Heh, point taken, although - as you may or may not be surprised to learn - that is also called "English". There is no separate language "American" (or "Australian"), just American English, Brittish English etc. And they are considered the same language, just with (pretty small) variations.;-)
Well, that makes me a bit more positive towards them, as long as they don't make the same mistake again, that is.:)
Actually, they seem to have a business model that might work without being assholes this time too... which makes you wonder what plans they had the last time, if any. Maybe they were just a bunch of hackers hacking away at some cool stuff. =)
Not yet, which is the beauty of it all. Friends of mine were all hyped up about this a few months back, but when I saw who was behind it I chose not to go with the flow. There are lots of provisions in licenses and texts that says they are allowed to add third party stuff later on under certain circumstances. They do say you have to agree, but couple that with provisions that say that they don't need to provide you with the next version and that new versions need not be compatible I think we all see where it is heading. Add in the fact that most users simply agree to anything, and we're already there.
I might well be wrong and they've seen the errors of their ways, but I doubt it. I'll just wait and see. It is quite possible I'll not support it simply because they've been *really* bad before and people who behave badly should not get away with it by just starting over.
Well, since they are only used in English and not in other languages, yes I'd say so.
Unless you count knowledge of the dead language Latin as a prerequisite.
You might even say that those are now English abbreviations with the origin from Latin, since that is what the reality is (languages evolve, you know?)
Not speaking/writing English natively, together with most of the world confusing those two as you point out, I've never *exactly* figured out what those two really meant. I better make a note of this somewhere...
As others have said, there are better ways than ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, but I thought I'd also add that you might need to inject xfree (fool portage it's there) for some packages that don't understand that xorg is the "same" thing.
IE displays PNG's properly, with transparency, and it's still non-lossy. IE only doesnt properly support the alpha channel of PNG's.
Ok, so what is all the fuzz about then? You'll have to excuse someone who is not all that good with these graphics terms, but I've for instance made images with completely transparent background, no tones, nothing special, no nothing else in Photoshop and other programs. And it doesn't work in IE (latest). What am I doing wrong? What is the difference, and thus this magic setting I should twiddle?
From your answer it seems like it is lacking semi-transparency or something, which also would be nice to have, but not as critical as complete transparency.
However, if this actually works, then most of the world has missed this somehow, and this is your chance to explain it to us. I for one would be extremely thankful - choosing between GIFs or hardcoded image backgrounds is not full freedom.;-)
Now if Mozilla just gets its act together and gets a strong managed framework backend for XUL....
Bah. XUL is just XML + Javascript for dynamics - not very far from some some applications you see on the web today, Gmail for instance comes to mind - it does a *lot* of the work with javascripts and emulates an application in many ways. You could use just about any "strong managed framework backend" you like - all you have to do is tweak the frontend a little.
What I'd like to see is people actually building applications in XUL, now, today - maybe as an alternative interface to their normal site, that would be really, really, really, really cool. And I think, with proper separation of responsibilities, not very hard either. Waiting around for some kind of whatever you called it from Mozilla is a sure recipe for being stuck with XAML in a few years. Get *your* act together and do your part.:)
Hmmm... wonder what frameworks on say, CPAN have nicely separated frontends... and what about some of the wikis out there? A wiki in XUL, that would be really wicked. =)
While it'd be unfair to describe him as hostile to FOSS, he certainly avoids it in part, I believe, because of the overly heavy and often inappropriate, advocacy he sees.
Take note people. All too much advocacy is done in a foaming mouth-zealot kind of way instead of calm, explaining and moreover when appropriate.
Using QTorrent here. No other reason than that it was QT based (running KDE here) and already in portage, but it seems to work really nicely in a no-nonsense kind of way.:)
Let me quote a page that ALL linux users should read and know by heart: "WHAT? You mean to say you own enough hardware to run this stuff, yet you're too lousy to pay 15 bucks for binary packages? Get real."
(or at least not use it with Portage
The ebuilds are there. Just pay the money and you can use it within portage with no trouble.
Blenders interface already has improved a whole lot after it went OpenSource. Its now already a lot better then before, sure still not perfect, but the progress is pretty good.
I shudder to think how it must have been; tests wer mostly done pretty recently, as in a few months back. Still, good that they are working on it, I hope they are not too "proud" to look at what has worked for others (while improvment, if it is actual improvment is of course a good thing in small enough doses to be easily adopted).
