I have tried uzbl and surf, and I've heard of vimprobable. I've also tried (and liked) euclid-wm, which has as one of its stated goals making tabs unnecessary.
It is fun to see this whole tiling, unix-philosophy, vim-keybindings UI train of thought start to take off. You know how many of these projects have come into being in the last 10 years?
I just want my browser to be functional--and not force me to dig around in some new UI just to do simple stuff like printing.
yeah, ctrl + p, that was a bitch to figure out, all different than anyone else has ever done it before, and just for the sake of being different.
Oh yeah, and they put it in the top-level of the page menu, which should take a complete retard at least 15 seconds to find.
I really think you should pick better examples.
You can go further:
tabs are a hack by applications to make up for the failure of the traditional WM model and it's inability to handle large numbers of windows.
I realize that the electoral record alone does not justify this assertion. But as a rule, incumbents are popular, often to a degree that is recognized to be disproportionate (thus the renewed calls for term limits, even though term limits seem to fly in the face of the point of elected representation.)
We can speculate about why this is (Is it just face/name recognition? Is it the benefits of pork for the local community buying their support? Is there some psychological drive for people want to like their leaders?)
BTW,
no one who would willingly choose to become a
. . . politician should by any means be entrusted with the task.
My other workaround is just pressing the home key and opening Notes or some other simple, quiet app; that way it doesn't really matter if any keys are pressed.
And people say Linux isn't ready for mass-consumption.
I'd just like to speculate on this a second:
I suspect that one of the major reasons that Google is pushing chrome is to prep the market for Chrome-OS. (In fact, it seems perfectly obvious to me that this is what they are doing.) To that end, they probably are quite interested in developing a Chrome look and feel. Even if it doesn't quite fit the native platform.
Actually, I'm interested in this. I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I seem to recall that an antenna cannot be grounded (directly). Having an exposed antenna that the user has to touch to use seems like it is begging for trouble (if the user grounds himself).
So if anyone out there has one of these things, can you try making a call and then grounding yourself (Sticking your hand under running water, step into the grass barefoot)? It seems to me that this should result in an immediate dropped call.
I didn't mean to make fun of you or criticize your choice of words, I realize there is nothing wrong with 'literal' as you used it. I was mocking those who have to point out obvious references (as though they suddenly realized a parallel that everyone else missed, but in fact everyone else had seen in the in original because it was so obvious).
I was not implying that the reference was a good choice (that is, I was not saying that the xkcd applied to your post).
GP clearly doesn't know what 'peer reviewed' means. But he did get the scientific method right. So s/peer reviewed/scientific confirmation/g. And I think that is sufficient to sustain his point.
Here.
In my limited experience I seem to recall that Vista implemented some oddities that made it impossible to read a UDF disk made on Vista on a non-windows machine.
A) I wasn't being a "grammar nazi trying to tear apart [your] sig." I was trying to explain that it was (probably) intentionally not a perfect parallel to the original quotation, and at the same time trying to understand it myself, since it didn't quite seem to fit with what I presumed the joke was. Thus the, "Then again, maybe I missed the point," or the "I think . ..," or the question mark after the whoosh.
B)
I know it is present progressive rather than a gerund. Hence, it hasn't become one yet. That's part of he joke
doesn't make any damn sense: Participles don't become gerunds. In any sense. Ever. And its not like the verb is modifying itself, so that the participle is describing itself as "becoming gerund". You either have an extremely odd--nay, inscrutable--sense of humor or you are trying to cover up for confusing the very thing your joke hinged on with something entirely different that happens to look like it.
C) If you decide to make a grammar joke, you open yourself up to "grammar nazis" pointing out that your clever grammar joke doesn't actually make any damn sense. Just because someone has a better sense of grammar than you does not make him a grammar nazi. Any time grammar is the topic of a discussion, talking about grammar and people's linguistic mistakes is perfectly acceptable. It's only when people are obsessed with pointing out grammatical mistakes when no one else cares that they become grammar nazis
Cheers
The thing I've had trouble with in gmail search is that it lacks any sort of lemmatisation. This would be fine if it would match sub-strings within words, but it seems to only match full words that are morphologically identical.
He was apparently distinguishing those who admire unicorns from a distance from those who play games with them: Being swift-footed goes hand in hand with being able to jump high, which is absolutely necessary when playing unicorns' favorite game: leapfrog.
I'd just like to point out that if you have to restrict your web app to one browser for it to work properly, you might be using a web app where a non-web app would be more appropriate. The whole point of the web is to be platform independent. If you end up requiring a particular browser to use the app, then why clunk around with web technologies in the first place?
I half suspect this reaction is what is underlying some of the comments.
US case law came up with a criterion that seems applicable: reasonable expectation of privacy.
If I'm having a private conversation in my home, with the windows and doors closed, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and using fancy microphones to eves drop on that conversation would be illegal. If I'm in a public place having that conversation and just assume that no one is listening (even if the place appears abandoned), the rules change and I no longer have a case against an eves dropper.
I think the key is the 'reasonable': Is it reasonable to expect people to respect your privacy in a particular case. Thus, people might assume no one is listening to their unencrypted traffic (just as they might assume no one will bother to root through their garbage), but can they reasonably expect no one to do so?
Slashdot Mirror
I have tried uzbl and surf, and I've heard of vimprobable. I've also tried (and liked) euclid-wm, which has as one of its stated goals making tabs unnecessary.
