Xine is not a KDE app, so that's not a particularly good example. I tend towards Gnome applications and normally use Lumiere, which is extremely usable.
"Oh not the file system! The users data is nothing, but if it destroys something that is easily reproduced with a reinstall then its horrible. There was sarcasm intended in that comment, by the way."
User data is the stuff that *should* be backed up frequently, so losing it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Having the inner workings of the system tinkered with is far more serious. It could be some long term damage that would render your frequent backups useless.
"I also don't understand how the BBC can be accused of ANYTHING, after all they (accurately) reported a story, namely that an intelligence source (now known to be Dr Kelly) had told them that Campbell et al had sexed up the dossier."
That's the crux of the matter though, the BBC Journalist who did the interview is unreliable at best and is believed to have invented the important sexing up quotes. So Kelly never actually said them.
> And what goal is that? Are you saying that UL's > target audience is "Companies that write > for-profit software but they are so poor that they > can't afford to spend $2000 on developer tools"?
I assume it's targeted more at the companies that go: "I've bought this distro off company X, why do I have to pay company Y to develop for it?"
Actually Mozilla's doing the right thing, you are not meant to perform error correction on CSS and a space between a number and it's unit is an error. Mozilla reads: "font-size: 8 verdana" and ignores the 8 as it doesn't have a unit.
> If 18 is the legal age of maturity, then sex > between an 18-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl > is just as illegal as it would be if they were 65 > and 12, respectively. The 18-year-old has the > responsibility to know the law, and the > 17-year-old, by definition, cannot behave as a > consenting adult.
I don't believe you can't see the difference between those two examples. There should be some discretion where young people are of a similar age. A 17-year-old and eight months is no less capable of acting as a consenting adult in reality than a 18 year old is, and some twenty four year old's probably aren't. It's an artificial distinction which is useful when there is an obvious predatory age discrepancy but less so when there isn't. Here in the UK that age of consent is sixteen, rather than eighteen. So neither of those mentioned would be breaking the law here, yet in the US, one would be a heinous criminal?
Yes, the problem though from Microsoft's perspective is a lot of the countries that are switching are where their future growth was meant to come from. It's not necessarily enough for them to keep what they've got.
I thought IBM had only just started saying that Linux is ready for the desktop, they've certainly not pushed it in the past. Notice it says "desktop play", not server.
"I just think people who attack the RIAA and defend the FSF for enforcing copyright are hypocrites."
It apples and oranges. People are attacking the RIAA because they're going after individuals who aren't breaking copyright for profit, rather people who are sharing in a way that could be considered a moral grey area.
You don't see those outcries if the RIAA breaks a piracy ring and/or a producer of counterfeit CDs. That is solid copyright infringement, especially since it is for profit. No grey area there.
You must be aware of the difference, even if you're fully in support of the corporates.
"All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world."
There is a lot of concern here, mainly due to introducing a lot of genetically modified products *before* really understanding the effects.
They're not so necessarily they need to be rushed in, it's just a number of large multinational corps. trying to push them in. World starvation is just a propaganda issue, there's more than enough food to feed the world now, that's just an issue of distribution. GM crops won't solve that, especially when they're modified with terminator genes that mean they have to be repurchased every year (subscription model?). Or made immune to a certain fertiliser, which by sheer coincidence, they also sell. It's a lock in strategy applied to agriculture.
So these corps have bought and sold the US, that was the decision of the US, it doesn't mean the rest of the world just has to roll over. Once the research has been done, and the effects are known, then a better decision can be made. It's not something you can easily step back from one the crops are in the wild. I don't think the US should have accepted it so readily, putting the agriculture industry in the hands of big corps isn't a great idea, patent infringement for cross pollenisation of crops?
This issue hasn't been driven by the governments, but by activism and public opinion, something that democracy is meant to be all about. Once the research is done a proper debate can be had.
"One of the sites I created a while back was a mod site for NwN, I had it hosted by a company Called XO Communications since I didn't have a fast connection at my house. After getting a little notice from the NwN community I of course started getting spam - however I also started getting these weird emails from people saying they would sue me for sending them spam."
