Click on the close button of the leftmost tab you want to delete. Keep clicking.
Until you get to few enough tabs that the width of each tab starts expanding, and the close button moves out from under your cursor... leaving you again with a moving target.
But instead, they are focusing on marketing techniques and gimmicks in order to spread the fox.
They can't do both? What makes you think the marketing efforts are taking time away from development? Do you really think Mozilla told all its developers, "stop working on the program, we want you to start marketing"? There are plenty of people who either don't have the programming skills or don't have the time to familiarize themselves with Mozilla's codebase, but are enthusiastic about Firefox. Those are the people Mozilla is mobilizing with its marketing gimmicks.
Everyone has their own strengths. If you have both a graphic designer and a C++ programmer, you don't ask the graphic designer to do your memory optimization, and you don't ask the C++ programmer to design your logo.
When Firefox has its own email client from Mozilla as part of the download, I think you will see a new wave of people switching over.
Actually, Firefox only became popular after it was split from the full-on Mozilla browser. Now, that's only a correlation, not necessarily a causal relationship, but it's worth noting.
If you'd like a Mozilla email client, you've got two options today. The first is Thunderbird, a stand-alone email client intended to be a companion to Firefox. I use it myself, and aside from a few minor annoyances, it works quite well.
The second is to switch to SeaMonkey. It's based on the original Mozilla Suite, and includes both a web browser and an email client. But the underlying code is more up to date, and it uses the same modern codebase found in Firefox.
Looks like they're just using IP-to-geographic mapping to determine whether to show the article or not.
Sure, it's been most widely used for targeted ads, but it's also been used for other forms of content negotiation -- selecting a default language where the browser doesn't request one, for instance, or defaulting to the US or international version of CNN.
The debate reminds me of the hybrid system used in Might and Magic IX. For all the game's flaws, it had an interesting tree-based class system. You started each character off as either a spellcaster or a fighter, and as they advanced in levels, they would specialize as clerics, mages, knights, etc. IIRC there were three tiers, with 2 low-level classes, four mid-range, and eight advanced.
The disadvantage is that if you want a particular advanced class, you need to plan ahead -- and have the manual page that shows the tree. On the plus side, it means you can get a feel for what you need during gameplay, rather than try to guess from the start.
I'm not sure how well this would translate to MMORPGs, because I'm one of the three people online who doesn't play any. But it seems this would be simpler than a fully skill-based system, and more flexible than a static class system.
On the vacation issue, you can use a laptop for other things than work. Managing your vacation photos, for instance. Sending friends/family a "We made it, here's the view from our hotel room, don't you wish you were here?" email. Keeping up computer-related hobbies.
she'll be too busy surfing the 'net on her own laptop to care.
So true. Speaking as a married Slashdotter, unless one of us goes to bed early, it's pretty much a toss-up whether my wife or I will be first to shut down the computer at night.
Though we do keep the computers out of the bedroom, so this particular problem hasn't been an issue.
Actually, this whole discussion reminds me of a comment a friend once made, maybe only half in jest: You should always give your computer a name of the opposite sex, because it will be the "other woman" or "other man" in the relationship.
Every once in a while a batch of stock spams comes in and I forward a bunch of them in a message to enforcement [at] sec.gov
I don't know if they actually do anything with the data -- within an hour I get an automatic response thanking me for the report and telling me that their investigations are confidential, and that's it.
Plus more people are affected. I don't remember what the numbers were on the LG recall, but certainly the date range was about half the size.
Speaking of people taking the battery recall seriously... My wife read about it on the BBC site this morning, then immediately called me up on my cell phone:
Her: "Do we have to go to the Apple Store tonight?" Me: "Huh?" Her: "The battery recall." Me: (thinking of the MacBook issue from a few months ago) "I didn't think ours was affected." Her: "It's every G4 PowerBook made since 2003!"
She then directed me to the BBC article, I said I'd see what info I could get from Apple, then I submitted the story to Slashdot. Along with a bunch of other people, it seems, because they picked up someone else's submission.
Once I was able to determine that they were handling the recall through the web, I figured I'd just wait until I got home instead of running back at lunch to look up serial numbers.
And when you have laws that back that up; requiring people take parental responsibility, then there's no need for birth control at all.
I take it you're of the opinion that all marriages must have children, and as many as possible? There are people who want to marry and stay with one partner, but not have children. Or who want to have children, but limit themselves to one or two, rather than keep going until biology calls a halt.
I can guarantee you, people of those opinions will still see a need for birth control.
Another poster did a bit more digging and found, prior to 1995, ~20 times as many instances of "web site" (two words, ~5400 hits) than "website" (one word, ~250 hits).
