Ofcourse, sea launch has a size limit. They can not launch rockets of the size of ariana 5, and so are limited payloadwise in what they can launch. For your basic sattelites though, they are indeed a good option.
I know you're trolling, but it doesn't help to point out why this argument is wrong, since I've heard it said seriously too.
It is literally impossible for the gpl to stand in the way. Windows is licensed in a way that doesn't even give you access to the code, yet it has the most proprietary software of any platform. Linux, the platform, allows you to do the exact same things, but in addition it allows you to look at and modify the code. The gpl doesn't take away, it gives you more.
More importantly, if someone were to accidentally use gpl code in their closed source product, they would never, ever, have to release that product as open source. If they didn't agree to the gpl license in the first place, it expires, and regular copyright applies. Under regular copyright you either remove the offending software and code (and perhaps pay damages), or you negotiate a new license. Releasing the code is an option, but it basically amounts to negotiating a license (which happens to be the GPL license). Releasing the code is NEVER an obligation.
The only people believing gimp is as good as photoshop are people who won't be doing professional graphics work anyway, and that's who photoshop targets.
Remember, photoshop costs more than $500. If you're not using it professionally, you simply can't afford it. The mac is still the default graphics design platform, with windows coming in second due to its huge desktop marketshare. Linux and graphics artists are like bananas and car tires. They make no sense together.
Outlook and powerpoint are hardly enterprise quality. For me enterprise quality is five nines. No ms product is that.
Outlook is an extremely poor email client security-wise, and not so special wrt features. What people really want is not an outlook replacement, but an exchange client. It's the dependancy on exchange's proprietary features that creates the need for outlook. There are lots of OSS projects to replace exchange, but I've yet to see one that I thought had a chance in actually displacing it.
As for powerpoint... I make my presentations in openoffice.org's presentation app (forget the name), and it works just fine. Even exports to ppt. No problems there. Besides, there is no evidence powerpoint actually helps you make better presentations, just prettier ones.
Doesn't anyone know NT's history here? NT is a completely separate codebase from the earlier dos-based windows line. If my memory serves me correctly, the first NT version, 3.1, was released in 1991. So that's the earliest the bug could have been in there.
You're also confusing the web with the internet. I would consider it reasonable that there were windows machines on the net before the web existed. Ofcourse, the bug is in kerberos, which is relatively new in the NT codebase.
Ofcourse, as someone else has pointed out, the bug is in the ASN.1 reference implementation. I don't know how old that is, but the ASN.1 protocol dates back to 1984.
After all, that money goes directly on jobs. Everyone who receives the money pays a healthy chunk of it straight back into government coffers. The remainder they spend on, say, cars, computers, clothes, food,... you name it. So those directly employed by NASA and the contractors aren't the only beneficiaries - the others in the economy benefit.
Ofcourse, the underlying assumption here is that the payback from investing in nasa is higher than from investing in something else. Every investment has that "trickle back" effect, but the question whether nasa is the best place to invest remains unanswered.
The essential problem with government investment in nasa (and in general) right now is that since they're already facing a deficit, they need to borrow money from american investors before they can invest it in nasa, as a result, although the government will invest more, US investors will invest less, and due to overheads involved this is actually a bad thing for the economy. This is known as the "crowding out" effect. It's also the reason why the tax cut will not provide economic benefit.
Florida isn't all that bad a launching place. For the slight performance hit of launching from 30 degrees, we have a logistical advantage in the fact we can bus and truck supplies to the facility.
Supplies get delivered to the launching facility in french guyana by boat, which is just as effective in getting stuff there. In fact, the ariane rockets are built in Europe, and then shipped like a lego kit to french guyana where they assemble them and put them on the launch pad. I've visited the ariane 5 construction hall. It's like a factory, with rockets in various stages of completion. Most impressive.
Especially given that you can use css to style ul list items whichever way you want. You can replace them with pink elephants outlined by red dotted squares if you want. There's no reason, EVER, to use img tags for bullet entries, unless you simply don't know your stuff as a web designer.
I always make sure my html contains no layout whatsoever, and only structure (and content ofcourse). If you can't do it in css, you're better off not doing it at all. Otherwise your site will just break in too many corner cases and won't be futureproof.
