My problem with IE's rendering is that sometimes it will rerender the same page several times while downloading data and then refresh and I'll lose my place in reading. Stupid graphics. This happens less these days -- probably more due to IE-centric web design rather than IE's rendering prowess. Mozilla usually waits till it gets more data and lays it out correctly the first time. Then again, Explorer probably gets a CPU bonus in the kernel scheduler unless you've got an NT kernel and have it installed in Server mode (another reason to use Linux... it's fairer to 3rd party software).
Of course, rendering speed doesn't affect me with Mozilla too much. I just middle-click several links and let them open in the background and I'll read them when I get to them. I admit that this doesn't work when you're trying to refresh that ebay item in the last 60 seconds of an auction.;)
Well, this is an age-old disagreement between first principles. Personally, I take to the Jeffersonian school that ideas should not be treated as if they're owned.
Either way, the problem is that European original creator theory combined with the notion of collective creations of businesses leads to perpetual copyright, which I detest. This is why the U.S. passed CTEA anyway -- to bring us into sync with European copyright laws passed by parliaments in the pockets of their own big businesses.
It is sad and evil that Robert Frost's first works are only republished with "altered punctuation" so the copyright controllers can prevent the original unencumbered works from appearing in the public domain.
This is so true. Long copyright terms (ala CTEA, aka "the Sony Bono Act") are a result of the ownership model of art espoused by Europe, not the American forefathers' "promotion model". DMCA is sort of a bastard child of American big business and the European school.
Boo Europe and Boo the Americans for going along with them on copyrights.
You didn't listen to the entire segment. His inbound packets get dropped a couple of times, towards the end of the segment. You can tell because he says, roughly, "David, I lost you".
Heh, sounds like Marketplace on NPR yesterday... a VoIP advocate was dialed into the studio via VoIP and his connection kept dropping out. It was pretty funny.
I missed the sentence between "My friend who ran for political office in 2000 used this exact naming scheme for his web site." and "Will our legal system?".
Nah, what I mean is, sometimes the links are teeny tiny and when I middle click sometimes the mouse moves a pixel or 2 off the link and then I get the paste effect. Sure, it's user error, but also an annoyance.:)
Sometimes it's not even my fault. I've noticed the IMPS/2 driver to be a little flaky on the PS/2 port with 2.4 kernel under X. What happens is the mouse trails off on its own! I know it's not hardware b/c this happens on two utterly different machines (Via-based K6-3 and Dell P4). Weird, eh?
The trick here is it has to be a webpage. If you middle-click into, say, the Acrobat plugin, it doesn't work. It's also annoying when you think you're hovering over a link and you middle click to open the link into a new tab and you accidentally paste the last URL in the buffer!
You describe the present situation. I contend that extending the current highlight/paste implementation could and probably should be done through an extension ala Render, RandR, FreeType, etc. That way, all X apps would have it instead of only Fancy Pants Toolkits.:)
Cut-n-paste works under X, but I hate that Move-n-replace is ugly.
Windows: 1) Highlight new text 2) Ctl-x 3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced 4) Ctl-v
X: 1) Highlight text-to-be-replaced 2) Delete text-to-be-replaced 3) Highlight new text 4) Delete new text 5) Paste new text
I'd like to see X do something like this: 1) Highlight new text with left button 2) Keep holding left button and press right button to cut to clipboard 3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced with left button 4) Keep holding left button and press middle button to copy from clipboard
This wouldn't work for Left+Right=Middle, but Ctl-x|c|v would work for those people.
What do you think? I find move-n-replace to be very handy for text editing.
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
From the interviews I heard on the radio, his entire program, CW, BW, NW, was stalled after Gulf War 1. He didn't have license to test long range missiles or anything and the embargo and no fly zones made it very hard to sneak anything substantial into the country. Consequently, the scientists said all research was done on the computer. Last time I checked, writing code or AutoCAD is not against International Law nor is it a "weapons program" in the true sense. It's purely academic until you get it going in the lab...