So the phrase in common use at the time was, apparently, "web site," with "website" being a misspelling. It's funny how quickly usage changed.
Way back in the mid-1990s, O'Reilly published a web server program for Windows called... wait for it... Website Professional. Generally abbreviated as O'Reilly Website or just Website. It was later sold to Deerfield, which incorporated it into their VisNetic line. Eventually, Deerfield dropped the product entirely.
So as crazy as it seems, they actually had a product to trademark.
Talk about a Battle of the Bands
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
Just hook up those iPods to some speakers, and if you pick the right music, you can add psychological warfare to the physical weapons.
Though the question is, will playing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" at high volume cause the insurgency to run away in terror, or try harder to destroy the iPod?
I have a feeling that it'll go to the Supreme Court and, because of the 5 conservative judges on the court, Judge Taylor's ruling will be massacred.
That depends on whether the judges end up leaning more toward political conservatism or judicial conservatism. From a strict constructionist point of view, one would expect them to agree with the premise that a wiretapping program requires due process of law. (Of course, there may be some argument on whether the program qualifies as due process.)
Supreme Court rulings often break down in ways you wouldn't expect (the recent ruling on eminent domain, for instance) because the judicial positions described as conservative and liberal don't always line up with the political positions.
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.
Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.
Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.
This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets. Arguing that they need the ability to spy on people without warrants makes them look awfully suspicious.
P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?
You should care very much what the browser does with invalid code. If a browser implements CSS2, anything new in CSS3 is going to be interpreted as invalid. Similarly, since each browser implements a different subset of the standards, you want to know exactly what will happen if you feed code that works in browser A to browser B. You don't want browser B to look at your @media print rule and decide to apply it to the screen anyway. IE4 actually did this if you put more than one rule in an @media section that it didn't recognize.
if a page is invalid, you shouldn't rely on standards compliant browsers to make things right. Fix the damn page.
That's actually what Acid2 is trying to check: according to the standards, the browser is not supposed to try to compensate for bad code, it's supposed to ignore anything that's broken. If the browser tries to "make things right," it will fail Acid2. If it ignores it, as it's supposed to, it passes.
All that said, as Bogtha pointed out repeatedly, Acid2 tests a lot more than just how the browser handles invalid code.
Firefox should pass Acid2 sometime in 2007. Firefox 2 is using the same version of the rendering engine as Firefox 1.5, but work has already been done on the code that will eventually work its way into Firefox 3 (not to mention future versions of SeaMonkey, Camino, etc.)
Here's a good run-down of Acid2 status in major browsers. According to that, a "reflow" branch of Gecko alread passes the test, but the changes haven't been fed back into the trunk.
In short: Safari: Passed Konqueror: Passed Opera: Passed Firefox: Working on it, should be two releases away. Internet Explorer: Ignoring it for now.
Safari, which integrates much better with its host OS, has superior support for standards, and is in general much more asthetically aware (as is its core development team).
Granted that Safari integrates better with its host OS and is more aesthetic... what makes you think it has better standards support than Firefox? Not Acid2, I hope.
Acid2, by its own admission, is not a compliance test, and passing it does not indicate a particular level of standards compliance. What Acid2 tests is a set of relatively unused pieces of the specs that most browsers got wrong at the time it was written. Think of it as making sure the corners are covered. It's still possible for one browser to cover 80% of the room, missing the corners, and another to cover 70% of the room, but get the corners.
Webdevout's comparison is pretty reliable, though unfortunately they haven't checked Safari as thoroughly as Firefox, IE, and Opera. In the sections on which Safari has been tested most thoroughly: CSS 2.1 and the changes for CSS 3, Firefox matches or exceeds Safari on all points except for pseudo-elements.
Or look at two browsers that both pass Acid2: Safari 2 and Opera 9 (same link). Notice that there are some places where Safari exceeds Opera's coverage, and some where Opera exceed's Safari's. There are even places where Firefox 1.5 -- which doesn't pass Acid2 -- exceeds Opera's coverage (HTML and CSS 3 changes), though Opera has better coverage of CSS 2.1.
I would guess that, if someone has a more thorough comparison, Firefox 1.5 would have better standards support overall than Safari 2, and Opera 9 would either be slightly ahead or more or less tied with Firefox 1.5 (again, overall).
True. Microsoft may be able to claim some stubborn users, but it seems to have lost much of its ability to inspire enthusiasm. They used to have it, but it's been nearly a decade since the days in which the IE team deposited a giant blue "e" on Netscape's front lawn to celebrate the release of IE4. And those were the developers!
Firefox, Opera, Apple, Linux, various BSDs all manage to inspire enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm results in loyalty. That combo gives you thousands of potential advocates, which can be a lot more fun than a couple of default settings and some marketing brochures (though that wouldn't hurt either).
