The biggest problem that I have with mozilla is its lack of gesture support.
Mozilla has gestures: http://optimoz.mozdev.org. The gestures are even configurable (unlike Galeon's) with the prefs.js file.
Re:The dumbification of /.
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Remember when this was "news for nerds, stuff that matters"?... Recently we've had "SOHO", "Crop circles", and now this. All "posted by Michael"...
You've been here since Slashdot really was NFN, STM, and yet you're just now figuring out that Michael's an idiot?
How about deselecting his name under "Exclude stories from the Homepage" (Preferences -> Homepage) and saving yourself the grief?
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes
on
Review: Illegal Art
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm not sure what the law is about this. Is it specifically illegal for me to print up a 10,000 Flugelbucks and then convince everyone in my community that they should accept and use my Flugelbucks as a form of payment?
I doubt it, considering that some cities print their own money: Ithaca, NY most notably.
I'm not even sure what the tax ramifications are of this... If I do all of my other transactions in them [Flugelbucks], how do I know what the dollar value of the transactions is?
Most likely the "fair market value" in dollars would be applied. If you're painting houses, then you have to ask: what would someone else charge in dollars for this? Now, if you can find a service that no one else can/does provide, then maybe you've found a tax loophole that can be exploited... (but probably not, because IANATA)
You can run a Word Processor on a PII with Windows 95 without any problems. Ripping and burning CDs are a different story.
I rip CDs (into ogg, of course) with a PII/400 and burn them on a 486/100. Why do I need something more powerful?
So why on earth would they cave-in to DRM pressure? They shouldn't give a darn what the music industry thinks.
You seem to be under the delusion that MS is doing this for the music industry. MS is doing this for themselves. Not for the music industry, and definitely not for the consumer...
My guess is Microsoft wants to monopolize the music and movie industry. They want the next CD you buy to only be playable in a Microsoft OS.
That's just the first step... once they own the format, and everyone uses a MS OS to play them, then they jack up the licensing fees, start their own music label (which of course doesn't have to worry about licensing fees), and drive the other music companies out of business. Easy as pie.
"Recursive" would mean that the GPL is explained in terms of the GPL. It is not.
Unless GPL stands for "GNU General Public License" (which is an acceptable acronym (and probably the only time Stallman hasn't demanded a GNU-slash in front...)), in which case, it is recursive...
For some reason advertisers never come up with new, smaller advertising formats.
Do you really want them to? There are two types of "smaller" ads which I could see coming in the future, and both deal with the word "subliminal".
First, they could introduce ads inspired by the old SNL character -- Buy Coke -- Subliminal Man. This would be similar to the product placement model used in TV in the 50's (and making a comeback due to PVRs). There might even be some interesting science done to find out exactly where to place ads for the maximal -- Buy Pepsi -- effect.
Second, they could just go the full subliminal route: all pages done in Flash with every hundreth frame a full-screen ad saying "Buy ".
Do either of these sound like better options than the current (mostly) easily-blockable ads?
I doubt Bush will have to try very hard. Congress seems fairly anxious to do things like this already.
Ob. vocabulary correction: Instead of anxious, you want eager. To say Congree is "anxious" to do it means that they're not really looking forward to it (they have anxiety about doing it). To say they're "eager" to do it means that they can hardly wait to do it. Judging from the context, it sounds like the latter is what you meant.
I think everyone agrees that the first one is horrible.
I don't... could you please explain what's horrible about it? I flipped back and forth between the two pictures many times, and aside from a little blurriness with the first one, I couldn't see much different. What am I supposed to be looking for?
Listening to antecdotal stuff like this is why people get hurt.
You can change that to: listening to a two-hour company presentation on stuff like this is why people get hurt. Looks like it was a good thing I posted to Slashdot...
Remember people, when you exercise stock options you incurr a tax liability IMMEDIATLEY based on the difference between your option price and the market price.
My understanding is that this only applies to non-qualified options. With incentive stock options (which seem to be far more common these days), you pay captial gains tax only when you sell.
But why is it when its an IE bug, its a "Severe Security Exploit", and when its a Mozilla bug, its a "Privacy Leak"...
Probably because when it's IE, it really is a severe security exploit (i.e. a remote hole), and when it's Mozilla, it really is a privacy leak (someone can find out one page that you visited).
Afterwards, I really think the 3 platforms were released to stores simultaneously.