It is fun to see this whole tiling, unix-philosophy, vim-keybindings UI train of thought start to take off. You know how many of these projects have come into being in the last 10 years?
I just want my browser to be functional--and not force me to dig around in some new UI just to do simple stuff like printing.
yeah, ctrl + p, that was a bitch to figure out, all different than anyone else has ever done it before, and just for the sake of being different.
Oh yeah, and they put it in the top-level of the page menu, which should take a complete retard at least 15 seconds to find.
I really think you should pick better examples.
You can go further:
tabs are a hack by applications to make up for the failure of the traditional WM model and it's inability to handle large numbers of windows.
. . . no one who would willingly choose to become a politician should by any means be entrusted with the task.
We can speculate about why this is (Is it just face/name recognition? Is it the benefits of pork for the local community buying their support? Is there some psychological drive for people want to like their leaders?)
BTW, no one who would willingly choose to become a
. . . politician should by any means be entrusted with the task.
I've been saying this since I was 12. Literally.
It is an interesting paradox: No one likes congress but the majority of people like their congressman.
My other workaround is just pressing the home key and opening Notes or some other simple, quiet app; that way it doesn't really matter if any keys are pressed.
And people say Linux isn't ready for mass-consumption.
I'd just like to speculate on this a second:
I suspect that one of the major reasons that Google is pushing chrome is to prep the market for Chrome-OS. (In fact, it seems perfectly obvious to me that this is what they are doing.) To that end, they probably are quite interested in developing a Chrome look and feel. Even if it doesn't quite fit the native platform.
By "first browser" I assume you mean "first final version." Chrome dev handles WebM just fine (this is from the google repo, btw, not a nightly).
Actually, I'm interested in this. I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I seem to recall that an antenna cannot be grounded (directly). Having an exposed antenna that the user has to touch to use seems like it is begging for trouble (if the user grounds himself).
So if anyone out there has one of these things, can you try making a call and then grounding yourself (Sticking your hand under running water, step into the grass barefoot)? It seems to me that this should result in an immediate dropped call.
I didn't mean to make fun of you or criticize your choice of words, I realize there is nothing wrong with 'literal' as you used it. I was mocking those who have to point out obvious references (as though they suddenly realized a parallel that everyone else missed, but in fact everyone else had seen in the in original because it was so obvious).
I was not implying that the reference was a good choice (that is, I was not saying that the xkcd applied to your post).
you replied to the wrong guy.
GP clearly doesn't know what 'peer reviewed' means. But he did get the scientific method right. So s/peer reviewed/scientific confirmation/g. And I think that is sufficient to sustain his point.
Obligatory XK. . . awww screw it.
whoosh
Here. In my limited experience I seem to recall that Vista implemented some oddities that made it impossible to read a UDF disk made on Vista on a non-windows machine.
due to the tide the ships radar would be at a certain height at a specific time each day
Doesn't the timing of high- and low-tide differ each day?
B)
I know it is present progressive rather than a gerund. Hence, it hasn't become one yet. That's part of he joke
doesn't make any damn sense: Participles don't become gerunds. In any sense. Ever. And its not like the verb is modifying itself, so that the participle is describing itself as "becoming gerund".
You either have an extremely odd--nay, inscrutable--sense of humor or you are trying to cover up for confusing the very thing your joke hinged on with something entirely different that happens to look like it.
C) If you decide to make a grammar joke, you open yourself up to "grammar nazis" pointing out that your clever grammar joke doesn't actually make any damn sense. Just because someone has a better sense of grammar than you does not make him a grammar nazi. Any time grammar is the topic of a discussion, talking about grammar and people's linguistic mistakes is perfectly acceptable. It's only when people are obsessed with pointing out grammatical mistakes when no one else cares that they become grammar nazis
Cheers
I don't know for sure what's running behind this, but Google's OCRopus is Apache, as is the actual OCR engine behind it, tesseract.
The thing I've had trouble with in gmail search is that it lacks any sort of lemmatisation. This would be fine if it would match sub-strings within words, but it seems to only match full words that are morphologically identical.
He was apparently distinguishing those who admire unicorns from a distance from those who play games with them: Being swift-footed goes hand in hand with being able to jump high, which is absolutely necessary when playing unicorns' favorite game: leapfrog.
woosh?
Actually I think he messed up, 'becoming' isn't a gerund in that sentence, it's a participle.
Then again, maybe I missed the point.
Cheers.
I'd just like to point out that if you have to restrict your web app to one browser for it to work properly, you might be using a web app where a non-web app would be more appropriate.
The whole point of the web is to be platform independent. If you end up requiring a particular browser to use the app, then why clunk around with web technologies in the first place?
I half suspect this reaction is what is underlying some of the comments.
Nope, I heard of it after I naively ran apt-get install chromium
US case law came up with a criterion that seems applicable: reasonable expectation of privacy.
If I'm having a private conversation in my home, with the windows and doors closed, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and using fancy microphones to eves drop on that conversation would be illegal. If I'm in a public place having that conversation and just assume that no one is listening (even if the place appears abandoned), the rules change and I no longer have a case against an eves dropper.
I think the key is the 'reasonable': Is it reasonable to expect people to respect your privacy in a particular case. Thus, people might assume no one is listening to their unencrypted traffic (just as they might assume no one will bother to root through their garbage), but can they reasonably expect no one to do so?