The problem you're having is that your email address is being picked up from someone else's address book (or your address appears on a webpage they've visited), and is then being used as the from address in the Spam.
Changing hosts won't help you, in fact your host is irrelevant, it's the availability of your email address that causes it. I've had a few of these bounces because my email address is listed on my website. I never get them for my private address, just the public one on my site.
Re:How does mozilla handle old caches?
on
Netscape 7.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Reload does really do a reload, but I think it may just compare the timestamps and only get a fresh copy if the page has actually changed. Shift-reload, reloads everything, including images, stylesheets etc. whether they are cached at proxies or not.
> If you were writing a virus and wanted to do > some harm, why would you even bother trying to > infect mac and linux users?
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd love the infamy of writing such a beast. However it's damned difficult, even to do the social engineering trick that works so well on Windows.
Linux (and Mac OSX I assume) don't let you run executable attachments from email. You couldn't even send someone an executable attachment if you wanted to, and the real question is, why would you want to?
So all this constant droning that the reason Windows gets all these worms is because it's so popular is bullshit. It, by its very nature, makes such things very easy to make (whether they require social engineering or not).
The fact you can email random executables around and spread them by encouraging a few people to click on them is the source of the problem. And there's only one OS I know of where this method works.
Sounds like a problem with the DHTML script/CSS rather than Mozilla. There's absolutely no reason it shouldn't work if the authors knew what they were doing. Fixing the script would be much easier.
"Try 8 computers world wide, like it or not MS forced a lot of growth for the home user, you would be wise to remember that."
What about the original 8 bit ranges (Commodore, Atari, Spectrum, Dragon, etc.), and the Amiga, Atari ST, Amstrad, Apple etc. There was plenty of growth in the home computer market before MS came along, and it would have continued even if they hadn't appeared (and may have advanced even faster).
"but I'm not sure why Intel needs to be defeated... good company, good products."
Well they did unleash that hideous intel inside jingle upon the world, four notes that come close to making you wish Intel would disappear completely, just to ensure its irradication.
"Exercise for the reader: Explain how this is due to Windows SUCKING. Explain how this would not happen under Linux (assuming the attachment were a Linux executable and not a Windows executable)."
Easy. Linux email clients don't let you automatically run executables. In fact you couldn't even email someone a working executable.
You could: a) send them an executable that the user would have to save to disk, and modify the permissions to make it an executable.
b) send the executable in a package and have them extract (or install) and then run it.
Why on earth would you want runnable executables to be sent by email anyway? That sounds like the biggest reason for all this mess in the first place.
Not possible, IE is broken in a number of ways in respect to standards. You can simultaneously support something in a standard way and a broken away and expect decent or consistant results. I'm afraid IE is playing catchup now behind at least four other browsers.
Surely though, the central idea of the book is that controlling all sources of information, the state was able to create and bend reality at will. It could twist the language ("newspeak"), change facts to suit its purposes ("We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia") and subjugate people by having the power to falsify their lives and invent crimes. The surveillance is just an element of the book, not the be all and end all. Most importantly, it's also surveillance within private and personal space, not just public.
> They're probably very upset, since I could see > them transitioning AIM over to it. If this were > to occur, then AOL would have to release AIM > under the GPL.
No they wouldn't. If they own the copyright to the original code they can still release it under a different licence or use it in their own projects. They just couldn't take code anyone else had submitted without them having given permission or assigning them the copyright.
Trolltech's business model is based on this for instance, GPL for free software use, a paid for licence for commercial use.
Exactly, I'm beginning to wonder whether any of the people who constantly rant about 1984 have read the book at all. From reading slashdot you'd think it was a book about surveillance technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Xine is not a KDE app, so that's not a particularly good example. I tend towards Gnome applications and normally use Lumiere, which is extremely usable.
"Oh not the file system! The users data is nothing, but if it destroys something that is easily reproduced with a reinstall then its horrible. There was sarcasm intended in that comment, by the way."
