn't pop up those naughty modal error dialogs but instead uses IE-style error message pages in those tabs that would otherwise end empty, with an option to try again.
Before slipping to total oblivion the author of Arachne managed to do the right thing and released the source code under GPL.
So no, it's not quite dead yet, and now there's a small community of old dososaurs hacking on it.
It would be interesting to check if the Linux port can be resurrected, it had promise for all those Pentiums collecting dust in closets, even though the few released versions were all betas and pretty broken.
Whitelists are a good idea, but does Firefox reject non-whitelisted sites outright or does it pop up a warning dialog? If it pops up a warning, this won't work either because (as we all know) users can't read.
Firefox has always popped up a warning dialog. But since you are correct and everyone has indeed ignored it, the whitelists are now being brought up to help with this, I don't see any sense in doing a whitelist if non-whitelisted behaviour would default to the old one, so probably they will indeed be rejected.
Older Mozilla/FF versions have warning message like IE, this new whitelist function is improvement from that "warning only" -model, and _in addition to that_
What's the difference between using Mozilla's browser and Firefox's browser?
Nothing major, but huge load of small things.
Is there a difference in the code?
Yes, there can be quite a bit of difference at least for some time, for example now ffox has been branched from earlier branch and will only be synchronized with Seamonkey tree after 1.0.
Is it just the interface?
Interface is obviously the biggest part, but I wouldn't call that "just" the interface, since it's a major overhaul and not just different theme or something.
But in real world, if you're running Firefox and Thunderbird at the same time, you've got two separate Gecko processes going and your memory footprint is actually somewhat bigger than it's with "bloated" Mozilla.
Use a virus scanner that works as a proxy server between POP or IMAP server and your e-mail program, and it will always work no matter what mail software you happen to be using.
Also, mbox format Thunderbird is using is very common and any good scanner should know how to handle it.
And does anyone run POP any more if IMAP is possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone being a superstrong giant that eats enough for ten regular people isn't exactly an evolutionary advantage in starved pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer humans.
Even still, those heart and neural problems will probably mean it's still a negative even though food is readily available (in our part of the globe, that is)
Well, there's not much to set up.
Just start "screen" when you log in, and do your regular stuff there, if you want to open new window inside screen, ctrl-a+c, ca+n and ca+p, or ca+[numberofwindow] switch between, when you want to detach screen, ctrl-a+d, and later on you can reattach to that elsewhere with "screen -r".
How's that for a beginner mini-howto, as for the rest... RTFM.
The question isn't if it's dangerous, but if it's more dangerous than letting the cancer cells replicate at will or the previous cures.
So which of these you prefer:
a) Getting injected with a traditional chemotherapy toxin that indiscriminately kills every fast-dividing cell in your body. These include such "useless" things as cells making up immune system and bone marrow, for example.
or b) Getting injected with same toxin in cancer-seeking nano-containers that may have very slight error margin?
Worst-case in b) is that it becomes a), this isn't a self-replicating machine that proceeds to reduce your body and subsequently the entire world into grey sludge.
Patenting the genome of an existing organism sounds like it should be wrong,
Because it is wrong.
until you realize that mapping isn't obvious at all (as far as I know, since I'm just a computer programmer).
Mapping isn't obvious, that's true, which is why you should be (and are) able to patent mapping techniques. Not results. If someone else later maps the same organism using something totally different, why the hell they should not be able to use it because "mapping is not obvious"?
Simple. Natural Wheat is on ver. like a zillion?
There is no natural wheat, or any other grain, or just about any agricultural plant for that matter.
Grasses evolved in the early neogene age, starting like 23.8 million years ago
Indeed, but they didn't evolve to what they are today. Natural grasses don't much benefit from energy-sucking oversized seeds and the like. Food plants are obviously totally products or artificial selection, oldest ones starting perhaps like 10k years ago and most are obviously MUCH younger than even that.
What new products by the way? I haven't noticed anyone building new "wheat" (it would't be wheat if it wasn't a relative) genome atom by atom. These are patch sets on old wheat.
Indeed. Including all your own satellites and spacecraft.
And not only that but it would prevent or hinder every launch for years onward. Intentionally polluting Earth orbit should be strictly forbidden (not that it's ever prevented US or other idiots from doing whatever they want, but can't hurt either), unintentional orbital trash is bad enough.
Three out of five of those "reasons to switch away from seamonkey" features are in Seamonkey.
...
Those being keyword bookmarks, adblock and webdev extensions. IMHO search field is negated by keywords (faster to type few letters than "scroll" down to right search engine), so I guess that leaves disabling plugins
I'm sort of nervous about where Tbird keeps the attachments, if I export the mail / import into another app if Tbird proj goes TU, will I still have everything.
Thunderbird keeps mails as they come - attachments are included inline instead of stripped and saved separately.
And the whole thing is saved in "mbox" format which is so common and simple (basically just message after message in plain text file) that everything should be able to read or import it.
I've updated both Thunderbird and Firefox quite a few times, and profiles have always followed in both without a hitch.
