Pop-up blocking on an site-by-site basis is a feature of the latest nightlies. You now get pop-ups, but you can disable further pop-ups from that site by checking a box in the pop-up window. There is also a Popup manager similar to the Image manager.
I know it's not really what you want, but the preferences toolbar makes it a lot easier to enable or disable the popup blocker.
That'll do in a pinch. Thanks!
Note: I couldn't install the plugin under my regular user account. I had to install the plugin while running mozilla a root, and then copy the prefbar.rdf file to my regular acount's.mozilla/default directory and chown the file.
You misunderstand: what Mozilla allows you to do is block *unrequested* pop-up windows. Other, requested pop-ups work just fine.
Mozilla *thinks* the popups are unrequested, but, as part of the application, the behavour is desired.
At times, the onLoad event of the document object opens one or more new windows as part of the application.
Among other things, this is what the pop-up blocker blocks. 99.9% of the time, this is exactly what I want. But for this particular application, I really *do* want (need) one or more new windows to be opened on a document onLoad event.
I have not found a way to enable or disable Mozilla's behavior in this regard on a per-site basis.
After make the earlier post, I realized that what I need, for pop-up blocking, is the same as already offered with cookie and image management.
Mozilla lets me block or allow cookies and images on a per-site basis. I'd like the same level of granularity for pop-up blocking.
Is this possible? Does anyone else have this need?
Does anyone know if it's possible to selectively allow pop-ups on some sites you visit, but disallow from all others?
There are a couple of web-based applications I use for work that require pop-ups be enabled. I want and need popups for that specific domain, but no others.
Sort of like Apache's Allow From and Deny From commands.
On freshmeat, there's a new(ish) project called Ginf (for 'Ginf Is Not Frontpage') -- it's a GTK-based WYWIWYG HTML Editor. All I've looked at so far is the screenshots. Looks pretty basic right now, but could be the start of something good. Wish I knew C, because that's definitely an itch I'd like to scratch.
I find NES and Sega Master system to be the Classics (although atari was first) simply becuase the games made the video game industry what it is today. In my opinion, they were more influential than atari, and far more ground breaking than PS2 or Gamcube. (I consider Xbox a pc with less functionality) So, call me what you will I guess, but in my opinion, classic starts with NES.
And you would be incorrect. Classic starts with PONG, and goes up from there.
No HIV cannot do to humans what it did to chimps. As far as I know chimps do not know about protecting themselves from HIV and similar disease, while many humans do.
The implication still stands. If not HIV, then an as-yet-unknown disease can do the same thing. What if HIV was highly infectious -- spread through casual contact or through airbourne transmission. The disease that supposedly wiped out most of the chimps might not have been transmitted sexually.
I think you are being far too literal. I think the comparison applies to immunity in general, not specifically to HIV, although it is a colorful example.
The Plague wiped out 1/3 of the European population. Smallpox wiped out huge numbers (not sure of exact number) of American Indians. A theoretical disease more virulent and infectious than both of those, combined with the relative inability to treat or cure it as with the HIV virus, and we could see similar genetic culling as with the chimps.
Strep is becoming immune to our anti-biotics. We don't know how to treat West-Nile yet. Ear-infections, urinary tract infections are becoming resistant. Lots of human illnesses are becoming resistant to our treatments.
Let's hope bio-tech research can do an end-run around evolution and beat the bacteria and virii before they beat us.
...the only way this has a bearing on human immunity is if the submitter is suggesting that those humans with AIDS immunity are evolved from chimps two million years ago which seems highly unlikely.
It's relevant by implication only. HIV can do to humanity what the unnamed-disease did to the chimps two million years ago -- wipe out most of us except the few who have a natural genetic resitance to the virus. Then, two million years from now, someone will comment on how our "immunity genes" are very similar.
It seems like we have the cart leading the horse. Inventors are now embedding their ideas into standards, waiting until adoption, and then enforcing their monopoly.
This is dirty pool, and I hope it doesn't last.
I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, I think it will last. We, as techies and as citizens, will need to more vigilant determining what we will adopt as 'standard'.
JPG, GIF, MP3, etc. We have to learn the lesson eventually.
More evidence to oppose the W3C RAND lisencing proposal.
And as for the next repeat cycle, I don't necessarily see it as rebuying the DVDs all over again, speaking only from a technical standpoint (there's other issues that may be at work, but...).
I meant "new format" in the same vein as the switch between VHS and DVD.
The reason dvds have so much market share compared to vhs is because the movie catalog rollout to dvd. People with DVDs who love Godfather will re-buy the title on DVD, even though they already have Godfather on VHS. People are replacing thier movie collection in the new format.
