What are the refresh rates on this thing though? I mean, I know it'd not for personal DVD players or anything crazy like that, but if I'm flipping through pages looking for a particular paragraph...
Didn't measure it, but it looks suspiciously close to the ratio of the golden rectangle. If that's the case, then it has little to do with coincidence, and alot to do with 2 seperate designers choosing a geometry that has been extremely pleasant to human beings for untold thousands of years.
The keystone of the new user interface is a "ribbon" of frequently used commands that offers different options, depending on the task a user is performing.
In other words, we get a UI that never stays the same, and I'll be forever searching for the damn option I want because it can't stay put. And they say microsoft doesn't innovate.
There have also been rumours of some new products, such as Excel server software
Whoa. That's brilliant. It can be more like a database, and store all sorts of worksheets and rows, keeping the relationship between the various worksheets intact, maybe even allowing you to search for specific sets of rows across multiple spreadsheets! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
Or maybe, it will allow a bunch of users to share the same documents. That's brilliant right there. A simple interface, and you can download excel documents *over the network*. No more trading floppies.
So set the endstation into a higher orbit to compensate for the drag. once it is anchored to the foundation of the base station, you'd be able to draw it rather tight anyway, if centrifugal force hasn't already done it for you.
Might be challenging to build, but should be rather stable once completed.
Until they have to install their directv dish, and are trying to figured out if the tree will interfere with the signal or not.
Much easier to use the calculator's trig functions, than it is to construct a 50ft tall protractor.
Or how about anytime you want to make something on the table saw, and you need to know how long an angle cut is *before* you cut it... sometimes if you cut it just to measure, you find out you figured everything wrong.
Trig is about the most useful math a highschool dropout like myself can know. Glad I taught myself.
Now, if I could just force myself to learn calculus, that's gotta be good for something...
>>Find me someone that was nailed by the accidental vulnerability.
>So it is security by obscurity that you are preaching?
Security by obscurity has a simple definition. It's "microsoft keeps bugs secret, so hackers can't use them!". Firefox, and its extensions, are open source. There is no such thing, dufus. What I meant is "show me the victims". It would be astronomically unlikely for there to be no victims for no other reason than "good luck". So if there are none (and you haven't produced any), then there must be something other than guardian angels swooping out of the heavens to protect users of extensions.
>>it always strikes me how firefox issues always end up being theoretical.
>Malware writers tend to target the most popular software.
Yeh, so you and every other troll claims. Truth is, you *could* be right, not enough examples yet to know, now is there...
But.
The one example we do have is IIS vs. Apache. Maybe the first nascent example is just a fluke, who knows?
Yeh, I understand, you don't. Again, you keep talking about _when_ firefox extensions do something bad, I'm still in _if_. That's its theoretically possible, no one denies... all software is theoretically exploitable.
You people like to talk about marketshare being the significant factor (it just hasn't happened yet, because no one uses it). Me, it's starting to seem like maybe there is another factor, a social one that's a (the?) significant factor. Maybe good intentions do count for something.
I like to try out extensions from time to time, and yet, somehow I'm still safer than I ever could be using IE. I wonder why.
Yeh. Find me someone that was nailed by the accidental vulnerability. Hell, find me someone that didn't upgrade. Maybe you're just one of the naysayers, but it always strikes me how firefox issues always end up being theoretical. Proof of concept.
Yeh, I like to make numbers up, but I forgot to label it sarcastic. Fuck you, loser.
I look forward to your next post, where you accuse Google of being run by the devil simply because they might do something lowlife in the future...
Sounds like reality. I've yet to see an evil extension, and you're welcome to create a proof of concept for us. Strangely, even if you succeed, it will be news and a frontpage story here on slashdot... and within a few days, we'll have protections against it.
Never mind that you can't install any extensions by default anyway, unless they're from a trusted domain... and you can't even click through.
When the game of evil is over, and the score tallied, its activeX 1,635,498 vs firefox extensions 2. That should tell you something.
I expect this to hold true, even if Firefox becomes mainstream.
Nice self-righteous tone. Let's extrapolate from there.
