Yes, but not effectively. You can only interact with the WebKit JavaScript system by passing strings into your hidden UIWebView component. And the JS could only "call out" to the host environment by requesting custom URLs that the host environment could recognize (e.g. custom://show-alert/?message=foo+bar). As a consequence, if you want to do anything requiring back and forth between the two environments, you have to do it asynchronously. It's a real pain.
You're not selling a company. You're selling a product, and an unproven one at that. No one is going to buy this from you, because even figuring out how much it's worth would be a costly endeavor. And what are they going to get for your "company?" A zip file full of source code?
You can't possibly tell that from the screen shots. The form itself is not on an SSL-protected page, but that's not uncommon. What's important is whether it *submits* to an SSL-protected URL, and I'd be kind of surprised if they didn't do that.
There is no 'candy' in space, just a lot of room and some raw materials which are impossible to get at the moment. Virtually any advantage you could find in going to space could more readily be acquired by going into the ocean.
How come Firefox merits being listed as "significant internet technology", but Mosaic, Navigator, and Internet Explorer or Mosaic don't? Why list Apache, but not IIS? Python and Perl, but not C#, VBScript, or Java? Linux and BSD, but not Solaris or Windows? It's fine to say that many pieces of noteworthy Internet technology have been free software, but it's plainly wrong to say that every one has been.
Are you kidding? You used the standard karma-whore approach: "Mod me down. See if I care!" It's the most naked and bizarrely effective form of moderator reverse psychology. There is absolutely no way I'd believe that you posted it without the hope that some moderator, upon reading the phrase, would do the exact opposite.
You're assuming that there's a potential shortage of items for these hypothetical lists. At least in this case (and many others) there are probably a lot more items that could have been included that weren't.
Say I wanted to write a list of the very best breakfast cereals. I might compile a list of twenty-six cereals that I really enjoy. But my editor says "No, we don't have the space for that many; Cut it down to the best ten."
I didn't have to hunt for cereals; I had to be selective.
You know, it's not that wonderfully designed. It looks nice, but in terms of marketing there are some serious problems.
The word "free" is only mentioned once and in tiny, tiny type. If I were reading the paper, and I didn't immediately avoid this ad in the first place, I would probably never see that reference. And, not knowing what Firefox is, I would assume there was a cost attached.
The giant "1.0" is worthless. The audience that this ad is targeting can get nothing useful from this information. They may see it and say "Of course it's 1.0; it's 'introducing'". Or they may see it and say "Firefox is out of beta?", but then this is a waste of advertising space for them, because they're already the wrong demographic. At worst they will see it and say "1.0? My browser is already 6.0", which is the opposite effect.
There's also very little quick information available to differentiate Firefox from the audience's existing browser. There's mention of pop-ups and a lack of crashing, but it's contained in boring testimonials and a tiny little afterthought paragraph that has the smallest text on the page.
You can't just say that you're providing "prior art" -- you actually have to implement it, or provide an implementable plan to the Patent Office, or else it's just called "day dreaming".
That's not correct. The reason you see so many of the same pictures attributed to different sites is because the sites are just the distributors. They buy licenses to the different sets from actual pornographers and then label them with their own brand.
They do. Just not for crappy, "knock-it-out" movies. But for well thought out movies, there are plenty of writers who have a following, although it seems that many of them direct as well, e.g. PT Anderson, David Mamet, M Night Shamalayan, etc.
That's absurd. You've already licensed the software to them under the terms of the GPL. If you could just say "Oh, we changed our minds", then what's the point of the GPL?
Riiiiight. Community Movie Nights. In small villages with no electricity. I bet they're all real worried about missing the latest J-Lo & Ben movie, with all that pesky, rampant HIV and hunger to distract them
Slashdot Mirror
Native bacteria? Ooookay.
Yes, but not effectively. You can only interact with the WebKit JavaScript system by passing strings into your hidden UIWebView component. And the JS could only "call out" to the host environment by requesting custom URLs that the host environment could recognize (e.g. custom://show-alert/?message=foo+bar). As a consequence, if you want to do anything requiring back and forth between the two environments, you have to do it asynchronously. It's a real pain.