I'll be doing it for of the newly released special edition Pulp Fiction DVD.
I'm not a *new* buyer. I'm a *repeat* buyer of the same movie. Naturally, this is not sustainable. Ad DVD adoption increases, and as the back catalog is filled out and people have replaced their collection, DVD will be no different from what VHS is. I doubt VHS is going away soon.
Of course, when VHS *does* go away, and the DVD catalog is complete, and the everyone has replaced their collections -- the movie introduce an "all new" format and start the cycle over again.
For accurate head-to-head measurements, check unit sales of LOTR on VHS vs DVD.
It doesn't make rational sense that we should have to keep on growing the world economy beyond the capacity of the earth to bear it, just to feed everyone. It's only a system built on greed and selfishness that makes things this way.
No, Mr. Luddite. Individuals want to continually improve their own lives, and each generation wants the next generation to be better off than they were. I certainly want my kids to live better that I am.
If you want to see stability (stagnation, no progress or improvement) look at the life of the average person in the year 500AD, then the life of the average person in the year 1500AD.
but you do realize that someday Voyager is going to crash into a planet and obliterate an entire city of extraterrestrials.
No, it's not. It's going to get damaged, then intercepted by a race of sentient machines. They will repair and upgrade voyager, using the best of their technology, then send it on its way. Voyager will continue on its mission -- collecting information -- before coming back to Earth to deliver the information to its creator.
There's some extinct whales involved somewhere in the timeline, but I'm not sure how that fits in.
Imagine a day where engineers build cool robots, upload the generic learn-to-do-stuff-with-your limbs program, leave it for a week or so to train up and get optimum calibration, then have it copy it's program onto subsequent batches.
Read _The Practice Effect_ by David Brin. Sci-Fi. It's not a deep read, but entertaining. In an alternate universe where physics are different, the more you do something, the better you get at it. For instance, if you tie a stone to the tip of a stick and pound it against a tree, eventually the stick-stone will turn into a diamond-tipped axe.
It's a stretch, yes, but it's a fun read. You'll love it when the robot (from our world) reappears at the end of the book, after having 'practiced' what it was told to do, unseen, for most of the story.
The best academia is to be the guy that mops the floors in the math department at night. That way, in your spare time while the floor dries, you can solve the unsolvable equation left for the students on the chalk board. Maybe you will get to meet Robin Williams.
I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.
What?! You play a game for 10 hours a day? As a habit?! Good god, man.
I can't believe you ponder the difficulty of "balancing between two games" like pondering the difficulty between balancing work and family.
I remember years ago when the very first Sim City came out. I thought it was great game. I wasted too much time on it. I realized once that had spent 7 hours in one sitting playing that game. I deleted the game from my system and haven't been a game player since.
But, holy shit, to repeatedly play any game, or any number of games for 8-10 hours a day, strikes me as dysfunctional. Is this typical for gamers? How do you get anything else done?
This post sounds like a flame or a troll, but it's not. That post just threw me for a loop.
In the first sentence, school is being used as a regular noun: which school? Who cares? On the other hand, in the second sentence, School is being used as proper name - there can be only one School.
In other words, if English speakers can understand the nuance between school and School, then said English speaker (please avoid dissing the US publik skool edukashion sistem) can reasonably be expected to distinguish between letter.txt and Letter.txt (ie. "letter? Which one?" vs. "Letter? ahh yes, THE Letter").
I think this is a bad example. The difference between "school" and "School" is very different beween the difference between "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt".
Grammatically, we know the difference between "School" and "school".
But a computer doesn't really know the diffrence better letter.txt and Letter.txt any more than between "letter.txt" and "lEtTeR.TxT", or for that matter, between "letter.txt" and "abcefg.hij". More specifically, it doesn't know the relationship between "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt".
Some applications can understand insensitivity (like "grep -i letter *")
I'm not sure where I stand on this. Should people act more like computers, or should computers act more like people? *shrug*
I tend to like a suggestion made by another use on this thread: Mount a case-insensitive file system if you need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't miss the discussion of this topic on use Perl: http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/12/026254 &mode=flat&tid=9
Pop-up blocking on an site-by-site basis is a feature of the latest nightlies. You now get pop-ups, but you can disable further pop-ups from that site by checking a box in the pop-up window. There is also a Popup manager similar to the Image manager.
I think I'm getting turned on. Beautiful!
Some phones use software known as Java that lets them do much more sophisticated things.
... Java?
Java, you say? Facinating. Tell me more. What is this
I know it's not really what you want, but the preferences toolbar makes it a lot easier to enable or disable the popup blocker.
