Of course, I could spend ages finding a good filtering system and setting up spam filters, paying my ISP to do it for me etc. But in the end, it costs me time and money.
Do you find that your own mail drowns in incoming spam?
Probably not. Not only do I get plenty of spam every day. That extra minute of having to deal with spam really bothers me, because I shouldn't have to waste my time like that. It might lead to me accidentally skipping a valid message because I mark a lot of spam messages for deletion and don't notice that important e-mail from a friend from long ago who's trying to get in touch with me because he has important news... Down the drain.
Spam doesn't bother you? Fine, but don't pretend that it is not a problem to others. Don't try to blow it off like that.
It is, in fact, a major problem to a lot of people. Not only for personal e-mail, but our network administrators have to deal with absolutely huge amounts of spam that affect the network and its stability and reliability.
Our company has to spend considerable resources on fighting spam - resources that could have been spent fine-tuning other parts of the network to make everything run smoothly.
And then there's the amount of spam written in HTML and with images. Why should I spend money on downloading a huge spam message over my dialup connection?
Spam costs me money. It costs my employer money. It costs a lot of people money.
One could argue that if you need to handle pieces of text that large, you should go for a dedicated application. While Mozilla is far more than a browser, it is not a text editor or text handler as such.
First, I know that you are just trolling, but some poor bastard might read your drivel and actually take it seriously.
"Still, Mozilla and Netscape will never be first class browser with large user base."
It sounds like "first class browser" means "the most widely used browser" to you. That says a lot about you, because everyone knows that MSIE dominates the market because it is distributed with the most widely used operating system in the world. Most people just don't care and can't be bothered to download another browser, even if it is superior, when they already have one.
"So,what steps do you think that Mozilla developers to squashall these bugs?"
When will Microsoft fix security holes, crap CSS, PNG alpha transparency etc. in MSIE?
I don't know if this thing is aimed at advertisers as such. It is more of a tool for site owners who want to force intrusive popups on people that don't want them and have taken active action to get rid of them.
In fact, the advertisers may be losing on this if they pay per impression, as they basically get a lot of useless impressions from people that hate these ads to begin with.
For once, maybe users and advertisers can join forces? These people are trying to rip off both of these groups:
They waste my bandwidth and time with useless popups
They waste their advertisers' money on useless impressions forced on people who most certainly will not have anything to do with these ads
These snakes have a business model which is based on ripping people off. The sad part is that it might work because there are so many fools out there.
"The evidence is overwhelming, however political forces in the US are often succesful at denying Darwinism as fact. If free speach is not absolute, wouldn't the presentation of Darwinism be in danger from these forces?"
There is a huge difference between talking about how certain races are less valuable than others or how certain groups of people should be exterminated, and talking about the origin of mankind. The purpose of Evolutionism, for example, is not to prove that some people are worth less than others and is not aimed at certain groups in an attempt to either get rid of them or oppress them.
Thus, Darwinism is not in danger, because whether or not it is stated as opinion or fact, it does not lead to unfair treatment of certain groups of people. The purpose of Darwinism or Evolutionsm is not one which affects people as such. The purpose of spreading hatred against certain groups of people does affect people, or can affect people.
Now, whether or not it is right to ban such sites/speech is another question, but you should at least make sure that your counter-examples are comparable to what is being discussed.
"After reading your arguments, and those of other Europeans, it is clear to me how Nazism flourished in Europe."
No, I don't think anything is clear to you, because you seem rather unenlightened. Europe was and is not a single state. Germany is a country in Europe, but does not represent all other European countries.
Before you go about spreading unenlightened nonsense about Europe, you might wish to look at the US and its violation of human rights first. Today.
What on earth makes you think they will use the WC3 engine for SC2, and what makes you think that "a running engine and a couple of finished models" means that it won't take long to complete a game?
It takes time to create the technology as well as the contents, you know. Not to mention alpha and beta testing, and tweaking, tweaking and yet more tweaking. This is Blizzard, after all.
