I got tired of always saying "NO". When I encounter a web site where the site is unuseable without Javascript I want to simply press a button and have the web page (i.e., the Javascript) work. I don't want to have to re-load the page. I don't want to have to say "NO" 99% of the time. I just want a simple "Javascript" button for the 1%.
I also want this user-controlled functionality for cookies, style sheets, plug-ins, etc. It's too much to ask, I know. Just like it's too much to ask for a car with an oil pressure gage. My car's computer tells me when to change the oil; I have no need to see the oil pressure. My browser tells me when to view a pop-up window; I have no need to enable or disable it. Guess what? My money is spent on games and new hardware; I have no need to buy a web browser that does what I want.
Teriffic! Do you think the boss would notice if I ran Linux/Konqueror in a VM window on this Windoze box?:-)
Does Konqueror have a simple button to do that, or do I have to drill down through several menus? What I want is a browser where the default is all crap (Java, cookies, style sheets, Shockwave plug-ins, etc.) OFF (call it Lynx mode) unless I push a button to turn it on for this site only. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for this window only is good enough. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for all windows is better than nothing.
I suppose I could get Konqueror and hack the code myself, but right now I now have more money than time and I'm willing to buy a commercial product if anyone's willing to code what I want. Meanwhile, I'll stick to the free ones and bitch:-)
Why on Earth can't [MSIE] call [Active Scripting] JavaScript like everyone else?
Because it's more than Javascript. It's also ActiveX, and extremely odious invention that (among other things) allows ActiveX script writers access to all the files on your Windows PC, including the Registry. Since Javascript is everywhere and ActiveX is nowhere, Microsoft set up the World's Default Browser to cripple most web sites (by turning Javascript off) if you dare to enhance your personal security by disabling ActiveX. If you try it, you'll regret it (i.e., you won't have the same Javascript-enhanced web experience as before you made your PC safe) and turn it back on just for the Javascript, thus enabling the tech MS prefers.
The solution, of course, is to use a browser that doesn't know about ActiveX, let alone enable it by default. Unless you agree that Javascript does little to enhance your web experience and you want it off as well, you cannot go where YOU want to go with MSIE.
OK, so does anyone make a browser with a simple button that turns Javascript on and off? And another that turns Java on and off? And yet another that turns ActiveX on and off? MSIE can't turn them on and off individually, and they make it very hard to do that. Netscape 3 allowed us to turn them on and off window by window, but now (Netscape 4 and above) all instances of Netscape share the same process, so turn Javascript on in one window and you've turned it on in all of them (also, you crash one and all the others crash too, but that's another gripe). And even then you have to drill down through the menus and dialog boxes to do it.
Why won't at least one browser let the users decide how they want the browser to behave? Why do they all have this arrogant attitude that they know what's best for us? Pick a browser: for every "feature" they cite as an example of why their browser is best, I can cite five reasons why their browser is crap*. They all suck**.
* Slight exaggeration for dramatic effect.
** Severe understatement to avoid offending minors.
I know what you mean. Like many aspiring engineers, my SAT math score was higher than my SAT verbal. But my math score was below average for entering freshmen engineers, and my verbal was above average. Go figure. I've endured illiterate engineers my entire career. (now I gotta spell check this post before I get flamed:-)
By the way, Taco, I find Wordsmyth and OneLook Dictionaries useful (you don't need MS Windows to use a spell checker).
This is bad news, at least for me. Now I won't be able to read an otherwise fine publication. I've avoided all their publications since they cancled Computer Language and promised a free subscription to Software Development that NEVER appeared.
I wrote several letters and made countless telephone calls; by the time they "corrected" the(ir) problem they claimed there were no more free subscriptions available, but they'd be happy to sell Software Development to me. Excuse me? You cancel a magazine I enjoy, promise me a free subscription to an alternate publication as a substitute, then refuse to deliver? Fuck 'em. Now I wouldn't read their crap if they PAID me.
You all may think this is good news, but to me the story is that Perl Journal has ceased publication.
Talk about speculation. I rank this right up with the discovery of "canals" on Mars a few years ago by some guys named Secchi, Schiaparelli, and Lowell and the resulting conclusion of not only water, but advanced civilization on Mars.
QT, GTK, wxWindows are all good, cross-platform toolkits for Windows, your comment about needing Windows development tools to develop on Windows is plain wrong.