That's not what the comments from this old story indicate. For example, the top post (threaded, highest scores first) claims that the Windows version came out a month earlier and was $20 cheaper.
One of the main factors actually was a Carmack post in a Slashdot thread where he mentioned that the Quake III Linux port only made enough to cover the port costs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Q3 for Linux come out well after the Windows version? The reality is that most people who are really into games dual-boot, so if the Windows version comes out first, that's what they'll use. I bought the Linux version because I didn't mind waiting for it (actually, my girlfriend bought it for me at the dollar store...). When we see a game released for Windows and Linux at the same time (with the same features!) is when we'll get a fair estimate of how big the Linux games market is.
And the interesting thing is that the Mac version made money, but Macs don't have a whole lot more market share.
But they also have a different architecture... so the Mac market doesn't have the dual-boot factor.
People who use IMs can abuse them too easily. They can be great, but they are high risk.
The same is true of telephones, internet connections and water coolers. As the other poster said, it depends upon the maturity of the employees. If they're not mature enough, they're going to find a way to screw around at work with or without IM.
They are not good work tools, if you want to keep productivity high.
...because? At my workplace, we're trying out Yahoo! IM at the moment (with a view toward moving to something more secure behind our firewall). I've found it helpful for things it's appropriate for. It's saved me several long-distance phone calls already, and helped out in situations where I needed an answer quickly to give to someone on the phone.
Mozilla will become feature complete when compared to IE6 sometime in the beginning of next year:-)
Really? IE6 has mouse gestures, tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking?
Sounds to me like Mozilla is already more feature complete than IE... little conveniences like type-ahead find really don't compare to the three I mentioned above...
Until and unless there's a proof of why Lychrel numbers exist, the whole concept is quite uninteresting beyond a passing "neat".
Actually, I think it's the opposite: when there's a proof either way, it will probably just be a mathematical curiosity (or it could turn out to be interesting, but I doubt it...). Until then, it's an unsolved problem. If you find the proof, you will most likely be the first person in the history of the Earth to know the answer. The fact that it's a relatively obscure problem, and that AFAIK no one has even come close to finding a method to attack the problem make it one of the better problems to work on if you like this feeling of adventure. Other problems (odd perfect number, Goldbach's, Twin Primes, Collatz) that fail one of the above two tests don't have this kind of promise.
Are there any interesting number-theoretical properties that depend on what base you express the number in?
Normality (all digits in decimal expansion occur with the same frequency) is one. In particular, the question of whether numbers like pi and e are normal is still unsolved. The interesting thing is that it's relatively easy to prove that almost every number is normal (i.e. those that aren't form a set of measure zero). But proving that any specific number is normal is difficult (unless it's chosen to have such properties, such as the number 0.12345678910111213141516...).
Of course, there is the property of being "absolutely normal" (i.e. normal in every base). Again, it's trivial to prove that almost every number is absolutely normal, but no one has proved that any "naturally occurring" number is absolutely normal.
Slashdot Mirror
I missed this story the first time it was posted. Taco: thanks for posting the dupe! It's useful information!
Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway his heisman ... er... the clothes off his back.
Mozilla has gestures: http://optimoz.mozdev.org. The gestures are even configurable (unlike Galeon's) with the prefs.js file.
You've been here since Slashdot really was NFN, STM, and yet you're just now figuring out that Michael's an idiot?
How about deselecting his name under "Exclude stories from the Homepage" (Preferences -> Homepage) and saving yourself the grief?
I doubt it, considering that some cities print their own money: Ithaca, NY most notably.
I'm not even sure what the tax ramifications are of this... If I do all of my other transactions in them [Flugelbucks], how do I know what the dollar value of the transactions is?
Most likely the "fair market value" in dollars would be applied. If you're painting houses, then you have to ask: what would someone else charge in dollars for this? Now, if you can find a service that no one else can/does provide, then maybe you've found a tax loophole that can be exploited... (but probably not, because IANATA)
Considering it goes on for almost another four weeks, probably not too many, so quit your whining.
I rip CDs (into ogg, of course) with a PII/400 and burn them on a 486/100. Why do I need something more powerful?
So why on earth would they cave-in to DRM pressure? They shouldn't give a darn what the music industry thinks.
You seem to be under the delusion that MS is doing this for the music industry. MS is doing this for themselves. Not for the music industry, and definitely not for the consumer...