If life-and-death websites don't need to worry about being usable in anything other than IE, well, then pointless ones don't need to worry either.
Which means none need to.
Which means all will support only the lowest common denominator. IE.
Which means that Microsoft the convicted monopolists, at least indirectly, get to profiteer on the backs of, as someone calculated previously in the thread, off of only a few hundred katrina victim firefox users.
Oh, and by the way, incompetent people don't try to help the "homeless, injured and dispossessed". They just sort of flounder around enough that they can't get fired from their well-paying government jobs.
Anyone who was a member of either party, having served public office as a member of that part, or who help committee chairs within that party, would be subject to bannination. Claiming to be a member of a new party wouldn't be allowed.
It's not the names I want to destroy, but the party itself.
Women shouldn't invite them to inhabit her body, and then change her mind. I'll ignore those that didn't invite them, for now, because I'm a bit confused on that part myself.
Besides which, its really just an issue of whether she wants her own biological children to exist, and technology will prove that to be the case someday. When a 3 day old embryo is viable, will she let them remove it unharmed and stick it in a gestation device? Hardly, many women are rather emotional about letting someone else have their children and raise them.
I agree wholeheartedly on the marriage part. If gays wanted to marry, at the very *most* it would mean some new church being created just to marry them. Though, there seems to be no deficit of schisms and split churches willing to do so.
Since it would carry no legal weight at all (save, perhaps alimony and such), could bigamists marry without worry? Dunno.
Whether or not a seperate institution of "civil union" is created, I foresee people hating the entire idea. Me, I don't believe there is any need for a legal institution of "civil union". I mean, what for, tax rights? Being married by the Catholic church isn't automatic civil union also, I'd bet. If it did, then there is little point in seperating the two.
I REALLY don't want to get into an abortion argument. Honestly. But don't generalize it away as something so stupidly simple. If I stick an index finger into a woman's nostril, she doesn't have the right to chop it off at the first knuckle because it is "within her own body" (though a slap might be in order). A developing fetus, even below the age of viability isn't necessarily a part of her own body. The entire abortion rights issue has more to do with women wanting to whore around like men have for centuries, without any lasting consequences just as men haven't had to deal with for centuries.
And for those that claim they just "want to keep their options open", I as a man am not allowed to "keep my options open to randomly kill people". That's not an argument either.
I agree on your same-sex marriage solution, though I wouldn't bother with government sanctified civil unions. But whether you have those or not, there exists a sizable divorce lobby waiting to be born. They aren't going to allow any changes... too much profit in helping split up all the proceeds of a marriage.
Hardly. Just Republican and Democrat party members. And I don't intend to jail them, or beat them up, or unperson them. Hell, let them retain voting rights.
Just make it so they can never hold public office again, at the local, state or federal level. Problem solved.
A historical case can be made that there are political parties so virulent, that nothing to do with the party can be considered good. Why is it so hard to believe that both the GOP and the DNC have reached that status?
I'll let someone else do the Godwinning this time.
No, I didn't misread. Your suggestion that there is a good republican somewhere, that's what I'm disputing. They're all rotten to the core, along with every single democrat.
We need a Constitutional Ammendment barring people affiliated with either party from ever holding public office again...
But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.
It takes more than cash to be rich. You spend years making connections and earning favors. As a newly won lottery magnate, you wouldn't even have access to the best lawyers. The police have nothing to fear from a family that's been rich less than 40 years.
By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things.
Wrong. Both do bad things, all the time, never good. They've not passed any necessary legislation in decades, their only real work at this point would be the budget... and they've screwed that up to. If you have any sense left at all, you'll promise not to vote for either, ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the refresh rates on this thing though? I mean, I know it'd not for personal DVD players or anything crazy like that, but if I'm flipping through pages looking for a particular paragraph...
Didn't measure it, but it looks suspiciously close to the ratio of the golden rectangle. If that's the case, then it has little to do with coincidence, and alot to do with 2 seperate designers choosing a geometry that has been extremely pleasant to human beings for untold thousands of years.
