Frodo's nude scene won't be until Sam rescues him in RotK. But in TTT you should get to see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked. Now there's a scary mental image.
How is this worse than just embedding the image into the webpage, possibly with height=0 width=0? When you go to a webpage you already pretty much give it carte blanche to download what it likes; this doesn't seem very different.
I understand your points. Mozilla, at least, allows you to set a minimum font size, which may be just what you want. Other than that the websites can chose their own fonts, but you get to decide what's "too small" and make sure everything is at least that big. It would be nice if web designers just did the right thing, but at least a few browsers let you work around when they don't.
Of course. "Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits ahd already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides...The Stoors were broader, heaveir in build; their feet and hands were larger, and they preferred flat lands and riversides." (Prologue, Concerning Hobbits)
As far as I can tell, with the latest Galeon the only thing lacking from those sections is the ability to restrict cookies to a maximum lifetime (though 1.2.6 adds the ability to limit all cookies to session only). The images and passwords control seem the same, and image blocking is even a little nicer in Galeon (right click an image and you get the more helpful "Block images from " instead of just "Block Images from this Server").
But they have a greivance procedure, and it worked exactly as it was intended to. Upon request they quickly tested and confirmed that they could still use his server to relay mail.
When you installed the software and started using it, you didn't agree to anything. You're just using the normal fair use rights. It's when you start doing things that normally wouldn't be legal under copyright laws (distributing the program, for instance, or something based on it) that you need to agree to a license. That's why click through licenses aren't necessary for ordinary users; you're not doing anything special.
IIRC, the DVD of Contact has a commentary track by the lead special effects person. It's full of things like day-for-night shooting, compositing tv and computer monitors into the final shot, places where the camera angles weren't quite right (there's a scene with Jodie Foster driving where you can see her face in the rear view mirror; it was cheaper to add that later than to futz around with the camera angles wasting actress time). Some interesting stuff (though it doesn't necessarily make the movie worth watching again)
My point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that Walmart users don't care about what happens under the hood, they just care that it works the way they expect it to. And my real point is IT DOES WORK THE WAY THEY EXPECT IT TO. Really. Try it yourself. Select, control-c, switch apps, control-v. There are usability things to complain about in Linux, but that isn't one of them.
lUser cannot figure out how to cut and paste from the Mozilla web browser to Abiword (a harsh welcome to Xwindows indeed).
Um. lUser selects text and either hits control-c to copy, or right clicks and chooses copy. Then goes to AbiWord and either hits control-v to paste, or right clicks and choses paste. That's EXACTLY like Windows. Have you even used the software you're dissing? (Of course, there's also the X Window stuff with PRIMARY instead of CLIPBOARD, but that doesn't stop the other way from working.)
One place where MS could stand to benefit is including some utilities that were developed elsewhere. For instance, currently Windows ships with a telnet program, but no ssh program. While there's no shortage of separate programs to do that, it seems to me that MS could use, for instance, the existing code from OpenSSH and ship with that. (Technical reasons might make it difficult to port, but it might still be much easier than writing from scratch.) As long as the software is shipped as part of Windows, there's no reason it wouldn't be a problem even to include GPL'd code adapted from elsewhere (Go ahead and copy it, it won't do you any good without the rest of Windows).
Basically, for things shipped with Windows that are included merely to make Windows more attractive, there's no reason not to use existing alternatives. Or rather, the only reason is so they can continue the FUD about IP contamination or whatever.
Galeon still has the link toolbar, and even has mouse gestures (left-down and right-down) for the previous and next links. It's also got one (up-right-up) for the contents link (that goes to the top of the domain if there isn't one).
Actually, Galeon has supported gestures natively for a while (since 1.2). Yes, they rock substantially. Also, Galeon has some gestures that I have yet to see elsewhere, like going to a site's homepage (up-right-up) from anywhere in the site, and following next and previous links (right-down and left down, respectively, on sites like/. that have the elements in their html). Give them a try and I think you'll start to appreciate them.
