Did you even read the freaking article? The author didn't say "Don't use firefox, they encourage bad behavior." He had legitimate points. If firefox wants to sell security, they need to appear secure. Not having the installed signed isn't a good marketing tactic. If I didn't know what I was doing, I wouldn't be installing firefox for the same reason the author brings up. It annoys the crap out of me that most (if not all) plugins aren't signed by their authors. Do you really think that just because nothing bad has happened yet that the good times will continue? That's foolishness. Firefox needs to be perceived to be at least as secure as IE. This article points out that the perception of firefox's security is less than IE under SP2. Stop being a blind zealot and start being realistically critical.
is omniweb 5. It's got the best interface of any browser I've ever used, on any platform. I really enjoy it's easy to use site-preferences and it's tabbed browsing is quite useful.
No, the lesson here is that Microsoft is committed to eating their own dogfood. This is a great trend for their company. Few things encourage developers to fix issues like having those issues affect them. Good for Microsoft. However, I'm not 100% convinced that they should be 100% dependent on their own stuff, but if they're willing to stand by it, more power to them.
Those still aren't terribly compelling reasons to re-invent the portable document format. You can view the spec for the PDF online at Adobe's site. It's terms of use are quite reasonable.
Point 2a makes me think that you should contribute to OO.o in the form making PDF output better. However, point 2b is a little bit too tin-foil hatty for my tastes. There are reasons that PDF has version numbers: feature freeze.
How is this a funny comment? It makes sense to me. Most people have pdf-viewing capability already on their computer. If that doesn't work, export to freakin' rtf or something like that.
If the choice was between going to war or letting some cheating officials have office, let the damn cheaters have office. There's precedent here that isn't worth challenging.
How many casualties does it take to settle a non-combatant struggle? Judging from the last civil war (not that those numbers would be too good of a metric for this sort of thing) about 110,000 lives (just from combat, not counting disease).
Are casualties really worth a conflict? I suppose a more apropos question would be would this theoretical conflict save our overseas troops lives? I dunno.
"I can afford to by whatever tools I need for the job" Unless that job requires a spell-checker:)/scanning my post repeatedly to ensure grammar and spelling are ok
You're close: it'd be the Apple logo with Aqua stripes in it, which are close enough to the IBM stripes. Alternatively, a snowball surrounded by the fiery depths of hell is being considered.
I don't think you understand the context of the conversation--when a developer targets the xbox, they can count on the effects they program being used, there is no lower model to account for, they are all the same. That's a great thing for developers.
Tim makes a great argument in the first part about sticking to open standards, while calling it Open Source. Personally, I can take or leave open source. It's rarely important for me to be able to see how someone else did something. However, having a standard for a project (say MS Exchange Server) handy would allow me to interchange that project with a competitor that provided other value added materials.
Joe argues (I belive rightly so) that opening the source of Quark would have killed Quark (which would have been great in my opinion). However, he does not address opening the format of the Quark file. Doing that would not have killed off Quark, unless there's something I'm missing there, it would have made Quark even more of a standard, since competitors could interoperate with Quark files.
That's not quite insightful, as much as it it "Your Mileage May Vary". For myself, taking long breaks would be necessary if I was to endure watching anything for > 3 hours. Plus, I'd suggest eating something a little more healthy than pizza, as if you'd be amongst a group of friends for 11 hours, the gas would potentially be horrible:)
Slashdot Mirror
My system admin already did that. It's called an Active Directory Group Policy.
Remember, GB is 8*Gb. So if you have 8GB of RAM, you can easily saturate a 40Gb line.
That's a terrific idea for the signing of plugins, but they need to have their downloads signed by someone that is in IE's list of CAs.
Did you even read the freaking article? The author didn't say "Don't use firefox, they encourage bad behavior." He had legitimate points. If firefox wants to sell security, they need to appear secure. Not having the installed signed isn't a good marketing tactic. If I didn't know what I was doing, I wouldn't be installing firefox for the same reason the author brings up. It annoys the crap out of me that most (if not all) plugins aren't signed by their authors. Do you really think that just because nothing bad has happened yet that the good times will continue? That's foolishness. Firefox needs to be perceived to be at least as secure as IE. This article points out that the perception of firefox's security is less than IE under SP2. Stop being a blind zealot and start being realistically critical.
is omniweb 5. It's got the best interface of any browser I've ever used, on any platform. I really enjoy it's easy to use site-preferences and it's tabbed browsing is quite useful.
