It sucks that you think where I'm from is wack But as long as that's enough to keep your ass from coming back And with a smile and a hint of sarcasm, he said "I beg your pardon but this is my secret garden"
-- Atmosphere
It doesn't work like that. If it is close enough to cause confusion it is in violation (e.g. Lindows vs Windows). The courts decide whether or not something is close enough to cause confusion should it go that far.
Parents are meant to be parents and teachers, not friends.
You're absolutely correct. A parent trying to be a friend first and a parent second is one extreme that is not a very good idea. However, you are taking it to the completely opposite extreme, which is no better. On top of the fact that the minute they realize you are doing this they are just going to head over to the public library, friend's house, etc... or when they are older and have a job, simply get a cell phone and a $20 cord to access the net from that. And beyond some very hitlerish things, I can't quite think of anything you could do to stop something like that.
The menus are collapsable and show up fine and the entire site renders great for me in Firefox. Firefox also doesn't trigger a download dialog box when I move my mouse over links.
I am, however, using a nightly build. Maybe the issue has already been fixed?
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040908 Firefox/0.10
I have my email set to catchall and it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. However, I did seem to get a lot of spam set to sales@[my domain].com and webmaster@[my domain].com. So if you do have it set as a catchall I would suggest fowarding mail that is sent to webmaster@ or sales@ to me@privacy.net.
This is generally incorrect. The majority of albums are $9.99 on iTunes, and when they aren't they are usually priced comparibly to your local Best Buy.
I agree with you that is annoying. I also agree with the reasons the Mozilla developers choose to do it this way. However, they should at least offer a hidden pref to allow you to enable the ability to just open executable files directly.
When it comes to website development I could most easily be described as a standard compliance nazi, and to sum up my experience developing sites compared to those of parent poster: ditto. I go through the same thing. I make the XHTML/CSS design, testing it in Firefox and always running it through the w3c validators making sure it is 101% valid XHTML/CSS. I'll then to one more check to make sure it looks alright in IE and everything is all fcked up and I have to go in and re-write all my CSS over again a million times to find some way to accomplish what I want to accomplish while dumbing down the CSS enough so that IE can render it properly.
This problem is not at all an issue of writing "Firefox-only" or non-standard compliant markup -- at least not in my cases.
The GNOME HIG actually specifically tells software developers to not use tabs in their applications in order to allow the window manager to handle the windows how it wants. These people have turned into such window manager nazi's. They don't care if it makes things a million times less convienient, harder to use, takes up more space, kills your first born, etc... all that matters is the window manager should handle windows how it wants. Any "logic" behind this that I've heard is extremely weak.
Oh, and make sure to update, I dunno... like version numbers or something. Everything still says.8.
If you look closely it says "0.8+". All releases before 0.9 final, and after 0.8 final are marked as 0.8+. This is the standard versioning scheme that Mozilla uses and has always used.
Does anyone else feel this entire release was just pushed out the door without any consideration at all just so people could see the new theme, which totally blows?
I highly doubt it was because of the theme. Even the ass who decided to change the theme isn't exactly raving about it. He did this so he wouldn't have to lower himself to, I donno, "negotiate" with Arvid Axelsson (the designer of the previous default theme called "Qute"). Arvid was asked about changing the license of his artwork, he expressed hesitation in doing so, so from there (without informing Arvid) found someone else to create a new default theme and even as Arvid was making checkins to the artwork for Firefox, Ben announced that Arvid was out the door and new artwork was going to be used -- only informing Arvid after the fact. At which point Arvid immediately made it clear that he would be willing to change the license of his artwork had he known what was going on. But Ben insists on wanting to feel like the all mightly dictator of the Firefox project, god forbid lowering himself to negotiate or discuss things with someone who works with him -- simply put a "my way or the highway" attitude (and he has no hesitation to make use of the highway at even the slightest sign of dissent).
Try to not be so simple minded.. Let's assume for a moment that Gmail really is some evil privacy invading beast. Now not only would you have to not use it in order to avoid such a thing, but anyone whom you wish to contact via e-mail would have to not be using it as well. Which is to say that you will potentially be affected by Gmail's policies whether you use Gmail or not.
Well SCO felt for whatever reason that settling was the best choice for them. The Linux community does not feel that they owe SCO a dime, due to the fact that they are not in agreement that Linux in infringing on any of SCO's IP. If one were to just blindly pay off anyone that accused them of anything it would be similar to racketeering (paying your protection money). While there are companies that do do this, I believe that it is safe to say that this is not the practice of most.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, someone is bitter...
Comcast doesn't have any quotas like that.
He probably needs to run http://www.spychecker.com/program/winsockxpfix.htm l
It sucks that you think where I'm from is wack
But as long as that's enough to keep your ass from coming back
And with a smile and a hint of sarcasm, he said
"I beg your pardon but this is my secret garden"
-- Atmosphere
You'd be breaking several laws in the process. So I wouldn't suggest it ;)
If the FBI is allowed to trade drugs to get to drug dealers then I'm pretty sure they're allowed to trade kiddie porn pics to get to pervs.