Wisdom doesn't consist of teaching yourself computers. Wisdom consists of things like not being a wise ass with those who control your grades.
And not everyone has old computers lying around at home and is allowed to play with them. Definitely you can learn a lot that way, but somehow that strikes me as saying "Why should schools teach geography? Kids can learn that by flipping through the old atlases we have all over the place."
What he said is true, though. Each page you hit costs them a small amount in bandwidth and CPU time. Note that he didn't say "If you block ads, you're a thief" or "If you block ads, you're stealing our content" or "It's part of the contract between us and you that you read and click on our ads." What he said was completely correct, and in the midst of a plea to support them by other means than advertising.
Ahhh, yes. Been there, done that. Of course, mine looked so innocent. Messing around in/proc, tried to make everything readable (to see how the proc virtual filesystem interacts with permissions). "chmod -R a+rwx *" Even made sure I was in the right place first. What I quickly (but not nearly quickly enough) learnt was that chmod -R follows symlinks, and that symlink to/ made that command much less fun than it should have been. To this day, I loath commands that follow symlinks recursively (cp -r, chmod -R, I'm sure there are others), but I have gotten much better at "find -print0 | xargs -0".
You can still make the key the same length as the message, and use it as a one-time pad. So first you send the key (which is just random data), and if it's compromised on the way, you know it (that's the only real benefit of quantum "cryptography", that it cannot be intercepted without being noticable) and don't use it. If the key gets transmitted without interception, then you encode your message with it and send it using any means you want. There's no brute force against a one-time pad. The transmission is secure. The only problems are 1) practicality (cost, range, etc) and 2) out of scope attacks (so they can't get the message while it's in the air. Instead they wait till you decrypt it and then make you reveal it at gunpoint, or more likely just wait for you to email it to someone else, or store it on your computer with the password of "secret").
ettings menu is just full of juicy goodness like that. You can turn on and off Java, JavaScript, popups, animated images, disable site stylesheets, and more, all from the menus.
Ideally (read: not bloody likely, pal) it would note the rate at which you're drinking, extrapolate how much longer it'll take you to finish, know its location and how long it'll take for you to be served (using a digital camera to assess whether you're an ugly geek and adjusting based on that), and send the signal at the right time.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we send the royalty payments via IOU?
Frodo's nude scene won't be until Sam rescues him in RotK. But in TTT you should get to see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked. Now there's a scary mental image.
How is this worse than just embedding the image into the webpage, possibly with height=0 width=0? When you go to a webpage you already pretty much give it carte blanche to download what it likes; this doesn't seem very different.
I understand your points. Mozilla, at least, allows you to set a minimum font size, which may be just what you want. Other than that the websites can chose their own fonts, but you get to decide what's "too small" and make sure everything is at least that big. It would be nice if web designers just did the right thing, but at least a few browsers let you work around when they don't.
Of course. "Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits ahd already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides...The Stoors were broader, heaveir in build; their feet and hands were larger, and they preferred flat lands and riversides." (Prologue, Concerning Hobbits)
As far as I can tell, with the latest Galeon the only thing lacking from those sections is the ability to restrict cookies to a maximum lifetime (though 1.2.6 adds the ability to limit all cookies to session only). The images and passwords control seem the same, and image blocking is even a little nicer in Galeon (right click an image and you get the more helpful "Block images from " instead of just "Block Images from this Server").
But they have a greivance procedure, and it worked exactly as it was intended to. Upon request they quickly tested and confirmed that they could still use his server to relay mail.
When you installed the software and started using it, you didn't agree to anything. You're just using the normal fair use rights. It's when you start doing things that normally wouldn't be legal under copyright laws (distributing the program, for instance, or something based on it) that you need to agree to a license. That's why click through licenses aren't necessary for ordinary users; you're not doing anything special.
IIRC, the DVD of Contact has a commentary track by the lead special effects person. It's full of things like day-for-night shooting, compositing tv and computer monitors into the final shot, places where the camera angles weren't quite right (there's a scene with Jodie Foster driving where you can see her face in the rear view mirror; it was cheaper to add that later than to futz around with the camera angles wasting actress time). Some interesting stuff (though it doesn't necessarily make the movie worth watching again)
I'd expect the robot to pretect the human in that case, and shut down the reactor itself (First Law overriding Third).