The word you are looking for is "metastasize".
The keystone of the new user interface is a "ribbon" of frequently used commands that offers different options, depending on the task a user is performing.
In other words, we get a UI that never stays the same, and I'll be forever searching for the damn option I want because it can't stay put. And they say microsoft doesn't innovate.
There have also been rumours of some new products, such as Excel server software
Whoa. That's brilliant. It can be more like a database, and store all sorts of worksheets and rows, keeping the relationship between the various worksheets intact, maybe even allowing you to search for specific sets of rows across multiple spreadsheets! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
Or maybe, it will allow a bunch of users to share the same documents. That's brilliant right there. A simple interface, and you can download excel documents *over the network*. No more trading floppies.
I cannot wait for the best Office ever!
So set the endstation into a higher orbit to compensate for the drag. once it is anchored to the foundation of the base station, you'd be able to draw it rather tight anyway, if centrifugal force hasn't already done it for you.
Might be challenging to build, but should be rather stable once completed.
I would imagine non-commercial, and commercial. Just a guess.
Until they have to install their directv dish, and are trying to figured out if the tree will interfere with the signal or not.
Much easier to use the calculator's trig functions, than it is to construct a 50ft tall protractor.
Or how about anytime you want to make something on the table saw, and you need to know how long an angle cut is *before* you cut it... sometimes if you cut it just to measure, you find out you figured everything wrong.
Trig is about the most useful math a highschool dropout like myself can know. Glad I taught myself.
Now, if I could just force myself to learn calculus, that's gotta be good for something...
>>Find me someone that was nailed by the accidental vulnerability.
>So it is security by obscurity that you are preaching?
Security by obscurity has a simple definition. It's "microsoft keeps bugs secret, so hackers can't use them!". Firefox, and its extensions, are open source. There is no such thing, dufus. What I meant is "show me the victims". It would be astronomically unlikely for there to be no victims for no other reason than "good luck". So if there are none (and you haven't produced any), then there must be something other than guardian angels swooping out of the heavens to protect users of extensions.
>>it always strikes me how firefox issues always end up being theoretical.
>Malware writers tend to target the most popular software.
Yeh, so you and every other troll claims. Truth is, you *could* be right, not enough examples yet to know, now is there...
But.
The one example we do have is IIS vs. Apache. Maybe the first nascent example is just a fluke, who knows?
Loser.
Yeh, I understand, you don't. Again, you keep talking about _when_ firefox extensions do something bad, I'm still in _if_. That's its theoretically possible, no one denies... all software is theoretically exploitable.
You people like to talk about marketshare being the significant factor (it just hasn't happened yet, because no one uses it). Me, it's starting to seem like maybe there is another factor, a social one that's a (the?) significant factor. Maybe good intentions do count for something.
I like to try out extensions from time to time, and yet, somehow I'm still safer than I ever could be using IE. I wonder why.
Yeh. Find me someone that was nailed by the accidental vulnerability. Hell, find me someone that didn't upgrade. Maybe you're just one of the naysayers, but it always strikes me how firefox issues always end up being theoretical. Proof of concept.
Yeh, I like to make numbers up, but I forgot to label it sarcastic. Fuck you, loser.
I look forward to your next post, where you accuse Google of being run by the devil simply because they might do something lowlife in the future...
Sounds like reality. I've yet to see an evil extension, and you're welcome to create a proof of concept for us. Strangely, even if you succeed, it will be news and a frontpage story here on slashdot... and within a few days, we'll have protections against it.
Never mind that you can't install any extensions by default anyway, unless they're from a trusted domain... and you can't even click through.
When the game of evil is over, and the score tallied, its activeX 1,635,498 vs firefox extensions 2. That should tell you something.
I expect this to hold true, even if Firefox becomes mainstream.
Nice self-righteous tone. Let's extrapolate from there.
If life-and-death websites don't need to worry about being usable in anything other than IE, well, then pointless ones don't need to worry either.
Which means none need to.
Which means all will support only the lowest common denominator. IE.