The creation of a number of discrete species which have evolved a bit over time seems unlikely. First of all, there is the paleontological evidence, which is either planted by God for his and our amusement, or proof that life has been around for a billion years or more, and the further back you go the more it diverges from life as we know it currently.
Secondly, from what we know of genetic makeup of species, there is a base code which is shared, and optional modules which have been appended onto it. You can easily see the common structure in the dna of a human and a fruit fly. Is God just lazy and copy/pasting all the time, or did we all evolve from a common source?
Thirdly, there is evidence in human beings that we evolved from an earlier stage. Tailbones, appendices, and various other now useless pieces of biology which can be shown to once have had a purpose. Not to mention the incredible amount of dna we share with the lower primates. Are modern days human beings different from the way we were when God created us, or did we evolve from a "lesser" species?
I don't think the reasonably likely axiom that everything evolved from a common ancestor is proof that God doesn't exist. After all, God could have just used evolution to do the act of creation. What especially irks me is the way creationists dismiss any evidence revealed though science of past stages in evolution as either being bad science or being planted by God. Why would God leave dinosaur bones lying around? Creationism to me seems to me the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "Naaaaaah!!! I can't hear you!!!!!", and all for no good reason at all, since the truth of evolution from a single source is not something that falsifies the existance of God (which can not be falsified, which is why it is religion and not science).
Why do you want firefox to remain in memory? I mean, it's a nice gimmick, but on my low-end pIII 1ghz system it launches immediately (window accepts input in less than two seconds). Unless you're running a really slow system with large amounts of ram I'm having a hard time imagining a use for this feature.
I'd like to add that for me bookmark keywords are a must-carry feature for a browser. I use them constantly. I have keywords google, amazon, dict (dictionary.com), java (java api search), unstable (debian unstable package search), freshmeat and many more. Being able to do any search you want straight from the url bar is really handy.
I wonder how IE's inefficiency skews google marketshare. After all, in IE, if you want to do a search you have to first go to google, then do your search. Almost every other browser has a feature that lets you do a straight google search, meaning you only load up one page instead of two, thereby halving your representation in the marketshare stats. Another thing is that the least knowledgeable internet users often have google as their homepage and treat it as a url bar. Meaning, they type in url's into google's search field (which has a tendency for getting you where you want to be). This also inflates marketshare for IE beyond proportion.
Obviously this is only speculation since we don't know how google collects net stats.
Also, one has to ask whether the mozilla users aren't more important than their numbers suggest. They tend to be trendsetters (web developers) and/or advanced net users, who in the great scheme of things are more likely to try new internet services and buy stuff online, meaning they become a more important market segment to reach if you're trying to sell something on the net.
To clarify my "worst standards support" comment, I'm talking about browsers which have seen development this side of the millenium turnover. NS4 doesn't count there. But it is considerably worse than any of the gecko, khtml/webcore or opera.
Let me guess, either you're a safari-only user, or all you know is IE. Claiming IE is complete is frankly ridiculous. It has the worst standards support of any browser out there, it has an extremely poor UI (which can be fixed by installing a front-end, but you can just install another browser in that case), it has the worst security track record of any browser, except maybe NS4, with several known unfixed vulnerabilities in the current version, and it crashes, often enough to annoy.
I agree safari is unlikely to lose any market share to firefox (though I disagree it is improving faster than mozilla), but IE is ripe for the slaughter. Remember, there was a time when netscape had the marketshare of IE, and people ridiculed IE for being a latecomer to the market and having no chance in hell to gain any significant marketshare. Times change, and IE won't be on top forever, just like windows won't be the desktop king forever.
5. Some plug-ins/extensions need to be added to the Mozilla Firefox setup file
Bundled extensions is planned for the next release (0.9), as demonstrated in the firefox roadmap.
7. Download manager clutter
In options, go to "Privacy", then "Download manager history". You can set it to erase download entries on completion, which is the setting I prefer.
8. Exporting bookmarks problems
Actually, replacing & with & is the correct behaviour, since html 4 does not allow & in url's. Firefox stores its bookmarks as html, so I expect that this doesn't happen on export, but on import. If you link to a url containing an ampersand, you need to escape it, always. Yes, it's sort of annoying, but I expect there are good technical reasons (which I'm too lazy to look up). Besides, every browser out there opens url's with & in them correctly. What exactly is the problem?