My point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that Walmart users don't care about what happens under the hood, they just care that it works the way they expect it to. And my real point is IT DOES WORK THE WAY THEY EXPECT IT TO. Really. Try it yourself. Select, control-c, switch apps, control-v. There are usability things to complain about in Linux, but that isn't one of them.
Um. lUser selects text and either hits control-c to copy, or right clicks and chooses copy. Then goes to AbiWord and either hits control-v to paste, or right clicks and choses paste. That's EXACTLY like Windows. Have you even used the software you're dissing? (Of course, there's also the X Window stuff with PRIMARY instead of CLIPBOARD, but that doesn't stop the other way from working.)
I don't think they actually believe that, so much as they prefer to pretend to believe it, and try to convince others.
Basically, for things shipped with Windows that are included merely to make Windows more attractive, there's no reason not to use existing alternatives. Or rather, the only reason is so they can continue the FUD about IP contamination or whatever.
Well, someone had to say it.
Galeon still has the link toolbar, and even has mouse gestures (left-down and right-down) for the previous and next links. It's also got one (up-right-up) for the contents link (that goes to the top of the domain if there isn't one).
Actually, Galeon has supported gestures natively for a while (since 1.2). Yes, they rock substantially. Also, Galeon has some gestures that I have yet to see elsewhere, like going to a site's homepage (up-right-up) from anywhere in the site, and following next and previous links (right-down and left down, respectively, on sites like /. that have the elements in their html). Give them a try and I think you'll start to appreciate them.
And not everyone has old computers lying around at home and is allowed to play with them. Definitely you can learn a lot that way, but somehow that strikes me as saying "Why should schools teach geography? Kids can learn that by flipping through the old atlases we have all over the place."
What he said is true, though. Each page you hit costs them a small amount in bandwidth and CPU time. Note that he didn't say "If you block ads, you're a thief" or "If you block ads, you're stealing our content" or "It's part of the contract between us and you that you read and click on our ads." What he said was completely correct, and in the midst of a plea to support them by other means than advertising.
Ahhh, yes. Been there, done that. Of course, mine looked so innocent. Messing around in /proc, tried to make everything readable (to see how the proc virtual filesystem interacts with permissions). "chmod -R a+rwx *" Even made sure I was in the right place first. What I quickly (but not nearly quickly enough) learnt was that chmod -R follows symlinks, and that symlink to / made that command much less fun than it should have been. To this day, I loath commands that follow symlinks recursively (cp -r, chmod -R, I'm sure there are others), but I have gotten much better at "find -print0 | xargs -0".
You can still make the key the same length as the message, and use it as a one-time pad. So first you send the key (which is just random data), and if it's compromised on the way, you know it (that's the only real benefit of quantum "cryptography", that it cannot be intercepted without being noticable) and don't use it. If the key gets transmitted without interception, then you encode your message with it and send it using any means you want. There's no brute force against a one-time pad. The transmission is secure. The only problems are 1) practicality (cost, range, etc) and 2) out of scope attacks (so they can't get the message while it's in the air. Instead they wait till you decrypt it and then make you reveal it at gunpoint, or more likely just wait for you to email it to someone else, or store it on your computer with the password of "secret").
is unordered list, not underline. I've been away from writing webpages for too long.
- S
ettings menu is just full of juicy goodness like that. You can turn on and off Java, JavaScript, popups, animated images, disable site stylesheets, and more, all from the menus.Sorry, had to go off topic there.
It's on the Kodak website. Somehow I don't think they would have found it nearly so cool with a digital camera instead of real film.
Ideally (read: not bloody likely, pal) it would note the rate at which you're drinking, extrapolate how much longer it'll take you to finish, know its location and how long it'll take for you to be served (using a digital camera to assess whether you're an ugly geek and adjusting based on that), and send the signal at the right time.