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science...
From interviews I've heard on the radio, several generals of the Iraqi army specifically said that although their units did not have CW, they were told that the units next to them did.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal).
These were covert threats. After the Iran-Iraq war of the early 80s, Saddam was always wary of the Shiites in Iran and at home. It's true he threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel, of course, but his real worry was Iran. I guess he feared another Khomeini messiah figure.
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about.
Agreed, but it's interesting in light of his personnel thinking they actually had weaponry they didn't have. It'd be like the Pentagon telling the Field Commanders that the next batallion over has sharks with frickin' lasers, even though they didn't. And then, issuing a report to the world saying that you don't have sharks with frickin' lasers. I mean, the officers who saw the report probably thought he was lying to the world!
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame.
Right, but I didn't say he gave a timeframe for finding them; he said, basically, "give us 6 more months and we should be done". The IAEA guy said the same thing. ElBaradei or something.
I don't think that's how it was. Rather, Bush knew that if he let the UN handle Iraq, USA would lose Iraq. It wouldn't be able to occupy Iraq, transform it into its puppet state, profit from its oil, etc.
I've also heard it said that when sanctions were lifted, Saddam was talking about trading oil in Euros. This would have been a severe blow to the U.S. strong dollar policy.
None of this had anything to do with WMD. WMD was only used as rhetoric get the citizens to rally around the flag.
Of course, but "citizens" includes "Democratic Congressmen" who have to vote for the war. Thus, the WMD ruse.
Anyway, there were many reasons why Bush would be interested in the war, the question for me is, did he commit high crimes to get us into it?
If it were about WMD, why didn't USA invade North Korea (which was MUCH further along in creating nukes, AND had ICBM capability--supposedly)? The answer is, because no one cares about WMD--just like how no one cares about democracy.
2 reasons, off the top of my head:
That would really REALLY piss off South Korea (with their newish Sunshine Policy
Don't forget Colin Powell's comment "This is bullshit".
Don't forget Hans Blix' team turning up ZILCH and saying it would only take six more months to finish up the WMD investigation.
Don't forget that Tony Blair lied to Parliament saying missiles from Iraq could land there any second.
No, the situation was probably:
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
7) Bush got human intelligence from the Brits alleging that Saddam did have WMD. C.f., [1] - [3].
8) Bush got crappy human intel that Saddam had tried to buy nuke fuel in Africa.
9) Bush decided to take the country to war based solely on [bad] human intel, rather than waiting on Blix.
So, . Was Bush merely impatient for war? . Did he intentionally hijack the Blix team to fit his war agenda? . Were the CIA, NSA, whoever so stupid they couldn't figure out Saddam's bluffing strategy (lie to own people and Iran to keep them in line, tell truth to outside world to stay in power)?
All of those seem plausible to me. What do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying Explorer is like Enlightenment with a built-in web browser and all the features turned off? ;)
-l
p.s., I love Enlightenment, but you'd never know it was running from my kooky set-up.
My problem with IE's rendering is that sometimes it will rerender the same page several times while downloading data and then refresh and I'll lose my place in reading. Stupid graphics. This happens less these days -- probably more due to IE-centric web design rather than IE's rendering prowess. Mozilla usually waits till it gets more data and lays it out correctly the first time. Then again, Explorer probably gets a CPU bonus in the kernel scheduler unless you've got an NT kernel and have it installed in Server mode (another reason to use Linux... it's fairer to 3rd party software).
;)
Of course, rendering speed doesn't affect me with Mozilla too much. I just middle-click several links and let them open in the background and I'll read them when I get to them. I admit that this doesn't work when you're trying to refresh that ebay item in the last 60 seconds of an auction.
-l
Well, this is an age-old disagreement between first principles. Personally, I take to the Jeffersonian school that ideas should not be treated as if they're owned.