9. Default sorting of bookmarks.
Strange, it sorts them the way you want it in my install. Don't understand why you're seeing this.
10. Auto-update
It's called smartupdate, and it's planned for firefox 0.9. See the roadmap again.
11. Uninstall plug-ins/extensions
Firefox 0.9. Yeah, I know, they're keeping all the cool stuff for the next version. But believe me, they know.
12. Autoscroll problem.
This is only a problem for you, due to your dependancy on autoscroll. I use a scrollwheel, and disable autoscroll. This is actually a fixed bug. In previous versions middleclicking a link would sometimes activate autoscroll instead of opening the link. Firefox doesn't do that anymore. I believe the current behaviour is the correct behaviour, since it doesn't neuter the middle mouse button's ability to open new webpages.
2. Major issue with the Flash Click to view extension
This is annoying indeed, but it is predictable. Any other implementation would either require micromanagement or trigger flash displaying when you don't want it. And besides, anyone using flash for website navigation is a callous retard and deserves to have their site break in real browsers. (To anyone doubting this: think about what happens when a blind person tries to visit a website that depends on flash for navigation.)
The flash blocking code has been updated by the way, but it hasn't trickled back to the extension. See jesse rudderman's xbl flash binding page.
Flash is close to useless to blind web users. At least a standards-based html page's content will be "viewable" for them.
It is possible to do fancy things that are cross-browser. The basic thing is to design your page to work well on basic browsers, but have optional fancy stuff. CSS, DOM and xbl (last one is mozilla only) are good for this.
Apart from the name change firefox 0.8 is a really excellent browser. I've been using it all day now, and am posting this comment from it. It's faster than 0.7 (about 6% in pageload, but I've noticed it's faster at loading multiple sites in parallel too). Almost all of the bugs that irked me have been fixed, like the bug where what you typed in the url bar was erased if you switched tabs (making it hard to copy/paste url's over from one site into the next when they're cut into pieces due to lame space-inserting comment engines *hint* *hint*). The download manager is silky smooth (I love the little notification that pops up on download completion), with good integration with extension installation. Extension installation finally "feels" right, and no longer a crude hack. Now they just need to add extension uninstallation. I also really like that they include the dom inspector in the installer now (just choose custom install). That I had to install that separately annoyed me greatly.
Frankly, I'm running out of things to criticize it for. It's becoming very close to the perfect browser for me. The only things I want are extension uninstallation and smaller runtime memory use (just having this page open is using 38 megs of ram, which seems excessive).
I predict these movies will only be available within the US, and maybe Canada. The EU will once again not get any of these new entertainment distribution schemes. There is no netflix in europe, there is no itms (and no, the uk-only coca-cola store doesn't count), the choices are restrained to basic brick-and-mortar places and amazon (or other online shops).
Some would claim this is a good thing because drm is evil anyway. Well, I don't like drm, but I'm willing to go along with it if it means I don't have to go out my door to rent a movie. Yeah, I'm a lazy sob, and the entertainment industry would get more of my money if they just catered to my sinful needs.
Seriously though, the only time i've ever gotten access denied is when a file is in use, or you try to kill a critical system process (except XP, which lets you)
We could argue back and forwards about the critical process issue (who decides what is or isn't a critical process?). But the not allowing access to opened files is silly. Linux thanks to its inode-based filesystem doesn't have this. This allows in-place upgrading of libraries and applications (even while they are running), something which in windows has been the primary reason for requiring reboots. It also eliminates race conditions when replacing an old version of a file with a new one. Programs that have the old version open keep working on the old one, until the last program closes it, at which point it disappears into thin air.
You can also listen to recently downloaded mp3's, and sort them into the right directory at the same time, which is surprisingly handy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ofcourse, sea launch has a size limit. They can not launch rockets of the size of ariana 5, and so are limited payloadwise in what they can launch. For your basic sattelites though, they are indeed a good option.
I know you're trolling, but it doesn't help to point out why this argument is wrong, since I've heard it said seriously too.
It is literally impossible for the gpl to stand in the way. Windows is licensed in a way that doesn't even give you access to the code, yet it has the most proprietary software of any platform. Linux, the platform, allows you to do the exact same things, but in addition it allows you to look at and modify the code. The gpl doesn't take away, it gives you more.