User data is the stuff that *should* be backed up frequently, so losing it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Having the inner workings of the system tinkered with is far more serious. It could be some long term damage that would render your frequent backups useless.
"I also don't understand how the BBC can be accused of ANYTHING, after all they (accurately) reported a story, namely that an intelligence source (now known to be Dr Kelly) had told them that Campbell et al had sexed up the dossier."
That's the crux of the matter though, the BBC Journalist who did the interview is unreliable at best and is believed to have invented the important sexing up quotes. So Kelly never actually said them.
But equally, a flaky harddrive can trash all a user's files. Those are the ones you should keep backed up.
> And what goal is that? Are you saying that UL's
> target audience is "Companies that write
> for-profit software but they are so poor that they
> can't afford to spend $2000 on developer tools"?
I assume it's targeted more at the companies that go: "I've bought this distro off company X, why do I have to pay company Y to develop for it?"
Actually Mozilla's doing the right thing, you are not meant to perform error correction on CSS and a space between a number and it's unit is an error. Mozilla reads: "font-size: 8 verdana" and ignores the 8 as it doesn't have a unit.
> If 18 is the legal age of maturity, then sex
> between an 18-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl
> is just as illegal as it would be if they were 65
> and 12, respectively. The 18-year-old has the
> responsibility to know the law, and the
> 17-year-old, by definition, cannot behave as a
> consenting adult.
I don't believe you can't see the difference between those two examples. There should be some discretion where young people are of a similar age. A 17-year-old and eight months is no less capable of acting as a consenting adult in reality than a 18 year old is, and some twenty four year old's probably aren't. It's an artificial distinction which is useful when there is an obvious predatory age discrepancy but less so when there isn't. Here in the UK that age of consent is sixteen, rather than eighteen. So neither of those mentioned would be breaking the law here, yet in the US, one would be a heinous criminal?
Yes, the problem though from Microsoft's perspective is a lot of the countries that are switching are where their future growth was meant to come from. It's not necessarily enough for them to keep what they've got.
I thought IBM had only just started saying that Linux is ready for the desktop, they've certainly not pushed it in the past. Notice it says "desktop play", not server.
"I just think people who attack the RIAA and defend the FSF for enforcing copyright are hypocrites."
It apples and oranges. People are attacking the RIAA because they're going after individuals who aren't breaking copyright for profit, rather people who are sharing in a way that could be considered a moral grey area.
You don't see those outcries if the RIAA breaks a piracy ring and/or a producer of counterfeit CDs. That is solid copyright infringement, especially since it is for profit. No grey area there.
You must be aware of the difference, even if you're fully in support of the corporates.
The stats at the thecounter.com are broken (unless there are in fact 153 days in September). They've not been updated for at least 122-ish days.
"All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world."
There is a lot of concern here, mainly due to introducing a lot of genetically modified products *before* really understanding the effects.
They're not so necessarily they need to be rushed in, it's just a number of large multinational corps. trying to push them in. World starvation is just a propaganda issue, there's more than enough food to feed the world now, that's just an issue of distribution. GM crops won't solve that, especially when they're modified with terminator genes that mean they have to be repurchased every year (subscription model?). Or made immune to a certain fertiliser, which by sheer coincidence, they also sell. It's a lock in strategy applied to agriculture.
So these corps have bought and sold the US, that was the decision of the US, it doesn't mean the rest of the world just has to roll over. Once the research has been done, and the effects are known, then a better decision can be made. It's not something you can easily step back from one the crops are in the wild. I don't think the US should have accepted it so readily, putting the agriculture industry in the hands of big corps isn't a great idea, patent infringement for cross pollenisation of crops?
This issue hasn't been driven by the governments, but by activism and public opinion, something that democracy is meant to be all about. Once the research is done a proper debate can be had.
"One of the sites I created a while back was a mod site for NwN, I had it hosted by a company Called XO Communications since I didn't have a fast connection at my house. After getting a little notice from the NwN community I of course started getting spam - however I also started getting these weird emails from people saying they would sue me for sending them spam."