Either way, the problem is that European original creator theory combined with the notion of collective creations of businesses leads to perpetual copyright, which I detest. This is why the U.S. passed CTEA anyway -- to bring us into sync with European copyright laws passed by parliaments in the pockets of their own big businesses.
It is sad and evil that Robert Frost's first works are only republished with "altered punctuation" so the copyright controllers can prevent the original unencumbered works from appearing in the public domain.
-l
Boo Europe and Boo the Americans for going along with them on copyrights.
-l
VxWorks, ay? Maybe NASA will issue a filesystem patch...
You didn't listen to the entire segment. His inbound packets get dropped a couple of times, towards the end of the segment. You can tell because he says, roughly, "David, I lost you".
-l
I just thought it was funny when he said something like "Looks like I lost you again" at the end of the segment.
-l
-l
The HTPC didn't come with that feature.
-l
Well said.
Signal: sounds like they didn't install the dish right.
-l
... must be installed incorrectly or with a poor dish, like my parents' one. Other posters indicate that inclement weather should not be a problem.
-l
I missed the sentence between "My friend who ran for political office in 2000 used this exact naming scheme for his web site." and "Will our legal system?".
-l
will it what?
-l
Nah, what I mean is, sometimes the links are teeny tiny and when I middle click sometimes the mouse moves a pixel or 2 off the link and then I get the paste effect. Sure, it's user error, but also an annoyance. :)
Sometimes it's not even my fault. I've noticed the IMPS/2 driver to be a little flaky on the PS/2 port with 2.4 kernel under X. What happens is the mouse trails off on its own! I know it's not hardware b/c this happens on two utterly different machines (Via-based K6-3 and Dell P4). Weird, eh?
-l
The trick here is it has to be a webpage. If you middle-click into, say, the Acrobat plugin, it doesn't work. It's also annoying when you think you're hovering over a link and you middle click to open the link into a new tab and you accidentally paste the last URL in the buffer!
-l
You describe the present situation. I contend that extending the current highlight/paste implementation could and probably should be done through an extension ala Render, RandR, FreeType, etc. That way, all X apps would have it instead of only Fancy Pants Toolkits. :)
To me, it's as fundamental as fonts,
-l
Which is exactly the problem with X's implementation: all the applications have to use it specifically; it's not in the standard.
Annoying, eh? Wouldn't it be great to use that trick in Mozilla's URL bar instead of having that damn "x" button to clear the text?!
Cheers,
-l
It wasn't unknowingly. It was completely intentional! I agree with your assessment. :)
I want a mouse-only AND a keyboard method. X -- embracing and extending Microsoftisms!
-l
[NT]my ideal is a mouse-only and a keyboard method
[NT] I want mouse-only access to clipboard
Cut-n-paste works under X, but I hate that Move-n-replace is ugly.
Windows:
1) Highlight new text
2) Ctl-x
3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced
4) Ctl-v
X:
1) Highlight text-to-be-replaced
2) Delete text-to-be-replaced
3) Highlight new text
4) Delete new text
5) Paste new text
I'd like to see X do something like this:
1) Highlight new text with left button
2) Keep holding left button and press right button to cut to clipboard
3) Highlight text-to-be-replaced with left button
4) Keep holding left button and press middle button to copy from clipboard
This wouldn't work for Left+Right=Middle, but Ctl-x|c|v would work for those people.
What do you think? I find move-n-replace to be very handy for text editing.
-l
Iraq probably had a WMD program but it was probably concentrated on chemical weapons. I don't think they really had a program for nuclear weapons (at least nothing substantial or well developed).
From the interviews I heard on the radio, his entire program, CW, BW, NW, was stalled after Gulf War 1. He didn't have license to test long range missiles or anything and the embargo and no fly zones made it very hard to sneak anything substantial into the country. Consequently, the scientists said all research was done on the computer. Last time I checked, writing code or AutoCAD is not against International Law nor is it a "weapons program" in the true sense. It's purely academic until you get it going in the lab...