More importantly, if someone were to accidentally use gpl code in their closed source product, they would never, ever, have to release that product as open source. If they didn't agree to the gpl license in the first place, it expires, and regular copyright applies. Under regular copyright you either remove the offending software and code (and perhaps pay damages), or you negotiate a new license. Releasing the code is an option, but it basically amounts to negotiating a license (which happens to be the GPL license). Releasing the code is NEVER an obligation.
The only people believing gimp is as good as photoshop are people who won't be doing professional graphics work anyway, and that's who photoshop targets.
Remember, photoshop costs more than $500. If you're not using it professionally, you simply can't afford it. The mac is still the default graphics design platform, with windows coming in second due to its huge desktop marketshare. Linux and graphics artists are like bananas and car tires. They make no sense together.
Outlook and powerpoint are hardly enterprise quality. For me enterprise quality is five nines. No ms product is that.
... I make my presentations in openoffice.org's presentation app (forget the name), and it works just fine. Even exports to ppt. No problems there. Besides, there is no evidence powerpoint actually helps you make better presentations, just prettier ones.
Outlook is an extremely poor email client security-wise, and not so special wrt features. What people really want is not an outlook replacement, but an exchange client. It's the dependancy on exchange's proprietary features that creates the need for outlook. There are lots of OSS projects to replace exchange, but I've yet to see one that I thought had a chance in actually displacing it.
As for powerpoint
Doesn't anyone know NT's history here? NT is a completely separate codebase from the earlier dos-based windows line. If my memory serves me correctly, the first NT version, 3.1, was released in 1991. So that's the earliest the bug could have been in there.
You're also confusing the web with the internet. I would consider it reasonable that there were windows machines on the net before the web existed. Ofcourse, the bug is in kerberos, which is relatively new in the NT codebase.
Ofcourse, as someone else has pointed out, the bug is in the ASN.1 reference implementation. I don't know how old that is, but the ASN.1 protocol dates back to 1984.
So spending money on space travel will help.
... you name it. So those directly employed by NASA and the contractors aren't the only beneficiaries - the others in the economy benefit.
After all, that money goes directly on jobs. Everyone who receives the money pays a healthy chunk of it straight back into government coffers. The remainder they spend on, say, cars, computers, clothes, food,
Ofcourse, the underlying assumption here is that the payback from investing in nasa is higher than from investing in something else. Every investment has that "trickle back" effect, but the question whether nasa is the best place to invest remains unanswered.
The essential problem with government investment in nasa (and in general) right now is that since they're already facing a deficit, they need to borrow money from american investors before they can invest it in nasa, as a result, although the government will invest more, US investors will invest less, and due to overheads involved this is actually a bad thing for the economy. This is known as the "crowding out" effect. It's also the reason why the tax cut will not provide economic benefit.
Florida isn't all that bad a launching place. For the slight performance hit of launching from 30 degrees, we have a logistical advantage in the fact we can bus and truck supplies to the facility.
Supplies get delivered to the launching facility in french guyana by boat, which is just as effective in getting stuff there. In fact, the ariane rockets are built in Europe, and then shipped like a lego kit to french guyana where they assemble them and put them on the launch pad. I've visited the ariane 5 construction hall. It's like a factory, with rockets in various stages of completion. Most impressive.
Especially given that you can use css to style ul list items whichever way you want. You can replace them with pink elephants outlined by red dotted squares if you want. There's no reason, EVER, to use img tags for bullet entries, unless you simply don't know your stuff as a web designer.
I always make sure my html contains no layout whatsoever, and only structure (and content ofcourse). If you can't do it in css, you're better off not doing it at all. Otherwise your site will just break in too many corner cases and won't be futureproof.
There are always the logic traps. If God is all-powerful can he really do [something] that would make it impossible for him to do [something else]?
Although those don't disprove the existance of God, just his all-powerful nature.
The creation of a number of discrete species which have evolved a bit over time seems unlikely. First of all, there is the paleontological evidence, which is either planted by God for his and our amusement, or proof that life has been around for a billion years or more, and the further back you go the more it diverges from life as we know it currently.
