"they are a good, but ultimately a pale comparison to the original. The ease of use, and the fact that it simply works make the IE Google Toolbar a great, well, tool."
I use the googlebar extension on Firebox and the Google Search bar on IE. I'd be interested in how you think that googlebar is a pale comparison of the the IE version. It seems pretty much like an exact copy for the UI and functionality points of view. Plus for me, it has always worked without any problems.
Beyond the obvious search bar, Googlebar has a few other useful functions that the default Firefox one does not have, such as the ability to search within one site. Something I use a lot is the ability to quickly jump to and highlight the keywords you've just searched for by clicking them in the bar. It makes finding relevant info. on a long page much easier.
Both of these are present in the Firefox Googlebar. Search within the site, I'm feeling lucky, highlighting of search terms, buttons to jump to the search terms.
You must be confusing the Googlebar with the default search box.
is an atomic operation. There is no should about it. It will keep blank/half webpages from showing up, assuming that you are writing whole pages, not frames, etc.
I cannot imagine that it would be different on any other OS/Webserver combination, but Microsoft has confounded my expectations more than once before.
Needing less money makes courting the Venture Capital that much easier. Instead of asking for several millions, you ask for just one or two. Which is easier?
I don't know about asking, but I would bet that it is easier to get twenty million than it is to get 1 million. Most VCs don't care about companies with a valuation of 2-6 million, it isn't worth their time. See this http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html from Paul Graham (creator of Yahoo stores). Since they have to manage each deal, venture capitalists want big deals, not small deals.
This is just ignorant. It wasn't just Democrats being creative with chads.
Other issues: 1) Poorly designed ballots 2) Improper removal of voters from rolls with no checking and no provision for provisional balloting. 3) Counting of dubious overseas ballots without proper postmarks.
It is clear that the election process in Florida in 2000 was substandard to say the least. If it has been fixed objective outside observers can best point this out. If it hasn't, ditto.
Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Secretary of State cannot perform this service.
You obvioiusly don't get it. You are making statements about and article which does not say what you say it says. There is nothing wrong with clearly noting that you have added your own evidence and world view in extending the articles conclusions, but to you cite the article as proof of your conclusions is fundamentally dishonest. This is Drudge's method as well.
You didn't say "favoring a political party" in your original post, you said coordinating. A single phone call is not coordinating.
Now you call it aiding and abetting a political party, a charge which is also unsupported by the article.
There is no evidence in the article that you refer to either that the documents are forgeries or that they are easily identifiable as such. In fact here is a quote from the article, "CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not."
Congratulations, you have precisely captured the Drudge spirit. Cite a link claiming it says something, but actually the link says nothing of the sort. RTFA. There is no evidence in the article of coordinating and no evidence of undeniable culpability or fraud.
Fiorina and the other pro-merger folks have managed to alienate roughly half of their investors, including several board members and two guys with framiliar-sounding last names.
One point which hasn't gotten any notice from the media that I have seen is that this merger is going to dilute the ownership of the Hewletts and the Packards. I can't help wondering if this is a factor in their objections.
Slashdot Mirror
Correcting myself, googlebar doesn't have page rank. I don't use page rank on IE.
"they are a good, but ultimately a pale comparison to the original. The ease of use, and the fact that it simply works make the IE Google Toolbar a great, well, tool."
I use the googlebar extension on Firebox and the Google Search bar on IE. I'd be interested in how you think that googlebar is a pale comparison of the the IE version. It seems pretty much like an exact copy for the UI and functionality points of view. Plus for me, it has always worked without any problems.
Beyond the obvious search bar, Googlebar has a few other useful functions that the default Firefox one does not have, such as the ability to search within one site. Something I use a lot is the ability to quickly jump to and highlight the keywords you've just searched for by clicking them in the bar. It makes finding relevant info. on a long page much easier.
Both of these are present in the Firefox Googlebar. Search within the site, I'm feeling lucky, highlighting of search terms, buttons to jump to the search terms.
You must be confusing the Googlebar with the default search box.
The RDA are minima, not maxima.
I cannot imagine that it would be different on any other OS/Webserver combination, but Microsoft has confounded my expectations more than once before.
You have it backwards. The judgement was fixing the prices upward, as is clearly indicated in the summary.
Needing less money makes courting the Venture Capital that much easier. Instead of asking for several millions, you ask for just one or two. Which is easier?
I don't know about asking, but I would bet that it is easier to get twenty million than it is to get 1 million. Most VCs don't care about companies with a valuation of 2-6 million, it isn't worth their time. See this http://www.paulgraham.com/venturecapital.html from Paul Graham (creator of Yahoo stores). Since they have to manage each deal, venture capitalists want big deals, not small deals.
How about the fact that the date of the list inception is two days in the future?
"Bug on list since: List inception: 1 Dec 2004"
How hard would it be to say:
"Bug on list since: List inception: 29 Nov 2004?"
This is just ignorant. It wasn't just Democrats being creative with chads.
Other issues:
1) Poorly designed ballots
2) Improper removal of voters from rolls with no checking and no provision for provisional balloting.
3) Counting of dubious overseas ballots without proper postmarks.
You're taking this as an insult to America?
It is clear that the election process in Florida in 2000 was substandard to say the least. If it has been fixed objective outside observers can best point this out. If it hasn't, ditto.
Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Secretary of State cannot perform this service.
You obvioiusly don't get it. You are making statements about and article which does not say what you say it says. There is nothing wrong with clearly noting that you have added your own evidence and world view in extending the articles conclusions, but to you cite the article as proof of your conclusions is fundamentally dishonest. This is Drudge's method as well.
You didn't say "favoring a political party" in your original post, you said coordinating. A single phone call is not coordinating.
Now you call it aiding and abetting a political party, a charge which is also unsupported by the article.
There is no evidence in the article that you refer to either that the documents are forgeries or that they are easily identifiable as such. In fact here is a quote from the article, "CBS hasn't been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even whether they're fakes or not."
What are you talking about, admitted war criminal?
Kerry's testimony about the Winter Soldier investigation was not about acts that he performed.
Congratulations, you have precisely captured the Drudge spirit. Cite a link claiming it says something, but actually the link says nothing of the sort. RTFA. There is no evidence in the article of coordinating and no evidence of undeniable culpability or fraud.
Fiorina and the other pro-merger folks have managed to alienate roughly half of their investors, including several board members and two guys with framiliar-sounding last names.
One point which hasn't gotten any notice from the media that I have seen is that this merger is going to dilute the ownership of the Hewletts and the Packards. I can't help wondering if this is a factor in their objections.
Not trying to whore karma, but I do think it's silly to have to go through that stupid bfast link.
/. doesn't get paid for the referral.
If you don't go through bfast,