And in fact, those don't sound like profile problems at all. They sound like you're breaking this VERY clean and simple advice:
Upgraders: DO NOT install Mozilla Thunderbird into a directory containing program files from a previous version. Overwriting files from a previous release WILL cause problems. To re-use the directory of a previous install, the directory must be deleted and recreated, emptied, moved, or renamed. You should not file bugs in Bugzilla if you choose to ignore this step.
The program directory does not contain profile information; any existing accounts, account settings, options, e-mail, and news messages will remain intact. This release does not require changes to your profile to function properly.
I agree that they could and should automatically clean up old stuff from old directory now that they have an installer, but it doesn't take more than few seconds to delete the damn directory and it doesn't cost you any preferences so it can't be that hard. JUST DO IT manually until such time as it is automated.
What config files would those be? Email app and web browser don't seem to have too many things in common to share.
Have you filed bugs and/or RFE's for these minor annoyances?
/., but if you make it known to delelopers there's a problem, changes of it getting fixed improve 100% (can't fix something if you don't know its broken).
Nothing happens if you whine on
For some reason, Mozilla/Thunderbird do not appear to offer any way of doing the same thing. All my email is on an IMAP server which has specific flags for doing this. It really bugs me that an email disappears when I delete it!
You're not looking very hard...
account settings -> server settings -> when I delete a message: mark it as deleted.
If you don't check the 'clean up ("expunge") inbox on exit' button, expunge happens when you right click on folder and select "compact this folder".
Actually, the numbering will be:
0.9, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, etc.
That is not correct.
Some projects (like the Linux kernel) use numbering like that, but Mozilla does not, Seamonkey went from 0.9 to 1.0 and so will Firefox (scheduled somewhere between august and october), it's all in the roadmap.
1. Two on the same row is definitely possible on ff.
2. "pop-outs" are not, though.
3. Mind pointing out something in the original Googlebar doesn't do?
4 & 5. Taskbar is a function of Explorer the file/desktop manager, not just IE, it's going to be enabled and usable no matter what _browser_ you use. If you mainly use bookmarks from taskbar, you can even use the ie ones, Windows opens them in default browser whatever that might be, and you can file new ones by dragging the favicon/handle from urlbar to whatever toolbar(s) you have in taskbar.
Quite a few people did indeed find it interesting few years ago...
Agreed, though, it's a killer, can't stand using browsers without any more...
There has indeed been a bug in /. rendering for some time, but it's fixed now in trunk (though not in time for 1.7 and 0.9). Granted, it took half a year to get it done but then again, it WAS fixed, unlike IE bugs.
However, the another poster is correct. Slashdot doesn't conform to any real or imaginary standard, and is incredibly broken. Small wonder it works at all, in any browser.
Well, that's a lose-lose situation really, people are lazy whether or not you provide them with even semi-secure solution that at least allows a master password or locked-up or logged-out workstation.
If people can't save their passwords to browser, then they do the old-fashioned and tape them to their desk or monitor, which is obviously even less secure.
If you set "browser.xul.error_pages.enabled" to true in about:config, Firefox doesn't pop up those naughty modal error dialogs but instead uses IE-style error message pages in those tabs that would otherwise end empty, with an option to try again.
Before slipping to total oblivion the author of Arachne managed to do the right thing and released the source code under GPL.
So no, it's not quite dead yet, and now there's a small community of old dososaurs hacking on it.
It would be interesting to check if the Linux port can be resurrected, it had promise for all those Pentiums collecting dust in closets, even though the few released versions were all betas and pretty broken.
Whitelists are a good idea, but does Firefox reject non-whitelisted sites outright or does it pop up a warning dialog? If it pops up a warning, this won't work either because (as we all know) users can't read.
Firefox has always popped up a warning dialog. But since you are correct and everyone has indeed ignored it, the whitelists are now being brought up to help with this, I don't see any sense in doing a whitelist if non-whitelisted behaviour would default to the old one, so probably they will indeed be rejected.
It doesn't suggest that.
Older Mozilla/FF versions have warning message like IE, this new whitelist function is improvement from that "warning only" -model, and _in addition to that_
What's the difference between using Mozilla's browser and Firefox's browser?
Nothing major, but huge load of small things.
Is there a difference in the code?
Yes, there can be quite a bit of difference at least for some time, for example now ffox has been branched from earlier branch and will only be synchronized with Seamonkey tree after 1.0.
Is it just the interface?
Interface is obviously the biggest part, but I wouldn't call that "just" the interface, since it's a major overhaul and not just different theme or something.
Mozilla had extensions before anyone even thought about separating browser component.
Most are not specific to either, adblock for example works just as well in Mozilla as in Firefox.
That's the theory.
But in real world, if you're running Firefox and Thunderbird at the same time, you've got two separate Gecko processes going and your memory footprint is actually somewhat bigger than it's with "bloated" Mozilla.
Use a virus scanner that works as a proxy server between POP or IMAP server and your e-mail program, and it will always work no matter what mail software you happen to be using.
Also, mbox format Thunderbird is using is very common and any good scanner should know how to handle it.
And does anyone run POP any more if IMAP is possible?