GTK: "I build all the libraries and GIMP using only free tools. All source directories have makefile.mingw or makefile.cygwin files. Use gcc-2.95.2." -- Cool.
wxWindows: "You can also compile wxWindows 2 for Windows on Unix with Cygwin or Mingw32, resulting in executables that will run on Windows. So in theory you could write your applications using wxGTK or wxMotif, then check/debug your
wxWindows for Windows programs with TWIN32, and finally produce an ix86 Windows executable using Cygwin/Mingw32, without ever needing a copy of
Microsoft Windows." -- Very Cool!
QT: "The Qt Non Commercial Edition for Microsoft Windows is a binary only distribution requiring Microsoft Visual Studio version 6." -- Oops.
why do they only support Microsoft Visual Studio version 6? Why not support gcc?
QT requires Microsoft Visual Studio, Apache requires Microsoft Visual Studio -- Oh, yeah, Mr. Gates must really hate these "Open Source" folks muscling in on his territory using his tools. I'll bet he cringes every time some open source developer plunks down $1079 for a copy.
I agree with all the posts about how computer art will naturally not be considered fine art at first; the establishment always rejects the new.
What I suggest is that you try to create things that cannot be created in any other medium. If you create flat pictures that can be printed on an Epson color printer then you're using the wrong medium. If you're creating 3D images that can only exist in a computer, and a printout is equivalent to a photograph of a statue (a representation, but not the same as viewing the actual item), then you're on the right track.
If you create something dynamic that is a different experience for everyone who "views" it (via interaction with a mouse or via a complex algorithym based upon a webcam image of the viewer or whatever, as long as it somehow changes with each viewer) then you're going to start impressing people.
Also, consider a sculpture where a computer and monitor and software are all components of a larger work. "Foot in the door." Feel free to reject this out of principle:-)
I think you'll also have a stronger case if you write the software yourself, and the software is unique to each work, as opposed to using a commercial off-the-shelf drawing package to create a picture on a computer. Sort of the difference between mixing your own paint and paint-by-numbers. The software, while unique, could be based upon shared libraries with code re-use; just because each work is unique doesn't mean you have to start from scratch each time. Even Picasso bought commercial, off-the-shelf paints, but he then mixed and used them himself. It's still a Picasso, even if he worked in Sherman Williams house paint on a rusty saw blade! Your work is still your work, even if you use MS Paint on an IBM PS/2.
Does it fit in their new business model? If they're dropping all things DEC, will they also drop iPaq? Or, conversly, might we soon see iPaqs with Linux direct from the factory?
I know this is old news, but why did Gracenote sue Roxio in the first place? If they are claiming copyright
infringment, aren't the maintainers and contributors of freedb.org to blame?
That's the funny part. Roxio was a Gracenote customer. Then Roxio announced they were dropping Gracenote and using freedb. Gracenote lost a large customer, so they had to sue somebody, right? (can't let your stockholders know you lost a customer because your product is overpriced).
Suing freedb wasn't going to get them any $$$, so they sued Roxio for not buying their product anymore. This is like Ford suing Avis because they switched to Chevys. You think Avis wouldn't counter-sue? What were Gracenote thinking?
I hope Roxio win so big that Gracenote folds and Napster has to contract with freedb for the data they need to comply with the court order. Then I hope freedb says "no" to Napster. Never happen. I can wish, but it'll never happen.
Basically the product monitored what sites you visited and how long you spent at those sites
Can anyone please explain how this works? I visit a web site: My browser sends an HTTP request to their web server. Their web server sends HTML (or whatever) back to me. The monitor logs this. Now, if I spend five seconds or five hours reading the web page, how will the monitor know? What if I visit www.whitehouse.com then open another browser window and go see www.whitehouse.gov? Will the monitor software say I spent five seconds at www.whitehouse.com because five seconds after I went there I went somewhere else? But the whitehouse.com site is still up in the first browser and I can read that page all day while continuing to surf in the other browser. How does the monitor know? Or rather, what's their claim for how they know?
And all this talk about having your kids talk openly about what they look at on the web; Are you prepared
to talk openly with them about every site or newsgroup you browse?