And anyway, the interface itself has never been much of a problem for myself, sure not really intuitive, but once you have worked through a few tutorials, it shouldn't be much of an issue and it gives actually a nice workflow.
Don't agree one bit, sorry. I suppose it might come natural to some people, ie fitting their mindset or something...? Most people seems mainly annoyed and irritated instead, and yes, we are actually talking about people that are not afraid to switch and try things out thoroughly.
A far bigger problem for me always was the lack of more advanced modeling features (you can only do so much with extrude), ie. stuff like Wings3d it has, boolean operations and such, luckily Blender is also improving in that direction quite a bit.
Yeah, agreed, those things are missing but since they are more "sexy" to work on than usability, we kinda assumed it will all be there sooner or later. =) As it is now, the interface is so much in the way that features are uninteresting.:(
Ah, Blender... what a good product that could have been if it just had a more standard interface. Yes, I do know that it is said to be better once learned.
But sad to say, people are not willing to spend the huge amount of time that it takes to relearn all that stuff - it would maybe work if that was your first app, but then you will have some hoops to hop through on a job market that goes more and moe towards Maya (which is excellent, but non-free and expensive).
I've gotten a lot of great graphics artists to try it out, people who can do incredible stuff and works as easily in Maya as 3DS as Milkshape or whatever - even after days with Blender they are just not productive, just frustrated.
The Blender community seems to know this, but it is still unclear what they may or may not do about it...;-/
So was it worth it? Well, hopefully those that paid knew what they got and they are probably happy. =) All the best for them, but I still dream about a way to go open source with serious, professional game development. Well, the GIMP isn't there either (about the same problems actually, done the same tests there) so I guess it is just a pipe dream... Sure would be really wicked cool though.
Or rather, almost no uptake outside and very little inside of the Linux community... I see a lot of people talking about it, wishing for stuff and so on, but very few that actually use it even inside of said community.
And oh, whoever moderated the parent funny, that should have been "Insightful". =)
Actually, *everyone*, without one single exception at all of the people I knowthat use browsers with tabs use them like that. Usually it is firefox, often with Tab Browser Extensions, (come to think of it, I don't think any of them still use Opera).
And me too. I also browse that way - even more so when you have the possibility to bookbark tab groups - lemme see, time to work on this project that uses this DB, those modules in language X and this technology - just open the tabgroup with all the relevant documentation and off you go.
The book metafor never struck me at all, I think it is limping quite badly, and even if it was spot on - why would I use a to me inferior way of working just to please some anal sense of "what is right"?
Ruby and Perl are my favourite languages - both really lets you be productive without getting in the way, and I think that Ruby probably is the better language - what makes me still stick to Perl is CPAN and the fantastic community - Ruby is nowhere close on either, though some tries are made, they need to pick up the pace.
Last I heard the average human had a vocab of around 2500 words or less.
Did you think that statement through at all? Dude... there are probably more than 2500 different words in one slashdot page alone, given probability and the fact that English contains over one hundred thousand words - you mean that most of tis is gibberish to the average human?
Oh, wait...
(Damn, that must have been the stupidest claim I've ever seen, and I've visited some religious sites now and then).
I would really like to try Xandros out for some purposes of replacing windows - since the codeweavers part is not included this is moot. I thought Xandros might be a good alternative for others who usually use windows.
What they need is some time-expiring try beforfe you buy-version. I have nothing against shelling out for quality, but then I need to know that it is quality - and quality of the kind I need.
Thunderbird used to have the same results - when I used 0.1 and 0.2, I never saw a spam outside my spam box, and no real mails got marked wrong either - after just some minor training. Then, after a while, spams started to look differently, and what do you know? TB started to fail.
Spammers simply learned how to (partly) defeat Bayesian. I'd be very interested to see your results if you tried SpamBayes now. I bet it wouldn't do better.
Or did you think the spammers would just give up and go home?
Slashdot Mirror
$ HEAD http://latw.org/audio/detail.aspx?title=War%20Of%2 0The%20Worlds:%20Invasion%20From%20Mars
200 OK
Cache-Control: private
Connection: close
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:55:14 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Length: 17505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Client-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:52:51 GMT
Client-Peer: 66.77.245.167:80
Client-Response-Num: 1
Set-Cookie: ASP.NET_SessionId=wq0hme4534e45b55owp5vmi0; path=/
X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
I believe they're used in American as well.