The problem you're having is that your email address is being picked up from someone else's address book (or your address appears on a webpage they've visited), and is then being used as the from address in the Spam.
Changing hosts won't help you, in fact your host is irrelevant, it's the availability of your email address that causes it. I've had a few of these bounces because my email address is listed on my website. I never get them for my private address, just the public one on my site.
Reload does really do a reload, but I think it may just compare the timestamps and only get a fresh copy if the page has actually changed. Shift-reload, reloads everything, including images, stylesheets etc. whether they are cached at proxies or not.
> "Linux and Mac users are immune."
> If you were writing a virus and wanted to do
> some harm, why would you even bother trying to
> infect mac and linux users?
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who'd love the infamy of writing such a beast. However it's damned difficult, even to do the social engineering trick that works so well on Windows.
Linux (and Mac OSX I assume) don't let you run executable attachments from email. You couldn't even send someone an executable attachment if you wanted to, and the real question is, why would you want to?
So all this constant droning that the reason Windows gets all these worms is because it's so popular is bullshit. It, by its very nature, makes such things very easy to make (whether they require social engineering or not).
The fact you can email random executables around and spread them by encouraging a few people to click on them is the source of the problem. And there's only one OS I know of where this method works.
Sounds like a problem with the DHTML script/CSS rather than Mozilla. There's absolutely no reason it shouldn't work if the authors knew what they were doing. Fixing the script would be much easier.
"Try 8 computers world wide, like it or not MS forced a lot of growth for the home user, you would be wise to remember that."
What about the original 8 bit ranges (Commodore, Atari, Spectrum, Dragon, etc.), and the Amiga, Atari ST, Amstrad, Apple etc. There was plenty of growth in the home computer market before MS came along, and it would have continued even if they hadn't appeared (and may have advanced even faster).
"but I'm not sure why Intel needs to be defeated... good company, good products."
Well they did unleash that hideous intel inside jingle upon the world, four notes that come close to making you wish Intel would disappear completely, just to ensure its irradication.
"Exercise for the reader: Explain how this is due to Windows SUCKING. Explain how this would not happen under Linux (assuming the attachment were a Linux executable and not a Windows executable)."
Easy. Linux email clients don't let you automatically run executables. In fact you couldn't even email someone a working executable.
You could:
a) send them an executable that the user would have to save to disk, and modify the permissions to make it an executable.
b) send the executable in a package and have them extract (or install) and then run it.
Why on earth would you want runnable executables to be sent by email anyway? That sounds like the biggest reason for all this mess in the first place.
Not possible, IE is broken in a number of ways in respect to standards. You can simultaneously support something in a standard way and a broken away and expect decent or consistant results. I'm afraid IE is playing catchup now behind at least four other browsers.
PNG isn't fully supported in IE, it doesn't do alpha transparency properly, which is one of PNG's major advantages over GIF's simplistic transparency.
Surely though, the central idea of the book is that controlling all sources of information, the state was able to create and bend reality at will. It could twist the language ("newspeak"), change facts to suit its purposes ("We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia") and subjugate people by having the power to falsify their lives and invent crimes. The surveillance is just an element of the book, not the be all and end all. Most importantly, it's also surveillance within private and personal space, not just public.
> They're probably very upset, since I could see
> them transitioning AIM over to it. If this were
> to occur, then AOL would have to release AIM
> under the GPL.
No they wouldn't. If they own the copyright to the original code they can still release it under a different licence or use it in their own projects. They just couldn't take code anyone else had submitted without them having given permission or assigning them the copyright.
Trolltech's business model is based on this for instance, GPL for free software use, a paid for licence for commercial use.
Exactly, I'm beginning to wonder whether any of the people who constantly rant about 1984 have read the book at all. From reading slashdot you'd think it was a book about surveillance technology.
> 9. Language: Let's put it this way - You do not
> want to venture out wearing pants a vest and
> suspenders in the UK.
If you do get caught out just claim you're off to a Rocky Horror Picture Show re-run.