.mozilla/default directory and chown the file.
That'll do in a pinch. Thanks!
Note: I couldn't install the plugin under my regular user account. I had to install the plugin while running mozilla a root, and then copy the prefbar.rdf file to my regular acount's
But nice to have. Thanks again!
You misunderstand: what Mozilla allows you to do is block *unrequested* pop-up windows. Other, requested pop-ups work just fine.
Mozilla *thinks* the popups are unrequested, but, as part of the application, the behavour is desired.
At times, the onLoad event of the document object opens one or more new windows as part of the application.
Among other things, this is what the pop-up blocker blocks. 99.9% of the time, this is exactly what I want. But for this particular application, I really *do* want (need) one or more new windows to be opened on a document onLoad event.
I have not found a way to enable or disable Mozilla's behavior in this regard on a per-site basis.
After make the earlier post, I realized that what I need, for pop-up blocking, is the same as already offered with cookie and image management.
Mozilla lets me block or allow cookies and images on a per-site basis. I'd like the same level of granularity for pop-up blocking.
Is this possible? Does anyone else have this need?
and pop-up blocking
Does anyone know if it's possible to selectively allow pop-ups on some sites you visit, but disallow from all others?
There are a couple of web-based applications I use for work that require pop-ups be enabled. I want and need popups for that specific domain, but no others.
Sort of like Apache's Allow From and Deny From commands.
Anyone? Bueller?
There's also these:
If you know if any others in a similar vien, especially gothic or ambient, please let me know.
Corporations tend to think of themselves of amoral money-making ventures
That's what they. We would *all* do well to never forget that. I like Red Hat, and I support them, but they *are* a corpration. So is VA Software.
It is never advisable to place any trust in a corportion.
On freshmeat, there's a new(ish) project called Ginf (for 'Ginf Is Not Frontpage') -- it's a GTK-based WYWIWYG HTML Editor. All I've looked at so far is the screenshots. Looks pretty basic right now, but could be the start of something good. Wish I knew C, because that's definitely an itch I'd like to scratch.
My wife won't run Linux until there's a WYSIWYG HTML editor to replace DreamWeaver.
I find NES and Sega Master system to be the Classics (although atari was first) simply becuase the games made the video game industry what it is today. In my opinion, they were more influential than atari, and far more ground breaking than PS2 or Gamcube. (I consider Xbox a pc with less functionality) So, call me what you will I guess, but in my opinion, classic starts with NES.
And you would be incorrect. Classic starts with PONG, and goes up from there.
No HIV cannot do to humans what it did to chimps. As far as I know chimps do not know about protecting themselves from HIV and similar disease, while many humans do.
The implication still stands. If not HIV, then an as-yet-unknown disease can do the same thing. What if HIV was highly infectious -- spread through casual contact or through airbourne transmission. The disease that supposedly wiped out most of the chimps might not have been transmitted sexually.
I think you are being far too literal. I think the comparison applies to immunity in general, not specifically to HIV, although it is a colorful example.
The Plague wiped out 1/3 of the European population. Smallpox wiped out huge numbers (not sure of exact number) of American Indians. A theoretical disease more virulent and infectious than both of those, combined with the relative inability to treat or cure it as with the HIV virus, and we could see similar genetic culling as with the chimps.
Strep is becoming immune to our anti-biotics. We don't know how to treat West-Nile yet. Ear-infections, urinary tract infections are becoming resistant. Lots of human illnesses are becoming resistant to our treatments.
Let's hope bio-tech research can do an end-run around evolution and beat the bacteria and virii before they beat us.
It's relevant by implication only. HIV can do to humanity what the unnamed-disease did to the chimps two million years ago -- wipe out most of us except the few who have a natural genetic resitance to the virus. Then, two million years from now, someone will comment on how our "immunity genes" are very similar.
It seems like we have the cart leading the horse. Inventors are now embedding their ideas into standards, waiting until adoption, and then enforcing their monopoly.
This is dirty pool, and I hope it doesn't last.
I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, I think it will last. We, as techies and as citizens, will need to more vigilant determining what we will adopt as 'standard'.
JPG, GIF, MP3, etc. We have to learn the lesson eventually.
More evidence to oppose the W3C RAND lisencing proposal.
Business pay obscene amounts of money not just for the software, but to have someone to blame and pass the buck to when it doesn't work right.
Do not underestimate the CYA factor.
And as for the next repeat cycle, I don't necessarily see it as rebuying the DVDs all over again, speaking only from a technical standpoint (there's other issues that may be at work, but...).