;-)
Heh, point taken, although - as you may or may not be surprised to learn - that is also called "English". There is no separate language "American" (or "Australian"), just American English, Brittish English etc. And they are considered the same language, just with (pretty small) variations.
Well, that makes me a bit more positive towards them, as long as they don't make the same mistake again, that is. :)
Actually, they seem to have a business model that might work without being assholes this time too... which makes you wonder what plans they had the last time, if any. Maybe they were just a bunch of hackers hacking away at some cool stuff. =)
Not yet, which is the beauty of it all. Friends of mine were all hyped up about this a few months back, but when I saw who was behind it I chose not to go with the flow. There are lots of provisions in licenses and texts that says they are allowed to add third party stuff later on under certain circumstances. They do say you have to agree, but couple that with provisions that say that they don't need to provide you with the next version and that new versions need not be compatible I think we all see where it is heading. Add in the fact that most users simply agree to anything, and we're already there.
I might well be wrong and they've seen the errors of their ways, but I doubt it. I'll just wait and see. It is quite possible I'll not support it simply because they've been *really* bad before and people who behave badly should not get away with it by just starting over.
Well, since they are only used in English and not in other languages, yes I'd say so.
Unless you count knowledge of the dead language Latin as a prerequisite.
You might even say that those are now English abbreviations with the origin from Latin, since that is what the reality is (languages evolve, you know?)
Not speaking/writing English natively, together with most of the world confusing those two as you point out, I've never *exactly* figured out what those two really meant. I better make a note of this somewhere...
As others have said, there are better ways than ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, but I thought I'd also add that you might need to inject xfree (fool portage it's there) for some packages that don't understand that xorg is the "same" thing.
...exactly where did you encounter this? I surfed around extensively and everything just worked.
No UA spoofing, no nothing. Gentoo with: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040703 Firefox/0.9.1
IE displays PNG's properly, with transparency, and it's still non-lossy. IE only doesnt properly support the alpha channel of PNG's.
;-)
Ok, so what is all the fuzz about then? You'll have to excuse someone who is not all that good with these graphics terms, but I've for instance made images with completely transparent background, no tones, nothing special, no nothing else in Photoshop and other programs. And it doesn't work in IE (latest). What am I doing wrong? What is the difference, and thus this magic setting I should twiddle?
From your answer it seems like it is lacking semi-transparency or something, which also would be nice to have, but not as critical as complete transparency.
However, if this actually works, then most of the world has missed this somehow, and this is your chance to explain it to us. I for one would be extremely thankful - choosing between GIFs or hardcoded image backgrounds is not full freedom.
Now if Mozilla just gets its act together and gets a strong managed framework backend for XUL....
:)
Bah. XUL is just XML + Javascript for dynamics - not very far from some some applications you see on the web today, Gmail for instance comes to mind - it does a *lot* of the work with javascripts and emulates an application in many ways. You could use just about any "strong managed framework backend" you like - all you have to do is tweak the frontend a little.
What I'd like to see is people actually building applications in XUL, now, today - maybe as an alternative interface to their normal site, that would be really, really, really, really cool. And I think, with proper separation of responsibilities, not very hard either. Waiting around for some kind of whatever you called it from Mozilla is a sure recipe for being stuck with XAML in a few years. Get *your* act together and do your part.
Hmmm... wonder what frameworks on say, CPAN have nicely separated frontends... and what about some of the wikis out there? A wiki in XUL, that would be really wicked. =)
While it'd be unfair to describe him as hostile to FOSS, he certainly avoids it in part, I believe, because of the overly heavy and often inappropriate, advocacy he sees.
Take note people. All too much advocacy is done in a foaming mouth-zealot kind of way instead of calm, explaining and moreover when appropriate.
Using QTorrent here. No other reason than that it was QT based (running KDE here) and already in portage, but it seems to work really nicely in a no-nonsense kind of way. :)
I smell a great Thunderbird extension... ;-)
but if I have to pay for it
Let me quote a page that ALL linux users should read and know by heart: "WHAT? You mean to say you own enough hardware to run this stuff, yet you're too lousy to pay 15 bucks for binary packages? Get real."
(or at least not use it with Portage
The ebuilds are there. Just pay the money and you can use it within portage with no trouble.
Blenders interface already has improved a whole lot after it went OpenSource. Its now already a lot better then before, sure still not perfect, but the progress is pretty good.
