In W7 I had a problem where installing Foxit while Adobe were present would cause W7 to regularly forget the existence of the pdf extension, forcing the user to choose the program to use when trying to open a pdf. The fix were to uninstall Adobe and reinstall Foxit.
So, what exactly is Javascript being used for? I know that it has some use. However, it seems that the security risk is far greater than any potential benefit of the "feature".
DRM, I've heard. Another reason for having it would likely be that Adobe needs to be ahead of the competition, for example by supporting multimedia content. There are, after all, a lot of very good pdf readers/writers (and editors?) out there.
Excuse me, but... I thought that pretty much everyone with some technical experience knows that you never, ever use the upgrade option with Windows. Always use the clean install if possible.
Those people may exist, but the vast, vast majority of people cannot drive safely while they are on the phone (much less when texting). It is a simple matter of focus. If you focus on your conversation, you do not focus on driving, which reduces your response time when an accident is brewing. If you focus on driving, you will miss most of the conversation, which sort of removes the point of having the conversation.
The worst part of this is that many people *think* they can drive safely while being on the phone (or drunk, even), because "it is so easy", "accidents are something that happens to other people", or some similar braindead argument.
There are a number of important differences when comparing mainframe/workstation systems to the modern notion of cloud computing. One significant difference is distributing computational problems to a number of concurrent processes on (possibly) distant systems. Another is that where the mainframe were typically placed close to the workstations, the servers in the cloud can be placed remotely. A third is that the workstations often were unable to function without access to the mainframe, modern desktops are able to use the advantages of the mainframe/cloud as well as the advantages of an autonomous desktop.
I'm unsure as to what you mean. Are you bashing patents all together? Or do you think that a private company holding the patents and winning the case in question would stiffle progress less? Or that it is wrong for public organizations to do research?
... which were why I suggested that it might be more useful to require administrator rights to disable a plugin, instead of the current state of affairs, where plugins cannot be disabled unless you muck about in the registry;-)
The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.
I think it'd be better if they were a little more proactive and just ignored any plugin that doesn't have a disable option.
In some corporate environments there may be reasons for having plugins that the user cannot disable. So a more sane approach may be to change the "can you be disabled?" to "can you be disabled by non-administrators?", similar to having the IT department force all computers to run Windows Defender once per week. This has the added benefit of allowing desktop users to log in as administrator and disable the plugin.
Given that synaptic is *the* way to install software in Ubuntu, it would be reasonable to expect users to be much more confident and less likely to screw up when using synaptic than when editing the Windows registry. In my humble opinion using synaptic is roughly the same difficulty as using Add/Remove Programs in the Windows Control Panel. There is the added benefit that you can ask a nice Linux user to write a shell script to do it for you, if you are not confident in your own ability to use synaptic. I agree that it would be better if the plugin could be disabled directly in the Firefox UI.
The recieved generous amounts of aid in order to investigate what it would take to become self-sufficient. This is similar to producing a prototype of a technology before putting it into mass production: The prototype is likely to be much more expensive to produce than one of the mass produced items. Why do one build a prototype? To see how well it works, discover problems and issues before it is put into mass production.
You still have to activate it. Being on a labtop I did not try to change my hardware to see how it responded, but I would be surprised if they changed the need for re-activation.
Not to mention dropping support for old formats. Some of us want to be able to read our old documents without resorting to
The documents I wrote in Wordpad on Windows 95 & 98 could no longer be opened when I upgraded to XP. Neither by Word nor Wordpad. Only Windows product to open them were notepad. OpenOffice, however, had no problem opening them - it even showed the styles correctly.
Vista being a bloated slow buggy pain in the arse that permeates every part of the user experience just takes the cake though. Windows 7 is going to need to shine big time. So far it's looking better than Vista (but for that matter so is a turd sandwich). They can't afford to get it wrong.
I think they can afford it. MS still has a monopoly on providing OSes for home and buisness users, and even a fail like Vista did not make a dent into that monopoly. Another fail might, but I'm not so sure.