Not to underestimate the creativity and amount of work which goes into a model, but creating a single model doesn't take that long! And besides, they've already got the SC models built. They used them for the cutscenes in SC, remember (and maybe even as basis for the 2D characters in the game itself).
The ending in WC3 is just an easter egg of sorts, and says absolutely nothing about SC2. And it sounds like you don't even know what you are writing, because the exact story you are replying to now is a 3D game based in the SC universe, and it actually has 3D models of Hydras, Zealots, etc.. Why on earth do you start talking about SC2?
And the WC3 engine for SC2? I hope that is not the case.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the review is a bad one. If she fails to install it properly, imagine how many others will have the same problem. If the instructions aren't clear enough, perhaps it is a problem with the distribution which should be fixed. Why shouldn't this be pointed out in the review?
You may say that she is stupid and does not follow the instructions, but you can bet your hat on a lot of other people having the exact same problem.
Then again, this would probably have been better pointed out in a bug report to Mandrake than in a review. When reviewing a product, one should perhaps try to follow the installation instructions properly. What do I know - maybe they were overly obvious. Maybe they were really obscure and hidden away. Maybe she did her research, maybe she didn't. But the fact that she did stumble upon this problem indicates a problem not only with the reviewer, but with the distribution as well.
For the record, what I've seen of Mandrake is great, but I've only used v8.1 (and didn't have any problems).
But while you are waiting for WAP to catch up (and people still have to create sites specifically for WAP browsers - which has not proven successful), everyone else can surf the web as it is with Opera.
So with WAP taking up extra resources to develop a separate WAP site and the biggest handheld browser being able to view existing sites without people bothering to rewrite them for handhelds... I guess we have a winner, don't we? And it's not WAP.
Opera is just a browser. It will probably be available on a number of different handhelds. The price depends on the handheld you want to buy, not on Opera.
Re:Getting better, still some bloat issues
on
Phoenix 0.3 Is Out
·
· Score: 2
I don't get it. What is the problem with memory use? You have memory, right? Why not use it? I, for one, am glad if an application can use more memory to increase performance. It's a good thing! As long as it doesn't gobble up all of it, and releases it again when needed.
Please, a program is supposed to use RAM, and if it can do so without a negative impact on other programs - go ahead! Use more!
"Reqwireless WebViewer already solved these same problems almost a year ago, and with the added bonus that it works on many more mobile phones than what Opera appears to be targeting."
But with Opera you get a better browser with more capabilities.
As I wrote in another reply to a person with the same misconception as yourself:
There's more to it that ignoring tables and images (which is basically what Lynx does). Remember that there are also images, colors etc. that need to be dealt with. If you read the article (I know this is Slashdot, but come on!), you will notice that Opera even tries to be "smart" when choosing what to display. It can even be set to block ads (which take up too much space on screen).
There's more to it that ignoring tables and images (which is basically what Lynx does). Remember that there are also images, colors etc. that need to be dealt with. If you read the article (I know this is Slashdot, but come on!), you will notice that Opera even tries to be "smart" when choosing what to display. It can even be set to block ads (which take up too much space on screen).
There's no doubt about it: Opera is doing something new here. This will give them the edge for a while. And it's not the first time Opera have shown innovation when it comes to browsing. Mouse gestures, anyone?
Microsoft beat Opera to the punch how? Displaying any web page on a mobile device without having to scroll horizontally by reformatting each page dynamically? Creating a browser which does the same on desktop as on devices?
I'm sorry, but Opera beat IE here. Not only was Pocket IE a crippled version of Desktop IE (is Pocket IE 6 still as crippled? Haven't checked lately), while Opera's handheld offerings have always had the same rendering capabilities as on desktop. This is why Opera seems to be the browser of choice nowadays: You get everything, not just a renderer which has been crippled because it is normally too bloated. Opera is small, you know.