I'm an adult, and I'm free to make my own decisions about what I do and do not view, on the internet or anywhere else. Until my kid is 18, he's not an adult and I'm responsible for what he does or does not view, on the internet or anywhere else. If I choose to monitor my child's web use, that's my right as a parent. At my kid's 18th birthday I'll give him the root passwords to all the computers in the house, and he can surf on, dude. He'll be free to check the logs and see what I've been doing, too. But not until he's an adult.
This will not surprise my child, because he knows he's not allowed to consume adult beverages or engage in any other adult activity without my permission, and he knows that once he's 18 he can do anything he wants. That's the way I was raised in a computer-free environment, and I see no reason to change the system for my kid just because we now have computers in the house. It's a system that has worked well for thousands of years: Kids don't get to do adult things until they're adults themselves.
Of course, all bets are off if he hacks root when he's 12:-)
Damn, this is the second post in a week that didn't make it! Please don't flame me: if this isn't "redundant" here then the original's probably getting modded down as "offtopic" in some other story. Trying again:
You might want to check here before sprouting off too much.
I did. See below.
Justice O'Conner disagreed with the desision.
I never said she agreed with it. I quoted her correctly. If you check your link you'll find the quote in the next to the last paragraph.
Texas Law expressly allowed for arrest due to the "crime" Atwater commited.
So? What's your point? If you think this ruling means that you only need worry about this if you're driving in Texas without wearing your seatbelt, then you're wrong. If you want to change this I suggest you petition your state government to not allow arrests for any misdemeanor traffic violations.
No, she did not have her ID on her.
Correct. I was wrong. I'm human, I sometimes make mistakes. And when I do I admit it.
Finally, the officer was simply harassing her.
Agreed. Now, by "simply" do you mean "only," as in harrasment is somehow acceptable? If so, I disagree.
So, to sum up: You cited a link which proves that we (might) agree on two points, you're wrong on one point, and I'm wrong on one point -- which I freely admit. Since we both made mistakes, you might want to either do more checking before "sprouting" off yourself, or cut me some slack.
For example, the police pull over a car for running a red light. The police can not open and search the trunk
to find the money the people in the car just robbed from a nearby bank
I wish that were true. It was once, but no longer. The supreme court just ruled ('Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista' April 24, 2001) that an officer can arrest you even if the violation which got you pulled over is a misdemeanor with no jail time. As Sandra Day O'Conner said in that decision: "After today, the arsenal available to any officer extends to full arrest and the searches
concomitant to that arrest." In other words, if they want to search your trunk all they have to do is pull you over for failure to signal a lane change or some other lame excuse then arrest you. Now they have you in handcuffs in the back of the cruser and they can legally do any damn thing they want to your car without a warrent, and anything they find can and will be used against you.
The only thing the Supremes have left to do is find a way to empower the cops to just shoot you on the spot and avoid the cost of a trial.
We tried, but we could not intercept our customer's emails for you. Oh, well. We'll call you if anything changes; meanwhile, if you need our help with anything else, just get a court order and we'll be happy to oblige (after we consult with our lawyers).
They said they studied people who type on a keyboard 7 hours a day and found they had no higher instance of CTS than the general population. Since the general population (even the kid pumping gas at the corner Exxon) uses a computer at work these days, what's the control group? When they test drugs, the control group gets nothing but a placebo, not the test drug half the day and a placebo the other half. They should compare computer users to the Amish (or some other group of total non-computer users) if they want a fair study.
As an American, I want to know if there are any ThinkGeek equivalents in Europe or Asia so I can buy cool gadgets that are otherwise unavailable in the USA! Damn the shipping, I want cool toys that none of my friends have -- and that they can't find at Sharper Image or ThinkGeek.
Where do the Japanese (OK, I can't read a Japanese web site -- Australian, then) buy cool gizmos online? Where do the Brits shop for toys when they shop on their Nokias? What do the Italians buy when they want to upstage their German friends?
Slashdot Mirror
I also want this user-controlled functionality for cookies, style sheets, plug-ins, etc. It's too much to ask, I know. Just like it's too much to ask for a car with an oil pressure gage. My car's computer tells me when to change the oil; I have no need to see the oil pressure. My browser tells me when to view a pop-up window; I have no need to enable or disable it. Guess what? My money is spent on games and new hardware; I have no need to buy a web browser that does what I want.