:(
I shudder to think how it must have been; tests wer mostly done pretty recently, as in a few months back. Still, good that they are working on it, I hope they are not too "proud" to look at what has worked for others (while improvment, if it is actual improvment is of course a good thing in small enough doses to be easily adopted).
And anyway, the interface itself has never been much of a problem for myself, sure not really intuitive, but once you have worked through a few tutorials, it shouldn't be much of an issue and it gives actually a nice workflow.
Don't agree one bit, sorry. I suppose it might come natural to some people, ie fitting their mindset or something...? Most people seems mainly annoyed and irritated instead, and yes, we are actually talking about people that are not afraid to switch and try things out thoroughly.
A far bigger problem for me always was the lack of more advanced modeling features (you can only do so much with extrude), ie. stuff like Wings3d it has, boolean operations and such, luckily Blender is also improving in that direction quite a bit.
Yeah, agreed, those things are missing but since they are more "sexy" to work on than usability, we kinda assumed it will all be there sooner or later. =) As it is now, the interface is so much in the way that features are uninteresting.
Ah, Blender... what a good product that could have been if it just had a more standard interface. Yes, I do know that it is said to be better once learned.
;-/
But sad to say, people are not willing to spend the huge amount of time that it takes to relearn all that stuff - it would maybe work if that was your first app, but then you will have some hoops to hop through on a job market that goes more and moe towards Maya (which is excellent, but non-free and expensive).
I've gotten a lot of great graphics artists to try it out, people who can do incredible stuff and works as easily in Maya as 3DS as Milkshape or whatever - even after days with Blender they are just not productive, just frustrated.
The Blender community seems to know this, but it is still unclear what they may or may not do about it...
So was it worth it? Well, hopefully those that paid knew what they got and they are probably happy. =) All the best for them, but I still dream about a way to go open source with serious, professional game development. Well, the GIMP isn't there either (about the same problems actually, done the same tests there) so I guess it is just a pipe dream... Sure would be really wicked cool though.
Where to begin? Code available via internet, running outlook, not firewalled (enough), not patched (enough) and the list just keeps on going.
Nah, it would be all too easy to answer that question.
Or rather, almost no uptake outside and very little inside of the Linux community... I see a lot of people talking about it, wishing for stuff and so on, but very few that actually use it even inside of said community.
And oh, whoever moderated the parent funny, that should have been "Insightful". =)
Actually, *everyone*, without one single exception at all of the people I knowthat use browsers with tabs use them like that. Usually it is firefox, often with Tab Browser Extensions, (come to think of it, I don't think any of them still use Opera).
And me too. I also browse that way - even more so when you have the possibility to bookbark tab groups - lemme see, time to work on this project that uses this DB, those modules in language X and this technology - just open the tabgroup with all the relevant documentation and off you go.
The book metafor never struck me at all, I think it is limping quite badly, and even if it was spot on - why would I use a to me inferior way of working just to please some anal sense of "what is right"?
Worst reason ever.
Ruby and Perl are my favourite languages - both really lets you be productive without getting in the way, and I think that Ruby probably is the better language - what makes me still stick to Perl is CPAN and the fantastic community - Ruby is nowhere close on either, though some tries are made, they need to pick up the pace.
Last I heard the average human had a vocab of around 2500 words or less.
Did you think that statement through at all? Dude... there are probably more than 2500 different words in one slashdot page alone, given probability and the fact that English contains over one hundred thousand words - you mean that most of tis is gibberish to the average human?
Oh, wait...
(Damn, that must have been the stupidest claim I've ever seen, and I've visited some religious sites now and then).
DEYTUKARRJUUBS!
I would really like to try Xandros out for some purposes of replacing windows - since the codeweavers part is not included this is moot. I thought Xandros might be a good alternative for others who usually use windows.
What they need is some time-expiring try beforfe you buy-version. I have nothing against shelling out for quality, but then I need to know that it is quality - and quality of the kind I need.
Hehehe, that is one of the best (and at the same time funniest) ideas I've heard in quite a long time. Kudos to you! =)
Thunderbird used to have the same results - when I used 0.1 and 0.2, I never saw a spam outside my spam box, and no real mails got marked wrong either - after just some minor training. Then, after a while, spams started to look differently, and what do you know? TB started to fail.
Spammers simply learned how to (partly) defeat Bayesian. I'd be very interested to see your results if you tried SpamBayes now. I bet it wouldn't do better.
Or did you think the spammers would just give up and go home?