And now comes small screen rendering, where Opera basically gives you the ability to view any web page on your mobile device by doing some clever reformatting.
How exactly did "Microsoft beat Opera to the punch"?
Opera without the ads? Does it run on lower-end systems?
And does it have a single ad window where all ads appear? Or does it actually place "ads" for AOL all over the place?
After installing Netscape 7 for testing, I had AOL icons on my Windows desktop, quick launch bar, the top level of the start menu as well as in the Netscape 7 start menu folder!
No thanks. Netscape 7 seems to be more of a single huge ad for AOL. I uninstalled it and happily went back to using Mozilla and Opera.
A browser which places itself everywhere like that without asking does not stay on my system for long.
How you can even think about comparing Netscape 7 to Opera - and even without mentioning Mozilla - is beyond me.
I now use Opera and Mozilla, and I am watching the progress on Phoenix, which looks nice, but isn't quite there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, I could spend ages finding a good filtering system and setting up spam filters, paying my ISP to do it for me etc. But in the end, it costs me time and money.
- Are you on a dialup?
- Do you receive lots of e-mails every day?
- Do you find that your own mail drowns in incoming spam?
Probably not. Not only do I get plenty of spam every day. That extra minute of having to deal with spam really bothers me, because I shouldn't have to waste my time like that. It might lead to me accidentally skipping a valid message because I mark a lot of spam messages for deletion and don't notice that important e-mail from a friend from long ago who's trying to get in touch with me because he has important news... Down the drain.Spam doesn't bother you? Fine, but don't pretend that it is not a problem to others. Don't try to blow it off like that.
It is, in fact, a major problem to a lot of people. Not only for personal e-mail, but our network administrators have to deal with absolutely huge amounts of spam that affect the network and its stability and reliability.
Our company has to spend considerable resources on fighting spam - resources that could have been spent fine-tuning other parts of the network to make everything run smoothly.
And then there's the amount of spam written in HTML and with images. Why should I spend money on downloading a huge spam message over my dialup connection?
Spam costs me money. It costs my employer money. It costs a lot of people money.
Spam is a real problem to a lot of people.
The Linux people I know are happy to stay with Linux.
Just don't make sweeping remarks on the entire Linux user base based on your own personal views, ok?
One could argue that if you need to handle pieces of text that large, you should go for a dedicated application. While Mozilla is far more than a browser, it is not a text editor or text handler as such.
In fact, the advertisers may be losing on this if they pay per impression, as they basically get a lot of useless impressions from people that hate these ads to begin with.
For once, maybe users and advertisers can join forces? These people are trying to rip off both of these groups:
These snakes have a business model which is based on ripping people off. The sad part is that it might work because there are so many fools out there.
He doesn't love them, but LotR.
The point is that you won't have to rotate the screen with Opera. It fits it to your screen without you having to do anything.
There is a huge difference between talking about how certain races are less valuable than others or how certain groups of people should be exterminated, and talking about the origin of mankind. The purpose of Evolutionism, for example, is not to prove that some people are worth less than others and is not aimed at certain groups in an attempt to either get rid of them or oppress them.
Thus, Darwinism is not in danger, because whether or not it is stated as opinion or fact, it does not lead to unfair treatment of certain groups of people. The purpose of Darwinism or Evolutionsm is not one which affects people as such. The purpose of spreading hatred against certain groups of people does affect people, or can affect people.
Now, whether or not it is right to ban such sites/speech is another question, but you should at least make sure that your counter-examples are comparable to what is being discussed.
Why are you excusing yourself on behalf of Europe? Remember that Europe is a continent, not a single country. The USA is a single country, though.
It's already on the air in Europe. On MTV Europe, and on individual national channels in various countries as well.
No, I don't think anything is clear to you, because you seem rather unenlightened. Europe was and is not a single state. Germany is a country in Europe, but does not represent all other European countries.