Does Konqueror have a simple button to do that, or do I have to drill down through several menus? What I want is a browser where the default is all crap (Java, cookies, style sheets, Shockwave plug-ins, etc.) OFF (call it Lynx mode) unless I push a button to turn it on for this site only. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for this window only is good enough. Failing that, a simple on/off toggle button for all windows is better than nothing.
I suppose I could get Konqueror and hack the code myself, but right now I now have more money than time and I'm willing to buy a commercial product if anyone's willing to code what I want. Meanwhile, I'll stick to the free ones and bitch :-)
Because it's more than Javascript. It's also ActiveX, and extremely odious invention that (among other things) allows ActiveX script writers access to all the files on your Windows PC, including the Registry. Since Javascript is everywhere and ActiveX is nowhere, Microsoft set up the World's Default Browser to cripple most web sites (by turning Javascript off) if you dare to enhance your personal security by disabling ActiveX. If you try it, you'll regret it (i.e., you won't have the same Javascript-enhanced web experience as before you made your PC safe) and turn it back on just for the Javascript, thus enabling the tech MS prefers.
The solution, of course, is to use a browser that doesn't know about ActiveX, let alone enable it by default. Unless you agree that Javascript does little to enhance your web experience and you want it off as well, you cannot go where YOU want to go with MSIE.
OK, so does anyone make a browser with a simple button that turns Javascript on and off? And another that turns Java on and off? And yet another that turns ActiveX on and off? MSIE can't turn them on and off individually, and they make it very hard to do that. Netscape 3 allowed us to turn them on and off window by window, but now (Netscape 4 and above) all instances of Netscape share the same process, so turn Javascript on in one window and you've turned it on in all of them (also, you crash one and all the others crash too, but that's another gripe). And even then you have to drill down through the menus and dialog boxes to do it.
Why won't at least one browser let the users decide how they want the browser to behave? Why do they all have this arrogant attitude that they know what's best for us? Pick a browser: for every "feature" they cite as an example of why their browser is best, I can cite five reasons why their browser is crap*. They all suck**.
* Slight exaggeration for dramatic effect.
** Severe understatement to avoid offending minors.
By the way, Taco, I find Wordsmyth and OneLook Dictionaries useful (you don't need MS Windows to use a spell checker).
I wrote several letters and made countless telephone calls; by the time they "corrected" the(ir) problem they claimed there were no more free subscriptions available, but they'd be happy to sell Software Development to me. Excuse me? You cancel a magazine I enjoy, promise me a free subscription to an alternate publication as a substitute, then refuse to deliver? Fuck 'em. Now I wouldn't read their crap if they PAID me.
You all may think this is good news, but to me the story is that Perl Journal has ceased publication.
GTK: "I build all the libraries and GIMP using only free tools. All source directories have makefile.mingw or makefile.cygwin files. Use gcc-2.95.2." -- Cool.
wxWindows: "You can also compile wxWindows 2 for Windows on Unix with Cygwin or Mingw32, resulting in executables that will run on Windows. So in theory you could write your applications using wxGTK or wxMotif, then check/debug your wxWindows for Windows programs with TWIN32, and finally produce an ix86 Windows executable using Cygwin/Mingw32, without ever needing a copy of Microsoft Windows." -- Very Cool!
QT: "The Qt Non Commercial Edition for Microsoft Windows is a binary only distribution requiring Microsoft Visual Studio version 6." -- Oops.
Well, 2 outta 3 ain't bad!
QT requires Microsoft Visual Studio, Apache requires Microsoft Visual Studio -- Oh, yeah, Mr. Gates must really hate these "Open Source" folks muscling in on his territory using his tools. I'll bet he cringes every time some open source developer plunks down $1079 for a copy.
So what happens to QT and Apache and the others when Bill decides to cut them off?
What I suggest is that you try to create things that cannot be created in any other medium. If you create flat pictures that can be printed on an Epson color printer then you're using the wrong medium. If you're creating 3D images that can only exist in a computer, and a printout is equivalent to a photograph of a statue (a representation, but not the same as viewing the actual item), then you're on the right track.
If you create something dynamic that is a different experience for everyone who "views" it (via interaction with a mouse or via a complex algorithym based upon a webcam image of the viewer or whatever, as long as it somehow changes with each viewer) then you're going to start impressing people.