It doesn't work like that. If it is close enough to cause confusion it is in violation (e.g. Lindows vs Windows). The courts decide whether or not something is close enough to cause confusion should it go that far.
Parents are meant to be parents and teachers, not friends.
You're absolutely correct. A parent trying to be a friend first and a parent second is one extreme that is not a very good idea. However, you are taking it to the completely opposite extreme, which is no better. On top of the fact that the minute they realize you are doing this they are just going to head over to the public library, friend's house, etc... or when they are older and have a job, simply get a cell phone and a $20 cord to access the net from that. And beyond some very hitlerish things, I can't quite think of anything you could do to stop something like that.
The menus are collapsable and show up fine and the entire site renders great for me in Firefox. Firefox also doesn't trigger a download dialog box when I move my mouse over links.
I am, however, using a nightly build. Maybe the issue has already been fixed?
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040908 Firefox/0.10
I highly doubt this. Why would anyone contest the outcome of an election that they won?
I have my email set to catchall and it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. However, I did seem to get a lot of spam set to sales@[my domain].com and webmaster@[my domain].com. So if you do have it set as a catchall I would suggest fowarding mail that is sent to webmaster@ or sales@ to me@privacy.net.
It doesn't even properly render single color transparancy at times.
This is generally incorrect. The majority of albums are $9.99 on iTunes, and when they aren't they are usually priced comparibly to your local Best Buy.
The new theme looks like shit on Windows and Mac. Qute is WAAAAAAY better on WinXP, and the old Pinestrip theme was way better on OSX.
You still cannot transfer those files to your iPod -- even if you can get them to play in iTunes.
I agree with you that is annoying. I also agree with the reasons the Mozilla developers choose to do it this way. However, they should at least offer a hidden pref to allow you to enable the ability to just open executable files directly.
When it comes to website development I could most easily be described as a standard compliance nazi, and to sum up my experience developing sites compared to those of parent poster: ditto. I go through the same thing. I make the XHTML/CSS design, testing it in Firefox and always running it through the w3c validators making sure it is 101% valid XHTML/CSS. I'll then to one more check to make sure it looks alright in IE and everything is all fcked up and I have to go in and re-write all my CSS over again a million times to find some way to accomplish what I want to accomplish while dumbing down the CSS enough so that IE can render it properly.
This problem is not at all an issue of writing "Firefox-only" or non-standard compliant markup -- at least not in my cases.
What if you just use http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm ?
The GNOME HIG actually specifically tells software developers to not use tabs in their applications in order to allow the window manager to handle the windows how it wants. These people have turned into such window manager nazi's. They don't care if it makes things a million times less convienient, harder to use, takes up more space, kills your first born, etc... all that matters is the window manager should handle windows how it wants. Any "logic" behind this that I've heard is extremely weak.
Not only does the new default theme look like total ass
9 0
.8.
I can't disagree with you there. You've got Ben Goodger to thank for that one.
the "upgrade" also trashed all my extensions
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=817
Oh, and make sure to update, I dunno... like version numbers or something. Everything still says
If you look closely it says "0.8+". All releases before 0.9 final, and after 0.8 final are marked as 0.8+. This is the standard versioning scheme that Mozilla uses and has always used.
Does anyone else feel this entire release was just pushed out the door without any consideration at all just so people could see the new theme, which totally blows?
I highly doubt it was because of the theme. Even the ass who decided to change the theme isn't exactly raving about it. He did this so he wouldn't have to lower himself to, I donno, "negotiate" with Arvid Axelsson (the designer of the previous default theme called "Qute"). Arvid was asked about changing the license of his artwork, he expressed hesitation in doing so, so from there (without informing Arvid) found someone else to create a new default theme and even as Arvid was making checkins to the artwork for Firefox, Ben announced that Arvid was out the door and new artwork was going to be used -- only informing Arvid after the fact. At which point Arvid immediately made it clear that he would be willing to change the license of his artwork had he known what was going on. But Ben insists on wanting to feel like the all mightly dictator of the Firefox project, god forbid lowering himself to negotiate or discuss things with someone who works with him -- simply put a "my way or the highway" attitude (and he has no hesitation to make use of the highway at even the slightest sign of dissent).
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1114150.htm
6) You are spending hard earned money on an industry who purposefully tries to deceive you at every turn
That more or less describes every industry.
Try to not be so simple minded.. Let's assume for a moment that Gmail really is some evil privacy invading beast. Now not only would you have to not use it in order to avoid such a thing, but anyone whom you wish to contact via e-mail would have to not be using it as well. Which is to say that you will potentially be affected by Gmail's policies whether you use Gmail or not.
Well SCO felt for whatever reason that settling was the best choice for them. The Linux community does not feel that they owe SCO a dime, due to the fact that they are not in agreement that Linux in infringing on any of SCO's IP. If one were to just blindly pay off anyone that accused them of anything it would be similar to racketeering (paying your protection money). While there are companies that do do this, I believe that it is safe to say that this is not the practice of most.
That would be trademark, not copyright