I meant "new format" in the same vein as the switch between VHS and DVD.
The reason dvds have so much market share compared to vhs is because the movie catalog rollout to dvd. People with DVDs who love Godfather will re-buy the title on DVD, even though they already have Godfather on VHS. People are replacing thier movie collection in the new format.
I'll be doing it for of the newly released special edition Pulp Fiction DVD.
I'm not a *new* buyer. I'm a *repeat* buyer of the same movie. Naturally, this is not sustainable. Ad DVD adoption increases, and as the back catalog is filled out and people have replaced their collection, DVD will be no different from what VHS is. I doubt VHS is going away soon.
Of course, when VHS *does* go away, and the DVD catalog is complete, and the everyone has replaced their collections -- the movie introduce an "all new" format and start the cycle over again.
For accurate head-to-head measurements, check unit sales of LOTR on VHS vs DVD.
It doesn't make rational sense that we should have to keep on growing the world economy beyond the capacity of the earth to bear it, just to feed everyone. It's only a system built on greed and selfishness that makes things this way.
No, Mr. Luddite. Individuals want to continually improve their own lives, and each generation wants the next generation to be better off than they were. I certainly want my kids to live better that I am.
If you want to see stability (stagnation, no progress or improvement) look at the life of the average person in the year 500AD, then the life of the average person in the year 1500AD.
but you do realize that someday Voyager is going to crash into a planet and obliterate an entire city of extraterrestrials.
No, it's not. It's going to get damaged, then intercepted by a race of sentient machines. They will repair and upgrade voyager, using the best of their technology, then send it on its way. Voyager will continue on its mission -- collecting information -- before coming back to Earth to deliver the information to its creator.
There's some extinct whales involved somewhere in the timeline, but I'm not sure how that fits in.
The faster you go, the slower time moves around you.
What happens when you go faster than the speed of light?
Imagine a day where engineers build cool robots, upload the generic learn-to-do-stuff-with-your limbs program, leave it for a week or so to train up and get optimum calibration, then have it copy it's program onto subsequent batches.
Read _The Practice Effect_ by David Brin. Sci-Fi. It's not a deep read, but entertaining. In an alternate universe where physics are different, the more you do something, the better you get at it. For instance, if you tie a stone to the tip of a stick and pound it against a tree, eventually the stick-stone will turn into a diamond-tipped axe.
It's a stretch, yes, but it's a fun read. You'll love it when the robot (from our world) reappears at the end of the book, after having 'practiced' what it was told to do, unseen, for most of the story.
The best academia is to be the guy that mops the floors in the math department at night. That way, in your spare time while the floor dries, you can solve the unsolvable equation left for the students on the chalk board. Maybe you will get to meet Robin Williams.
.. for weaseling their way around the MS license agreement.
However, I doubt this will be long lived. MS will close that hole soon. They have more lawyers than Dell.
Nice try, though.
I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.
What?! You play a game for 10 hours a day? As a habit?! Good god, man.
I can't believe you ponder the difficulty of "balancing between two games" like pondering the difficulty between balancing work and family.
I remember years ago when the very first Sim City came out. I thought it was great game. I wasted too much time on it. I realized once that had spent 7 hours in one sitting playing that game. I deleted the game from my system and haven't been a game player since.
But, holy shit, to repeatedly play any game, or any number of games for 8-10 hours a day, strikes me as dysfunctional. Is this typical for gamers? How do you get anything else done?
This post sounds like a flame or a troll, but it's not. That post just threw me for a loop.
"I went to school."
and
"I went to School." ?
In the first sentence, school is being used as a regular noun: which school? Who cares? On the other hand, in the second sentence, School is being used as proper name - there can be only one School.
In other words, if English speakers can understand the nuance between school and School, then said English speaker (please avoid dissing the US publik skool edukashion sistem) can reasonably be expected to distinguish between letter.txt and Letter.txt (ie. "letter? Which one?" vs. "Letter? ahh yes, THE Letter").
I think this is a bad example. The difference between "school" and "School" is very different beween the difference between "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt".
Grammatically, we know the difference between "School" and "school".
But a computer doesn't really know the diffrence better letter.txt and Letter.txt any more than between "letter.txt" and "lEtTeR.TxT", or for that matter, between "letter.txt" and "abcefg.hij". More specifically, it doesn't know the relationship between "letter.txt" and "Letter.txt".
Some applications can understand insensitivity (like "grep -i letter *")
I'm not sure where I stand on this. Should people act more like computers, or should computers act more like people? *shrug*
I tend to like a suggestion made by another use on this thread: Mount a case-insensitive file system if you need it.