Slashdot Mirror
Until you get to few enough tabs that the width of each tab starts expanding, and the close button moves out from under your cursor... leaving you again with a moving target.
They can't do both? What makes you think the marketing efforts are taking time away from development? Do you really think Mozilla told all its developers, "stop working on the program, we want you to start marketing"? There are plenty of people who either don't have the programming skills or don't have the time to familiarize themselves with Mozilla's codebase, but are enthusiastic about Firefox. Those are the people Mozilla is mobilizing with its marketing gimmicks.
Everyone has their own strengths. If you have both a graphic designer and a C++ programmer, you don't ask the graphic designer to do your memory optimization, and you don't ask the C++ programmer to design your logo.
Actually, Firefox only became popular after it was split from the full-on Mozilla browser. Now, that's only a correlation, not necessarily a causal relationship, but it's worth noting.
If you'd like a Mozilla email client, you've got two options today. The first is Thunderbird, a stand-alone email client intended to be a companion to Firefox. I use it myself, and aside from a few minor annoyances, it works quite well.
The second is to switch to SeaMonkey. It's based on the original Mozilla Suite, and includes both a web browser and an email client. But the underlying code is more up to date, and it uses the same modern codebase found in Firefox.
Looks like they're just using IP-to-geographic mapping to determine whether to show the article or not.
Sure, it's been most widely used for targeted ads, but it's also been used for other forms of content negotiation -- selecting a default language where the browser doesn't request one, for instance, or defaulting to the US or international version of CNN.
The debate reminds me of the hybrid system used in Might and Magic IX. For all the game's flaws, it had an interesting tree-based class system. You started each character off as either a spellcaster or a fighter, and as they advanced in levels, they would specialize as clerics, mages, knights, etc. IIRC there were three tiers, with 2 low-level classes, four mid-range, and eight advanced.
The disadvantage is that if you want a particular advanced class, you need to plan ahead -- and have the manual page that shows the tree. On the plus side, it means you can get a feel for what you need during gameplay, rather than try to guess from the start.
I'm not sure how well this would translate to MMORPGs, because I'm one of the three people online who doesn't play any. But it seems this would be simpler than a fully skill-based system, and more flexible than a static class system.
On the vacation issue, you can use a laptop for other things than work. Managing your vacation photos, for instance. Sending friends/family a "We made it, here's the view from our hotel room, don't you wish you were here?" email. Keeping up computer-related hobbies.
So true. Speaking as a married Slashdotter, unless one of us goes to bed early, it's pretty much a toss-up whether my wife or I will be first to shut down the computer at night.
Though we do keep the computers out of the bedroom, so this particular problem hasn't been an issue.
Actually, this whole discussion reminds me of a comment a friend once made, maybe only half in jest: You should always give your computer a name of the opposite sex, because it will be the "other woman" or "other man" in the relationship.
Every once in a while a batch of stock spams comes in and I forward a bunch of them in a message to enforcement [at] sec.gov
I don't know if they actually do anything with the data -- within an hour I get an automatic response thanking me for the report and telling me that their investigations are confidential, and that's it.
But hey, you can have an iBoom! A PowerBoom, perhaps?
Plus more people are affected. I don't remember what the numbers were on the LG recall, but certainly the date range was about half the size.
Speaking of people taking the battery recall seriously... My wife read about it on the BBC site this morning, then immediately called me up on my cell phone:
Her: "Do we have to go to the Apple Store tonight?"
Me: "Huh?"
Her: "The battery recall."
Me: (thinking of the MacBook issue from a few months ago) "I didn't think ours was affected."
Her: "It's every G4 PowerBook made since 2003!"
She then directed me to the BBC article, I said I'd see what info I could get from Apple, then I submitted the story to Slashdot. Along with a bunch of other people, it seems, because they picked up someone else's submission.
Once I was able to determine that they were handling the recall through the web, I figured I'd just wait until I got home instead of running back at lunch to look up serial numbers.
...to go out with a whimper than a bang, eh?
I guess Dell couldn't make use of all that Snakes on a Plane tie-in publicity, huh?
What, you didn't notice it? Small wonder, considering the character listening to the Dell MP3 player was known as iPod Girl until the last minute.
I take it you're of the opinion that all marriages must have children, and as many as possible? There are people who want to marry and stay with one partner, but not have children. Or who want to have children, but limit themselves to one or two, rather than keep going until biology calls a halt.
I can guarantee you, people of those opinions will still see a need for birth control.
Another poster did a bit more digging and found, prior to 1995, ~20 times as many instances of "web site" (two words, ~5400 hits) than "website" (one word, ~250 hits).