Secondly, from what we know of genetic makeup of species, there is a base code which is shared, and optional modules which have been appended onto it. You can easily see the common structure in the dna of a human and a fruit fly. Is God just lazy and copy/pasting all the time, or did we all evolve from a common source?
Thirdly, there is evidence in human beings that we evolved from an earlier stage. Tailbones, appendices, and various other now useless pieces of biology which can be shown to once have had a purpose. Not to mention the incredible amount of dna we share with the lower primates. Are modern days human beings different from the way we were when God created us, or did we evolve from a "lesser" species?
I don't think the reasonably likely axiom that everything evolved from a common ancestor is proof that God doesn't exist. After all, God could have just used evolution to do the act of creation. What especially irks me is the way creationists dismiss any evidence revealed though science of past stages in evolution as either being bad science or being planted by God. Why would God leave dinosaur bones lying around? Creationism to me seems to me the equivalent of shoving your fingers in your ears and shouting "Naaaaaah!!! I can't hear you!!!!!", and all for no good reason at all, since the truth of evolution from a single source is not something that falsifies the existance of God (which can not be falsified, which is why it is religion and not science).
MozBird, MozFox MozCam sound good too me.
Except that to me they sound like car parts.
May I suggest the name "FireChick"
... That project already has a name.
A hot chick in your browser? Not bad, but
Why do you want firefox to remain in memory? I mean, it's a nice gimmick, but on my low-end pIII 1ghz system it launches immediately (window accepts input in less than two seconds). Unless you're running a really slow system with large amounts of ram I'm having a hard time imagining a use for this feature.
I'd like to add that for me bookmark keywords are a must-carry feature for a browser. I use them constantly. I have keywords google, amazon, dict (dictionary.com), java (java api search), unstable (debian unstable package search), freshmeat and many more. Being able to do any search you want straight from the url bar is really handy.
I wonder how IE's inefficiency skews google marketshare. After all, in IE, if you want to do a search you have to first go to google, then do your search. Almost every other browser has a feature that lets you do a straight google search, meaning you only load up one page instead of two, thereby halving your representation in the marketshare stats. Another thing is that the least knowledgeable internet users often have google as their homepage and treat it as a url bar. Meaning, they type in url's into google's search field (which has a tendency for getting you where you want to be). This also inflates marketshare for IE beyond proportion.
Obviously this is only speculation since we don't know how google collects net stats.
Also, one has to ask whether the mozilla users aren't more important than their numbers suggest. They tend to be trendsetters (web developers) and/or advanced net users, who in the great scheme of things are more likely to try new internet services and buy stuff online, meaning they become a more important market segment to reach if you're trying to sell something on the net.
To clarify my "worst standards support" comment, I'm talking about browsers which have seen development this side of the millenium turnover. NS4 doesn't count there. But it is considerably worse than any of the gecko, khtml/webcore or opera.
Let me guess, either you're a safari-only user, or all you know is IE. Claiming IE is complete is frankly ridiculous. It has the worst standards support of any browser out there, it has an extremely poor UI (which can be fixed by installing a front-end, but you can just install another browser in that case), it has the worst security track record of any browser, except maybe NS4, with several known unfixed vulnerabilities in the current version, and it crashes, often enough to annoy.
I agree safari is unlikely to lose any market share to firefox (though I disagree it is improving faster than mozilla), but IE is ripe for the slaughter. Remember, there was a time when netscape had the marketshare of IE, and people ridiculed IE for being a latecomer to the market and having no chance in hell to gain any significant marketshare. Times change, and IE won't be on top forever, just like windows won't be the desktop king forever.
With regards to your dislikes:
5. Some plug-ins/extensions need to be added to the Mozilla Firefox setup file
Bundled extensions is planned for the next release (0.9), as demonstrated in the firefox roadmap.
7. Download manager clutter
In options, go to "Privacy", then "Download manager history". You can set it to erase download entries on completion, which is the setting I prefer.
8. Exporting bookmarks problems
Actually, replacing & with & is the correct behaviour, since html 4 does not allow & in url's. Firefox stores its bookmarks as html, so I expect that this doesn't happen on export, but on import. If you link to a url containing an ampersand, you need to escape it, always. Yes, it's sort of annoying, but I expect there are good technical reasons (which I'm too lazy to look up). Besides, every browser out there opens url's with & in them correctly. What exactly is the problem?