Actually, the release version of Windows 7 has been available on MSDN since early August and MSDNAA since mid August, so it would seem many subscribers have been running to get Windows 7.
I think that depends very much on the game. User Generated Content will make the player use more time on the game before continuing to the next one. This makes sense in MMO games, where the player pays a subscription to the publisher. However, in singleplayer games, the publisher has an advantage in getting the player to move on to their $NEXT_SHINY_GAME when it comes out. This it most apparent in gaming consoles, where the console manufacturers does everything in their power to stop usermade content. As an example, the never Bethesda games supports mods natively and they even put free modding tools online. This has sparked a lot of usermade content ("mods"), but it is PC only. Not because the consoles cannot handle the mods, but because the manufacturers say no.
There is a vast difference. Fallout 1/2 did not support usermade content natively, nor did they come with modding tools. Oblivion did. Its predecessor, Morrowind (2002), even came with modding tools on the disk. If you do not believe me, just take a look at the sheer volume. AFAIK there are only 10s of mods for Fallout 1/2, whereas there are 10.000s of mods for Oblivion.
Headsets are also a distraction, as you are still concentrating on the conversation when you should be concentrating on the road. Which is why it is also illegal where I live. The fine for use of mobile phones, however, is rediculously low: ~100 Euro.
If you want to make a good game based on a series/movie/comic book/whatever, you need to capture the spirit of the base.
Star Trek is about mystery, riddles, discovery, and technobabble. Aside from the technobabble this is difficult to do right - not many games have this at their core. Compare this with Star Wars with is about action with a touch of Mysticism. The action part has been done in a lot of games, and is easy to do right.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? I thought that was what they called Colonianism ... ?
Your wish is my command: http://www.oldversion.com/Acrobat-Reader.html.
In W7 I had a problem where installing Foxit while Adobe were present would cause W7 to regularly forget the existence of the pdf extension, forcing the user to choose the program to use when trying to open a pdf. The fix were to uninstall Adobe and reinstall Foxit.
So, what exactly is Javascript being used for? I know that it has some use. However, it seems that the security risk is far greater than any potential benefit of the "feature".
DRM, I've heard. Another reason for having it would likely be that Adobe needs to be ahead of the competition, for example by supporting multimedia content. There are, after all, a lot of very good pdf readers/writers (and editors?) out there.
The retail version of 7 came out on MSDN in early August and MSDNAA in mid August, so it has been available for some 3 months.
Excuse me, but ... I thought that pretty much everyone with some technical experience knows that you never, ever use the upgrade option with Windows. Always use the clean install if possible.
I don't know the answers nor were I being coy. I just wanted to justify the question. Thanks for indulging me.
A quick check shows that highway fatality rate in the USA in 2008 was at its lowest level since they started keeping records
How about the accident rate? I'm asking because improved protection of drivers and passengers is likely to reduce the fatality rate ;-)
Those people may exist, but the vast, vast majority of people cannot drive safely while they are on the phone (much less when texting). It is a simple matter of focus. If you focus on your conversation, you do not focus on driving, which reduces your response time when an accident is brewing. If you focus on driving, you will miss most of the conversation, which sort of removes the point of having the conversation.
The worst part of this is that many people *think* they can drive safely while being on the phone (or drunk, even), because "it is so easy", "accidents are something that happens to other people", or some similar braindead argument.
There are a number of important differences when comparing mainframe/workstation systems to the modern notion of cloud computing. One significant difference is distributing computational problems to a number of concurrent processes on (possibly) distant systems. Another is that where the mainframe were typically placed close to the workstations, the servers in the cloud can be placed remotely. A third is that the workstations often were unable to function without access to the mainframe, modern desktops are able to use the advantages of the mainframe/cloud as well as the advantages of an autonomous desktop.
I'm unsure as to what you mean. Are you bashing patents all together? Or do you think that a private company holding the patents and winning the case in question would stiffle progress less? Or that it is wrong for public organizations to do research?