Which means that Microsoft the convicted monopolists, at least indirectly, get to profiteer on the backs of, as someone calculated previously in the thread, off of only a few hundred katrina victim firefox users.
Oh, and by the way, incompetent people don't try to help the "homeless, injured and dispossessed". They just sort of flounder around enough that they can't get fired from their well-paying government jobs.
Image data modeling theory
I'm getting ready to beta test the prototype site, anyone wanting a free account should contact me.
And if you're considering subscribing, definitely contact me.
Netflix is doomed
Amazon awakens soon
We want cheap movies
Anyone who was a member of either party, having served public office as a member of that part, or who help committee chairs within that party, would be subject to bannination. Claiming to be a member of a new party wouldn't be allowed.
It's not the names I want to destroy, but the party itself.
How dare you speak as if my pangalactic 200 million year calendar has no significance.
You ruined my technically almost correct and subtle attempt to make fun of the french. Shame on you.
Women shouldn't invite them to inhabit her body, and then change her mind. I'll ignore those that didn't invite them, for now, because I'm a bit confused on that part myself.
Besides which, its really just an issue of whether she wants her own biological children to exist, and technology will prove that to be the case someday. When a 3 day old embryo is viable, will she let them remove it unharmed and stick it in a gestation device? Hardly, many women are rather emotional about letting someone else have their children and raise them.
I agree wholeheartedly on the marriage part. If gays wanted to marry, at the very *most* it would mean some new church being created just to marry them. Though, there seems to be no deficit of schisms and split churches willing to do so.
Since it would carry no legal weight at all (save, perhaps alimony and such), could bigamists marry without worry? Dunno.
Whether or not a seperate institution of "civil union" is created, I foresee people hating the entire idea. Me, I don't believe there is any need for a legal institution of "civil union". I mean, what for, tax rights? Being married by the Catholic church isn't automatic civil union also, I'd bet. If it did, then there is little point in seperating the two.
Would be the French. Metric weeks and all that.
Haha.
I REALLY don't want to get into an abortion argument. Honestly. But don't generalize it away as something so stupidly simple. If I stick an index finger into a woman's nostril, she doesn't have the right to chop it off at the first knuckle because it is "within her own body" (though a slap might be in order). A developing fetus, even below the age of viability isn't necessarily a part of her own body. The entire abortion rights issue has more to do with women wanting to whore around like men have for centuries, without any lasting consequences just as men haven't had to deal with for centuries.
And for those that claim they just "want to keep their options open", I as a man am not allowed to "keep my options open to randomly kill people". That's not an argument either.
I agree on your same-sex marriage solution, though I wouldn't bother with government sanctified civil unions. But whether you have those or not, there exists a sizable divorce lobby waiting to be born. They aren't going to allow any changes... too much profit in helping split up all the proceeds of a marriage.
Hardly. Just Republican and Democrat party members. And I don't intend to jail them, or beat them up, or unperson them. Hell, let them retain voting rights.
Just make it so they can never hold public office again, at the local, state or federal level. Problem solved.
A historical case can be made that there are political parties so virulent, that nothing to do with the party can be considered good. Why is it so hard to believe that both the GOP and the DNC have reached that status?
I'll let someone else do the Godwinning this time.
No, I didn't misread. Your suggestion that there is a good republican somewhere, that's what I'm disputing. They're all rotten to the core, along with every single democrat.
We need a Constitutional Ammendment barring people affiliated with either party from ever holding public office again...
But the police should keep in mind that if they do something to a poor person, and if that person either wins the lottery or gets motivated enough to work and save, they'll be in trouble then.
It takes more than cash to be rich. You spend years making connections and earning favors. As a newly won lottery magnate, you wouldn't even have access to the best lawyers. The police have nothing to fear from a family that's been rich less than 40 years.
By the way, not all Republicans are bad, and not all Democrats are good. Both do good things, and both do bad things.
Wrong. Both do bad things, all the time, never good. They've not passed any necessary legislation in decades, their only real work at this point would be the budget... and they've screwed that up to. If you have any sense left at all, you'll promise not to vote for either, ever again.