Also, consider a sculpture where a computer and monitor and software are all components of a larger work. "Foot in the door." Feel free to reject this out of principle :-)
I think you'll also have a stronger case if you write the software yourself, and the software is unique to each work, as opposed to using a commercial off-the-shelf drawing package to create a picture on a computer. Sort of the difference between mixing your own paint and paint-by-numbers. The software, while unique, could be based upon shared libraries with code re-use; just because each work is unique doesn't mean you have to start from scratch each time. Even Picasso bought commercial, off-the-shelf paints, but he then mixed and used them himself. It's still a Picasso, even if he worked in Sherman Williams house paint on a rusty saw blade! Your work is still your work, even if you use MS Paint on an IBM PS/2.
That's the funny part. Roxio was a Gracenote customer. Then Roxio announced they were dropping Gracenote and using freedb. Gracenote lost a large customer, so they had to sue somebody, right? (can't let your stockholders know you lost a customer because your product is overpriced).
Suing freedb wasn't going to get them any $$$, so they sued Roxio for not buying their product anymore. This is like Ford suing Avis because they switched to Chevys. You think Avis wouldn't counter-sue? What were Gracenote thinking?
I hope Roxio win so big that Gracenote folds and Napster has to contract with freedb for the data they need to comply with the court order. Then I hope freedb says "no" to Napster. Never happen. I can wish, but it'll never happen.
Can anyone please explain how this works? I visit a web site: My browser sends an HTTP request to their web server. Their web server sends HTML (or whatever) back to me. The monitor logs this. Now, if I spend five seconds or five hours reading the web page, how will the monitor know? What if I visit www.whitehouse.com then open another browser window and go see www.whitehouse.gov? Will the monitor software say I spent five seconds at www.whitehouse.com because five seconds after I went there I went somewhere else? But the whitehouse.com site is still up in the first browser and I can read that page all day while continuing to surf in the other browser. How does the monitor know? Or rather, what's their claim for how they know?
I'm an adult, and I'm free to make my own decisions about what I do and do not view, on the internet or anywhere else. Until my kid is 18, he's not an adult and I'm responsible for what he does or does not view, on the internet or anywhere else. If I choose to monitor my child's web use, that's my right as a parent. At my kid's 18th birthday I'll give him the root passwords to all the computers in the house, and he can surf on, dude. He'll be free to check the logs and see what I've been doing, too. But not until he's an adult.
This will not surprise my child, because he knows he's not allowed to consume adult beverages or engage in any other adult activity without my permission, and he knows that once he's 18 he can do anything he wants. That's the way I was raised in a computer-free environment, and I see no reason to change the system for my kid just because we now have computers in the house. It's a system that has worked well for thousands of years: Kids don't get to do adult things until they're adults themselves.
Of course, all bets are off if he hacks root when he's 12 :-)
So, to sum up: You cited a link which proves that we (might) agree on two points, you're wrong on one point, and I'm wrong on one point -- which I freely admit. Since we both made mistakes, you might want to either do more checking before "sprouting" off yourself, or cut me some slack.
No.
I wish that were true. It was once, but no longer. The supreme court just ruled ('Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista' April 24, 2001) that an officer can arrest you even if the violation which got you pulled over is a misdemeanor with no jail time. As Sandra Day O'Conner said in that decision: "After today, the arsenal available to any officer extends to full arrest and the searches concomitant to that arrest." In other words, if they want to search your trunk all they have to do is pull you over for failure to signal a lane change or some other lame excuse then arrest you. Now they have you in handcuffs in the back of the cruser and they can legally do any damn thing they want to your car without a warrent, and anything they find can and will be used against you.
The only thing the Supremes have left to do is find a way to empower the cops to just shoot you on the spot and avoid the cost of a trial.
Really? Where? It's not here.
I'm not a karma whore, so go ahead and mod this down (as you modded down this one); you'll be meta-moderated too.
Where do the Japanese (OK, I can't read a Japanese web site -- Australian, then) buy cool gizmos online? Where do the Brits shop for toys when they shop on their Nokias? What do the Italians buy when they want to upstage their German friends?
Inquiring geeks want to know!
Nice HOWTO, but you left out the most important part: WHERE can we get these special iron on transfers?
(wait, wait, don't tell me, they sell them at Think Geek, right?)
I like "Kill all extremists" better (fits on a bumper sticker, where I first saw it).