My guess is Microsoft wants to monopolize the music and movie industry. They want the next CD you buy to only be playable in a Microsoft OS.
That's just the first step... once they own the format, and everyone uses a MS OS to play them, then they jack up the licensing fees, start their own music label (which of course doesn't have to worry about licensing fees), and drive the other music companies out of business. Easy as pie.
Considering that the plural of virus isn't "virii" (where would the extra 'i' come from anyway?), I don't think your argument holds much merit...
Unless GPL stands for "GNU General Public License" (which is an acceptable acronym (and probably the only time Stallman hasn't demanded a GNU-slash in front...)), in which case, it is recursive...
Do you really want them to? There are two types of "smaller" ads which I could see coming in the future, and both deal with the word "subliminal".
First, they could introduce ads inspired by the old SNL character -- Buy Coke -- Subliminal Man. This would be similar to the product placement model used in TV in the 50's (and making a comeback due to PVRs). There might even be some interesting science done to find out exactly where to place ads for the maximal -- Buy Pepsi -- effect.
Second, they could just go the full subliminal route: all pages done in Flash with every hundreth frame a full-screen ad saying "Buy ".
Do either of these sound like better options than the current (mostly) easily-blockable ads?
Then you should check out Weird NJ magazine. They regularly feature pictorials on abandonded sites throughout NJ, as well as other weird stuff.
Ob. vocabulary correction: Instead of anxious, you want eager. To say Congree is "anxious" to do it means that they're not really looking forward to it (they have anxiety about doing it). To say they're "eager" to do it means that they can hardly wait to do it. Judging from the context, it sounds like the latter is what you meant.
I don't... could you please explain what's horrible about it? I flipped back and forth between the two pictures many times, and aside from a little blurriness with the first one, I couldn't see much different. What am I supposed to be looking for?
You can change that to: listening to a two-hour company presentation on stuff like this is why people get hurt. Looks like it was a good thing I posted to Slashdot...
My understanding is that this only applies to non-qualified options. With incentive stock options (which seem to be far more common these days), you pay captial gains tax only when you sell.
Probably because when it's IE, it really is a severe security exploit (i.e. a remote hole), and when it's Mozilla, it really is a privacy leak (someone can find out one page that you visited).
That's not what the comments from this old story indicate. For example, the top post (threaded, highest scores first) claims that the Windows version came out a month earlier and was $20 cheaper.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Q3 for Linux come out well after the Windows version? The reality is that most people who are really into games dual-boot, so if the Windows version comes out first, that's what they'll use. I bought the Linux version because I didn't mind waiting for it (actually, my girlfriend bought it for me at the dollar store...). When we see a game released for Windows and Linux at the same time (with the same features!) is when we'll get a fair estimate of how big the Linux games market is.
And the interesting thing is that the Mac version made money, but Macs don't have a whole lot more market share.
But they also have a different architecture... so the Mac market doesn't have the dual-boot factor.
As opposed to Windows users who never trade warez or use freeware and always register their shareware...
The same is true of telephones, internet connections and water coolers. As the other poster said, it depends upon the maturity of the employees. If they're not mature enough, they're going to find a way to screw around at work with or without IM.
Really? IE6 has mouse gestures, tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking?
Sounds to me like Mozilla is already more feature complete than IE... little conveniences like type-ahead find really don't compare to the three I mentioned above...
Actually, I think it's the opposite: when there's a proof either way, it will probably just be a mathematical curiosity (or it could turn out to be interesting, but I doubt it...). Until then, it's an unsolved problem. If you find the proof, you will most likely be the first person in the history of the Earth to know the answer. The fact that it's a relatively obscure problem, and that AFAIK no one has even come close to finding a method to attack the problem make it one of the better problems to work on if you like this feeling of adventure. Other problems (odd perfect number, Goldbach's, Twin Primes, Collatz) that fail one of the above two tests don't have this kind of promise.
Normality (all digits in decimal expansion occur with the same frequency) is one. In particular, the question of whether numbers like pi and e are normal is still unsolved. The interesting thing is that it's relatively easy to prove that almost every number is normal (i.e. those that aren't form a set of measure zero). But proving that any specific number is normal is difficult (unless it's chosen to have such properties, such as the number 0.12345678910111213141516...).
Of course, there is the property of being "absolutely normal" (i.e. normal in every base). Again, it's trivial to prove that almost every number is absolutely normal, but no one has proved that any "naturally occurring" number is absolutely normal.