Umm, I believe I said popup/window/alert, and I don't know about you, but I would consider the bar at the top to be a type of alert.
Less intrusive, yes, but I still find it annoying.
Because then you'll constantly get the "An additional plugin is required to view all the content on this page" popup/window/alert everytime you go to a site that uses flash.
So if you can live with that, dont install flashblock.
Because most people can't tell the difference, and it would just end up being more confusing to the customer (i.e. "Why does Britney Spears have some CD's in the CD section, and some CD's in the "Audio Disc" section?" Followed by the "What's an Audio Disc?). That, and because my manager and the regional supervisor say to stack them together (probably because they don't know the difference).
They're not so different, in that they're audio discs meant to be played in a CD player. It's just that one follows the established standards, and will work in practically every CD player, and the other will often not work.
My shop has all audio products in the "CD" section, which includes, CD's, singles, Dual Discs, and music DVD's. We don't have vinyl (well, we got a couple copies of the new U2 album on LP, and a box set of Metallica LP's, that's about it since I've been there).
I asked my manager what we should do if a customer has one of these "may not work with your player" disks and it doesn't work, and she said "Well, unfortunately, we can't take it back." So, I try to point out the warning on the disc to the customers, telling them that if the disc doesn't work that they'll be unable to bring it back, and if they have a problem with this, to contact the record label/distribution company and complain.
I think we're both saying basically the same thing. People complain about there being no OSS tool that'll do the job, but no one has made (from what I can tell) any serious effort to develop one.
I'm sure most of you have noticed the little notice that says that these discs (the CD side of a DualDisc), wont work on all cd players because they don't conform to CD standards. I see more and more CD's with that notice coming out, and I see at work (I work in a record shop, but it's not as cool as Empire Records, but, what could be?) many people trying to bring these discs back because they don't work in their players (discmans, home stereos, car players, computers, whatever), but they can't get a refund because what CD store gives refunds for open CD's? Not any I've been to. Hell, you can't even try it in the store, because even though may work in the store (which, none did in any of my store's players), it still might not work in yours.
So, we have discs that won't work in every player, no way of finding out what players they do work in without buying one and trying it in your players (their website doesn't say more than what I've told you, http://www.sonybmg.com/dualdisc/), and then, no way of getting your money back if they don't work. What I see resulting is a growing number of pissed off customers, who will likely download the next album (and the one they did buy) before spending money on a disc that won't likely work.
Yes, you should use the best tool for the job, but if you're developing free/open source software, and a large component of your development rig is a proprietary piece of software, what kind of message does that send to other developers, or to the public? It's not so much that it didn't harm development or the end product, it's that it could give the impression that even the "big shots" of the OSS world still use proprietary products because they're "better" than any available OSS project. It says that the OSS "equivalents" were not good enough, and that can reflect negatively on other OSS projects.
There should have been an organized effort at creating an OSS project that would work as well (or, preferably better) than BK. If there wasn't an OSS tool that was the best choice, one should have been developed.
I can't say I've experienced this error. I just logged in and out of my 4 yahoo accounts and no problems. I don't have the abovementioned mplayer-plugin problem either.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050303 Firefox/1.0+
Downloaded binary from mozilla.org on a Debian Testing system.
I'm sure it's been said already
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
but I just don't care.
Doesn't FF/Mozilla have all the features that MS is planning on including in IE7?
I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I bought mine so I wouldn't have to lug around a stack of CD's when I wanted to listent to something different.
I would think, that with the popularity of mp3 players (esp. the iPod), that the majority of consumers would be made up of people who listen to "Top 40" radio and watch MTV/MuchMusic/VH1.
As a counterpoint, I haven't had to use Internet Explorer, aside from using the "Windows Update" function on a couple family computers, in about 3 years.
So one "study" ran by a pair of guys says Microsoft is more secure. Fuck-a-doodle-doo. How many tests and real-life experiences say Linux/BSD/etc. is more secure?
If this were hockey (we'd all be somewhere else, maybe talking about Mac's) the score would be MS-1 : Linux/BSD-1000000000000 (or something to that effect).
Slashdot Mirror
True.
Umm, I believe I said popup/window/alert, and I don't know about you, but I would consider the bar at the top to be a type of alert. Less intrusive, yes, but I still find it annoying.