So the phrase in common use at the time was, apparently, "web site," with "website" being a misspelling. It's funny how quickly usage changed.
USPTO = United States Patent and Trademark Office.
This means that in the US:
Patent Office = USPTO
Trademark Office = USPTO
So, even though patent != trademark, we can still conclude that:
Patent Office = Trademark Office
Way back in the mid-1990s, O'Reilly published a web server program for Windows called... wait for it... Website Professional. Generally abbreviated as O'Reilly Website or just Website. It was later sold to Deerfield, which incorporated it into their VisNetic line. Eventually, Deerfield dropped the product entirely.
So as crazy as it seems, they actually had a product to trademark.
Just hook up those iPods to some speakers, and if you pick the right music, you can add psychological warfare to the physical weapons.
Though the question is, will playing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" at high volume cause the insurgency to run away in terror, or try harder to destroy the iPod?
Reminds me of a classic:
Brain A is not a system brain.
Abort, Retry, Sleep?
That depends on whether the judges end up leaning more toward political conservatism or judicial conservatism. From a strict constructionist point of view, one would expect them to agree with the premise that a wiretapping program requires due process of law. (Of course, there may be some argument on whether the program qualifies as due process.)
Supreme Court rulings often break down in ways you wouldn't expect (the recent ruling on eminent domain, for instance) because the judicial positions described as conservative and liberal don't always line up with the political positions.
Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.
Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.
Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.
This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets. Arguing that they need the ability to spy on people without warrants makes them look awfully suspicious.
P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?
You should care very much what the browser does with invalid code. If a browser implements CSS2, anything new in CSS3 is going to be interpreted as invalid. Similarly, since each browser implements a different subset of the standards, you want to know exactly what will happen if you feed code that works in browser A to browser B. You don't want browser B to look at your @media print rule and decide to apply it to the screen anyway. IE4 actually did this if you put more than one rule in an @media section that it didn't recognize.
That's actually what Acid2 is trying to check: according to the standards, the browser is not supposed to try to compensate for bad code, it's supposed to ignore anything that's broken. If the browser tries to "make things right," it will fail Acid2. If it ignores it, as it's supposed to, it passes.
All that said, as Bogtha pointed out repeatedly, Acid2 tests a lot more than just how the browser handles invalid code.
Firefox should pass Acid2 sometime in 2007. Firefox 2 is using the same version of the rendering engine as Firefox 1.5, but work has already been done on the code that will eventually work its way into Firefox 3 (not to mention future versions of SeaMonkey, Camino, etc.)
Here's a good run-down of Acid2 status in major browsers. According to that, a "reflow" branch of Gecko alread passes the test, but the changes haven't been fed back into the trunk.
In short:
Safari: Passed
Konqueror: Passed
Opera: Passed
Firefox: Working on it, should be two releases away.
Internet Explorer: Ignoring it for now.
Granted that Safari integrates better with its host OS and is more aesthetic... what makes you think it has better standards support than Firefox? Not Acid2, I hope.
Acid2, by its own admission, is not a compliance test, and passing it does not indicate a particular level of standards compliance. What Acid2 tests is a set of relatively unused pieces of the specs that most browsers got wrong at the time it was written. Think of it as making sure the corners are covered. It's still possible for one browser to cover 80% of the room, missing the corners, and another to cover 70% of the room, but get the corners.
Webdevout's comparison is pretty reliable, though unfortunately they haven't checked Safari as thoroughly as Firefox, IE, and Opera. In the sections on which Safari has been tested most thoroughly: CSS 2.1 and the changes for CSS 3, Firefox matches or exceeds Safari on all points except for pseudo-elements.
Or look at two browsers that both pass Acid2: Safari 2 and Opera 9 (same link). Notice that there are some places where Safari exceeds Opera's coverage, and some where Opera exceed's Safari's. There are even places where Firefox 1.5 -- which doesn't pass Acid2 -- exceeds Opera's coverage (HTML and CSS 3 changes), though Opera has better coverage of CSS 2.1.
I would guess that, if someone has a more thorough comparison, Firefox 1.5 would have better standards support overall than Safari 2, and Opera 9 would either be slightly ahead or more or less tied with Firefox 1.5 (again, overall).
I'd always wondered what they needed that moon base for!
True. Microsoft may be able to claim some stubborn users, but it seems to have lost much of its ability to inspire enthusiasm. They used to have it, but it's been nearly a decade since the days in which the IE team deposited a giant blue "e" on Netscape's front lawn to celebrate the release of IE4. And those were the developers!
Firefox, Opera, Apple, Linux, various BSDs all manage to inspire enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm results in loyalty. That combo gives you thousands of potential advocates, which can be a lot more fun than a couple of default settings and some marketing brochures (though that wouldn't hurt either).