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
I think it would be the other way around. The Iraqi scietists lied to Saddam. Saddam wouldn't have known about the technology and the science...
From interviews I've heard on the radio, several generals of the Iraqi army specifically said that although their units did not have CW, they were told that the units next to them did.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
True but the threats weren't really directed against the Shiites or the Iranians. It was directed at other countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Isreal).
These were covert threats. After the Iran-Iraq war of the early 80s, Saddam was always wary of the Shiites in Iran and at home. It's true he threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel, of course, but his real worry was Iran. I guess he feared another Khomeini messiah figure.
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
They didn't lie because they had nothing to lie about.
Agreed, but it's interesting in light of his personnel thinking they actually had weaponry they didn't have. It'd be like the Pentagon telling the Field Commanders that the next batallion over has sharks with frickin' lasers, even though they didn't. And then, issuing a report to the world saying that you don't have sharks with frickin' lasers. I mean, the officers who saw the report probably thought he was lying to the world!
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
He never really said that. He said that inspections could uncover WMD. He never gave a time frame.
Right, but I didn't say he gave a timeframe for finding them; he said, basically, "give us 6 more months and we should be done". The IAEA guy said the same thing. ElBaradei or something.
I don't think that's how it was. Rather, Bush knew that if he let the UN handle Iraq, USA would lose Iraq. It wouldn't be able to occupy Iraq, transform it into its puppet state, profit from its oil, etc.
I've also heard it said that when sanctions were lifted, Saddam was talking about trading oil in Euros. This would have been a severe blow to the U.S. strong dollar policy.
None of this had anything to do with WMD. WMD was only used as rhetoric get the citizens to rally around the flag.
Of course, but "citizens" includes "Democratic Congressmen" who have to vote for the war. Thus, the WMD ruse.
Anyway, there were many reasons why Bush would be interested in the war, the question for me is, did he commit high crimes to get us into it?
If it were about WMD, why didn't USA invade North Korea (which was MUCH further along in creating nukes, AND had ICBM capability--supposedly)? The answer is, because no one cares about WMD--just like how no one cares about democracy.
2 reasons, off the top of my head:
Don't forget Colin Powell's comment "This is bullshit".
Don't forget Hans Blix' team turning up ZILCH and saying it would only take six more months to finish up the WMD investigation.
Don't forget that Tony Blair lied to Parliament saying missiles from Iraq could land there any second.
No, the situation was probably:
1) Saddam had a WMD development program, but it was all on computer, on the drawing board, as it were.
2) Saddam lied to his military. Each general thought the next one over had CW, even though his own unit did not.
3) Saddam had made covert threats. This was meant to stave off both an Iranian invasion and a Shiite rebellion.
4) Interestingly, Iraq didn't lie very much in their arms assessment they gave to the UN.
5) Hans Blix said he could finish inspections in six months.
6) Bush knew that if Blix didn't find WMD, there was no way in hell he'd get the votes for war. Considering how conservatives have been clamoring for the overthrow of Saddam for YEARS, I don't think this is surprising or unsubstantiated. O'Neill + PNAC make a pretty convincing argument on their own.
7) Bush got human intelligence from the Brits alleging that Saddam did have WMD. C.f., [1] - [3].
8) Bush got crappy human intel that Saddam had tried to buy nuke fuel in Africa.
9) Bush decided to take the country to war based solely on [bad] human intel, rather than waiting on Blix.
So,
. Was Bush merely impatient for war?
. Did he intentionally hijack the Blix team to fit his war agenda?
. Were the CIA, NSA, whoever so stupid they couldn't figure out Saddam's bluffing strategy (lie to own people and Iran to keep them in line, tell truth to outside world to stay in power)?
All of those seem plausible to me. What do you think?
-l
Wonder if there's an X keybd mapping for it...
-l