... which were why I suggested that it might be more useful to require administrator rights to disable a plugin, instead of the current state of affairs, where plugins cannot be disabled unless you muck about in the registry ;-)
The real problem is that Mozilla has some sort of mechanism to ask a plugin "can you be disabled?" Having that mechanism implies that it's okay for a plugin to say "no", and hence Microsoft was just using the API in the intended fashion.
I think it'd be better if they were a little more proactive and just ignored any plugin that doesn't have a disable option.
In some corporate environments there may be reasons for having plugins that the user cannot disable. So a more sane approach may be to change the "can you be disabled?" to "can you be disabled by non-administrators?", similar to having the IT department force all computers to run Windows Defender once per week. This has the added benefit of allowing desktop users to log in as administrator and disable the plugin.
Given that synaptic is *the* way to install software in Ubuntu, it would be reasonable to expect users to be much more confident and less likely to screw up when using synaptic than when editing the Windows registry. In my humble opinion using synaptic is roughly the same difficulty as using Add/Remove Programs in the Windows Control Panel. There is the added benefit that you can ask a nice Linux user to write a shell script to do it for you, if you are not confident in your own ability to use synaptic. I agree that it would be better if the plugin could be disabled directly in the Firefox UI.
I am ... I tried http://beginningruby.org with the same result, but check post above yours for the reason why.
The recieved generous amounts of aid in order to investigate what it would take to become self-sufficient. This is similar to producing a prototype of a technology before putting it into mass production: The prototype is likely to be much more expensive to produce than one of the mass produced items. Why do one build a prototype? To see how well it works, discover problems and issues before it is put into mass production.
You still have to activate it. Being on a labtop I did not try to change my hardware to see how it responded, but I would be surprised if they changed the need for re-activation.
Huh? I can still see it there (just checked) ...
Not to mention dropping support for old formats. Some of us want to be able to read our old documents without resorting to
The documents I wrote in Wordpad on Windows 95 & 98 could no longer be opened when I upgraded to XP. Neither by Word nor Wordpad. Only Windows product to open them were notepad. OpenOffice, however, had no problem opening them - it even showed the styles correctly.
Vista being a bloated slow buggy pain in the arse that permeates every part of the user experience just takes the cake though. Windows 7 is going to need to shine big time. So far it's looking better than Vista (but for that matter so is a turd sandwich). They can't afford to get it wrong.
I think they can afford it. MS still has a monopoly on providing OSes for home and buisness users, and even a fail like Vista did not make a dent into that monopoly. Another fail might, but I'm not so sure.
Actually, the release version of Windows 7 has been available on MSDN since early August and MSDNAA since mid August, so it would seem many subscribers have been running to get Windows 7.
I think that depends very much on the game. User Generated Content will make the player use more time on the game before continuing to the next one. This makes sense in MMO games, where the player pays a subscription to the publisher. However, in singleplayer games, the publisher has an advantage in getting the player to move on to their $NEXT_SHINY_GAME when it comes out. This it most apparent in gaming consoles, where the console manufacturers does everything in their power to stop usermade content. As an example, the never Bethesda games supports mods natively and they even put free modding tools online. This has sparked a lot of usermade content ("mods"), but it is PC only. Not because the consoles cannot handle the mods, but because the manufacturers say no.
There is a vast difference. Fallout 1/2 did not support usermade content natively, nor did they come with modding tools. Oblivion did. Its predecessor, Morrowind (2002), even came with modding tools on the disk. If you do not believe me, just take a look at the sheer volume. AFAIK there are only 10s of mods for Fallout 1/2, whereas there are 10.000s of mods for Oblivion.
Unless the car driving into you comes from the opposite lane ...
Headsets are also a distraction, as you are still concentrating on the conversation when you should be concentrating on the road. Which is why it is also illegal where I live. The fine for use of mobile phones, however, is rediculously low: ~100 Euro.
If you want to make a good game based on a series/movie/comic book/whatever, you need to capture the spirit of the base.
Star Trek is about mystery, riddles, discovery, and technobabble. Aside from the technobabble this is difficult to do right - not many games have this at their core. Compare this with Star Wars with is about action with a touch of Mysticism. The action part has been done in a lot of games, and is easy to do right.