People who write parenthetical "hints" are toolboxes. Don't be one of them.
You're thinking of asbestos, maybe...
You're not selling a company. You're selling a product, and an unproven one at that. No one is going to buy this from you, because even figuring out how much it's worth would be a costly endeavor. And what are they going to get for your "company?" A zip file full of source code?
You can't possibly tell that from the screen shots. The form itself is not on an SSL-protected page, but that's not uncommon. What's important is whether it *submits* to an SSL-protected URL, and I'd be kind of surprised if they didn't do that.
There is no 'candy' in space, just a lot of room and some raw materials which are impossible to get at the moment. Virtually any advantage you could find in going to space could more readily be acquired by going into the ocean.
Double-blind testing? That doesn't make any sense.
How come Firefox merits being listed as "significant internet technology", but Mosaic, Navigator, and Internet Explorer or Mosaic don't? Why list Apache, but not IIS? Python and Perl, but not C#, VBScript, or Java? Linux and BSD, but not Solaris or Windows? It's fine to say that many pieces of noteworthy Internet technology have been free software, but it's plainly wrong to say that every one has been.
Are you kidding? You used the standard karma-whore approach: "Mod me down. See if I care!" It's the most naked and bizarrely effective form of moderator reverse psychology. There is absolutely no way I'd believe that you posted it without the hope that some moderator, upon reading the phrase, would do the exact opposite.
You're not a troll, you're just a karma whore. I'm almost surprised that the "mod me down" line actually still works on moderators here.
You're assuming that there's a potential shortage of items for these hypothetical lists. At least in this case (and many others) there are probably a lot more items that could have been included that weren't.
Say I wanted to write a list of the very best breakfast cereals. I might compile a list of twenty-six cereals that I really enjoy. But my editor says "No, we don't have the space for that many; Cut it down to the best ten."
I didn't have to hunt for cereals; I had to be selective.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
You know, it's not that wonderfully designed. It looks nice, but in terms of marketing there are some serious problems.
The word "free" is only mentioned once and in tiny, tiny type. If I were reading the paper, and I didn't immediately avoid this ad in the first place, I would probably never see that reference. And, not knowing what Firefox is, I would assume there was a cost attached.
The giant "1.0" is worthless. The audience that this ad is targeting can get nothing useful from this information. They may see it and say "Of course it's 1.0; it's 'introducing'". Or they may see it and say "Firefox is out of beta?", but then this is a waste of advertising space for them, because they're already the wrong demographic. At worst they will see it and say "1.0? My browser is already 6.0", which is the opposite effect.
There's also very little quick information available to differentiate Firefox from the audience's existing browser. There's mention of pop-ups and a lack of crashing, but it's contained in boring testimonials and a tiny little afterthought paragraph that has the smallest text on the page.
... that "quote" is from Yoda. Jesus.
If my contract is only thing keeping them out of bankruptcy, maybe they're not the best shop to go with... Hmm?
You can't just say that you're providing "prior art" -- you actually have to implement it, or provide an implementable plan to the Patent Office, or else it's just called "day dreaming".
30k? Jesus Christ, you think that's small? ...I'm only 23, and I feel really, really old right now.
That's not correct. The reason you see so many of the same pictures attributed to different sites is because the sites are just the distributors. They buy licenses to the different sets from actual pornographers and then label them with their own brand.
Somebody's done this before.
They do. Just not for crappy, "knock-it-out" movies. But for well thought out movies, there are plenty of writers who have a following, although it seems that many of them direct as well, e.g. PT Anderson, David Mamet, M Night Shamalayan, etc.
That's absurd. You've already licensed the software to them under the terms of the GPL. If you could just say "Oh, we changed our minds", then what's the point of the GPL?
Riiiiight. Community Movie Nights. In small villages with no electricity. I bet they're all real worried about missing the latest J-Lo & Ben movie, with all that pesky, rampant HIV and hunger to distract them
You're joking, right?
You mean Sony/Phillips, right? Jesus Christ, doesn't anyone read the article?