What's interesting that Mail.app only blocks images that require download. Embedded images (multi-part MIME) are shown.
No, the lesson here is that Microsoft is committed to eating their own dogfood. This is a great trend for their company. Few things encourage developers to fix issues like having those issues affect them. Good for Microsoft. However, I'm not 100% convinced that they should be 100% dependent on their own stuff, but if they're willing to stand by it, more power to them.
Doesn't anyone realize the humor in an article about cameras totally done in Flash? It's like an ethereal pun!
Can you obtain a Paypal card?
Those still aren't terribly compelling reasons to re-invent the portable document format. You can view the spec for the PDF online at Adobe's site. It's terms of use are quite reasonable.
Point 2a makes me think that you should contribute to OO.o in the form making PDF output better. However, point 2b is a little bit too tin-foil hatty for my tastes. There are reasons that PDF has version numbers: feature freeze.
Alternatively, you can measure 1 foot up 1 foot over and the difference should be 2^.5 feet! Nothing could be simpler ;)
However, yours is a really nice tip.
Why should an end user that doesn't need editing capabilities need to view an OO.o document when PDF is the right tool for the job?
Who should care what program generates a document as long as the results are correct?
I understand the desire to make OO.o more ubiquitous, but should that desire take precedence over getting work done?
How is this a funny comment? It makes sense to me. Most people have pdf-viewing capability already on their computer. If that doesn't work, export to freakin' rtf or something like that.
If the choice was between going to war or letting some cheating officials have office, let the damn cheaters have office. There's precedent here that isn't worth challenging.
How many casualties does it take to settle a non-combatant struggle? Judging from the last civil war (not that those numbers would be too good of a metric for this sort of thing) about 110,000 lives (just from combat, not counting disease).
Are casualties really worth a conflict? I suppose a more apropos question would be would this theoretical conflict save our overseas troops lives? I dunno.
Does he know the answers, or merely the questions?
"I can afford to by whatever tools I need for the job" :) /scanning my post repeatedly to ensure grammar and spelling are ok
Unless that job requires a spell-checker
You're close: it'd be the Apple logo with Aqua stripes in it, which are close enough to the IBM stripes. Alternatively, a snowball surrounded by the fiery depths of hell is being considered.
I don't think you understand the context of the conversation--when a developer targets the xbox, they can count on the effects they program being used, there is no lower model to account for, they are all the same. That's a great thing for developers.
Tim makes a great argument in the first part about sticking to open standards, while calling it Open Source. Personally, I can take or leave open source. It's rarely important for me to be able to see how someone else did something. However, having a standard for a project (say MS Exchange Server) handy would allow me to interchange that project with a competitor that provided other value added materials.
Joe argues (I belive rightly so) that opening the source of Quark would have killed Quark (which would have been great in my opinion). However, he does not address opening the format of the Quark file. Doing that would not have killed off Quark, unless there's something I'm missing there, it would have made Quark even more of a standard, since competitors could interoperate with Quark files.
"Of course, nobody will ever make games like that because you would never sell any except to crazy rich people with expensive gaming systems."
Or gaming consoles.
I think that voting is truly an example of a quantum reality: attempting a measure affects the outcome.
I was thinking the same thing. The grandparent may want to consider rewording "Pacific Rim job."
That's not quite insightful, as much as it it "Your Mileage May Vary". For myself, taking long breaks would be necessary if I was to endure watching anything for > 3 hours. Plus, I'd suggest eating something a little more healthy than pizza, as if you'd be amongst a group of friends for 11 hours, the gas would potentially be horrible :)
That statement is funny to me, as when I started using enlightenment back in 199[7|8] I ended up upgrading my machine to support it.
Not that anybody cares.
You're right. Even Visual Studio 2005 uses standards compliance for targets rather than saying IE 5 compatible.