Before you go about spreading unenlightened nonsense about Europe, you might wish to look at the US and its violation of human rights first. Today.
What on earth makes you think they will use the WC3 engine for SC2, and what makes you think that "a running engine and a couple of finished models" means that it won't take long to complete a game?
It takes time to create the technology as well as the contents, you know. Not to mention alpha and beta testing, and tweaking, tweaking and yet more tweaking. This is Blizzard, after all.
Not to underestimate the creativity and amount of work which goes into a model, but creating a single model doesn't take that long! And besides, they've already got the SC models built. They used them for the cutscenes in SC, remember (and maybe even as basis for the 2D characters in the game itself).
The ending in WC3 is just an easter egg of sorts, and says absolutely nothing about SC2. And it sounds like you don't even know what you are writing, because the exact story you are replying to now is a 3D game based in the SC universe, and it actually has 3D models of Hydras, Zealots, etc.. Why on earth do you start talking about SC2?
And the WC3 engine for SC2? I hope that is not the case.
You may say that she is stupid and does not follow the instructions, but you can bet your hat on a lot of other people having the exact same problem.
Then again, this would probably have been better pointed out in a bug report to Mandrake than in a review. When reviewing a product, one should perhaps try to follow the installation instructions properly. What do I know - maybe they were overly obvious. Maybe they were really obscure and hidden away. Maybe she did her research, maybe she didn't. But the fact that she did stumble upon this problem indicates a problem not only with the reviewer, but with the distribution as well.
For the record, what I've seen of Mandrake is great, but I've only used v8.1 (and didn't have any problems).
Sites such as..?
Oh, and Opera supports WML as well.
So with WAP taking up extra resources to develop a separate WAP site and the biggest handheld browser being able to view existing sites without people bothering to rewrite them for handhelds... I guess we have a winner, don't we? And it's not WAP.
Opera is just a browser. It will probably be available on a number of different handhelds. The price depends on the handheld you want to buy, not on Opera.
Please, a program is supposed to use RAM, and if it can do so without a negative impact on other programs - go ahead! Use more!
You can set Opera to not load images at all. At least Opera for desktop Windows/Linux/whatever. Not sure about all the handhelds out there.
There's more to it that ignoring tables and images (which is basically what Lynx does). Remember that there are also images, colors etc. that need to be dealt with. If you read the article (I know this is Slashdot, but come on!), you will notice that Opera even tries to be "smart" when choosing what to display. It can even be set to block ads (which take up too much space on screen).
There's no doubt about it: Opera is doing something new here. This will give them the edge for a while. And it's not the first time Opera have shown innovation when it comes to browsing. Mouse gestures, anyone?
I'm sorry, but Opera beat IE here. Not only was Pocket IE a crippled version of Desktop IE (is Pocket IE 6 still as crippled? Haven't checked lately), while Opera's handheld offerings have always had the same rendering capabilities as on desktop. This is why Opera seems to be the browser of choice nowadays: You get everything, not just a renderer which has been crippled because it is normally too bloated. Opera is small, you know.
And now comes small screen rendering, where Opera basically gives you the ability to view any web page on your mobile device by doing some clever reformatting.
How exactly did "Microsoft beat Opera to the punch"?
And does it have a single ad window where all ads appear? Or does it actually place "ads" for AOL all over the place?
After installing Netscape 7 for testing, I had AOL icons on my Windows desktop, quick launch bar, the top level of the start menu as well as in the Netscape 7 start menu folder!
No thanks. Netscape 7 seems to be more of a single huge ad for AOL. I uninstalled it and happily went back to using Mozilla and Opera.
A browser which places itself everywhere like that without asking does not stay on my system for long.
How you can even think about comparing Netscape 7 to Opera - and even without mentioning Mozilla - is beyond me.
I now use Opera and Mozilla, and I am watching the progress on Phoenix, which looks nice, but isn't quite there yet.