9. Default sorting of bookmarks.
Strange, it sorts them the way you want it in my install. Don't understand why you're seeing this.
10. Auto-update
It's called smartupdate, and it's planned for firefox 0.9. See the roadmap again.
11. Uninstall plug-ins/extensions
Firefox 0.9. Yeah, I know, they're keeping all the cool stuff for the next version. But believe me, they know.
12. Autoscroll problem.
This is only a problem for you, due to your dependancy on autoscroll. I use a scrollwheel, and disable autoscroll. This is actually a fixed bug. In previous versions middleclicking a link would sometimes activate autoscroll instead of opening the link. Firefox doesn't do that anymore. I believe the current behaviour is the correct behaviour, since it doesn't neuter the middle mouse button's ability to open new webpages.
2. Major issue with the Flash Click to view extension
This is annoying indeed, but it is predictable. Any other implementation would either require micromanagement or trigger flash displaying when you don't want it. And besides, anyone using flash for website navigation is a callous retard and deserves to have their site break in real browsers. (To anyone doubting this: think about what happens when a blind person tries to visit a website that depends on flash for navigation.)
The flash blocking code has been updated by the way, but it hasn't trickled back to the extension. See jesse rudderman's xbl flash binding page.
Flash is close to useless to blind web users. At least a standards-based html page's content will be "viewable" for them.
It is possible to do fancy things that are cross-browser. The basic thing is to design your page to work well on basic browsers, but have optional fancy stuff. CSS, DOM and xbl (last one is mozilla only) are good for this.
Apart from the name change firefox 0.8 is a really excellent browser. I've been using it all day now, and am posting this comment from it. It's faster than 0.7 (about 6% in pageload, but I've noticed it's faster at loading multiple sites in parallel too). Almost all of the bugs that irked me have been fixed, like the bug where what you typed in the url bar was erased if you switched tabs (making it hard to copy/paste url's over from one site into the next when they're cut into pieces due to lame space-inserting comment engines *hint* *hint*). The download manager is silky smooth (I love the little notification that pops up on download completion), with good integration with extension installation. Extension installation finally "feels" right, and no longer a crude hack. Now they just need to add extension uninstallation. I also really like that they include the dom inspector in the installer now (just choose custom install). That I had to install that separately annoyed me greatly.
Frankly, I'm running out of things to criticize it for. It's becoming very close to the perfect browser for me. The only things I want are extension uninstallation and smaller runtime memory use (just having this page open is using 38 megs of ram, which seems excessive).
Seriously, since at this point the whole naming scheme is fscked anyway, I wonder why they couldn't go back to the old netscape naming conventions
Mozilla.org didn't inherit the netscape trademarks, which remain firmly in AOL's hands to be devalued and generally wasted.
They are history, but they're coming back. Mozilla.org is going to start marketing their stuff to restart the browser wars.
I predict these movies will only be available within the US, and maybe Canada. The EU will once again not get any of these new entertainment distribution schemes. There is no netflix in europe, there is no itms (and no, the uk-only coca-cola store doesn't count), the choices are restrained to basic brick-and-mortar places and amazon (or other online shops).
Some would claim this is a good thing because drm is evil anyway. Well, I don't like drm, but I'm willing to go along with it if it means I don't have to go out my door to rent a movie. Yeah, I'm a lazy sob, and the entertainment industry would get more of my money if they just catered to my sinful needs.
Obligatory coupling quote:
Steve: "You do understand there is a difference between real life and low-quality lesbian porn."
Jeff: "You don't know that"
Seriously though, the only time i've ever gotten access denied is when a file is in use, or you try to kill a critical system process (except XP, which lets you)
We could argue back and forwards about the critical process issue (who decides what is or isn't a critical process?). But the not allowing access to opened files is silly. Linux thanks to its inode-based filesystem doesn't have this. This allows in-place upgrading of libraries and applications (even while they are running), something which in windows has been the primary reason for requiring reboots. It also eliminates race conditions when replacing an old version of a file with a new one. Programs that have the old version open keep working on the old one, until the last program closes it, at which point it disappears into thin air.
You can also listen to recently downloaded mp3's, and sort them into the right directory at the same time, which is surprisingly handy.