Maybe someone should, but till then, you can install Flash, install Flashblock, or live with the "Plugin Required" alert.
Because then you'll constantly get the "An additional plugin is required to view all the content on this page" popup/window/alert everytime you go to a site that uses flash.
So if you can live with that, dont install flashblock.
That was Wesley Snipes in the first Blade movie.
Because most people can't tell the difference, and it would just end up being more confusing to the customer (i.e. "Why does Britney Spears have some CD's in the CD section, and some CD's in the "Audio Disc" section?" Followed by the "What's an Audio Disc?). That, and because my manager and the regional supervisor say to stack them together (probably because they don't know the difference).
They're not so different, in that they're audio discs meant to be played in a CD player. It's just that one follows the established standards, and will work in practically every CD player, and the other will often not work.
My shop has all audio products in the "CD" section, which includes, CD's, singles, Dual Discs, and music DVD's. We don't have vinyl (well, we got a couple copies of the new U2 album on LP, and a box set of Metallica LP's, that's about it since I've been there).
I asked my manager what we should do if a customer has one of these "may not work with your player" disks and it doesn't work, and she said "Well, unfortunately, we can't take it back." So, I try to point out the warning on the disc to the customers, telling them that if the disc doesn't work that they'll be unable to bring it back, and if they have a problem with this, to contact the record label/distribution company and complain.
I guess the next thing to do would be to inform the stores/labels why we're not buying discs.
I think we're both saying basically the same thing. People complain about there being no OSS tool that'll do the job, but no one has made (from what I can tell) any serious effort to develop one.
I'd just like to know why.
I'm sure most of you have noticed the little notice that says that these discs (the CD side of a DualDisc), wont work on all cd players because they don't conform to CD standards. I see more and more CD's with that notice coming out, and I see at work (I work in a record shop, but it's not as cool as Empire Records, but, what could be?) many people trying to bring these discs back because they don't work in their players (discmans, home stereos, car players, computers, whatever), but they can't get a refund because what CD store gives refunds for open CD's? Not any I've been to. Hell, you can't even try it in the store, because even though may work in the store (which, none did in any of my store's players), it still might not work in yours.
So, we have discs that won't work in every player, no way of finding out what players they do work in without buying one and trying it in your players (their website doesn't say more than what I've told you, http://www.sonybmg.com/dualdisc/), and then, no way of getting your money back if they don't work. What I see resulting is a growing number of pissed off customers, who will likely download the next album (and the one they did buy) before spending money on a disc that won't likely work.
I know I don't buy any CD has that warning.
Yes, you should use the best tool for the job, but if you're developing free/open source software, and a large component of your development rig is a proprietary piece of software, what kind of message does that send to other developers, or to the public? It's not so much that it didn't harm development or the end product, it's that it could give the impression that even the "big shots" of the OSS world still use proprietary products because they're "better" than any available OSS project. It says that the OSS "equivalents" were not good enough, and that can reflect negatively on other OSS projects.
There should have been an organized effort at creating an OSS project that would work as well (or, preferably better) than BK. If there wasn't an OSS tool that was the best choice, one should have been developed.
I'd buy it.
I can't say I've experienced this error. I just logged in and out of my 4 yahoo accounts and no problems. I don't have the abovementioned mplayer-plugin problem either.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050303 Firefox/1.0+
Downloaded binary from mozilla.org on a Debian Testing system.
but I just don't care.
Doesn't FF/Mozilla have all the features that MS is planning on including in IE7?
Funny, I have very little problems with Firefox/Thunderbird, certainly no more than what I had with Mozilla Suite.
1) Wasnt AOTC PG?
2) Bambi's a male (hence, why he grows up to have antlers)
Maybe he got demoted?
I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I bought mine so I wouldn't have to lug around a stack of CD's when I wanted to listent to something different.
I would think, that with the popularity of mp3 players (esp. the iPod), that the majority of consumers would be made up of people who listen to "Top 40" radio and watch MTV/MuchMusic/VH1.
As a counterpoint, I haven't had to use Internet Explorer, aside from using the "Windows Update" function on a couple family computers, in about 3 years.
And I still have never experienced the bug you're all talking about.
And buy from who? Or should he just do without a video card?
Yeah, but Gates isn't limiting himself to stealing from the rich, he hit's the poor, too (and sometimes worse). He's an equal opportunity thief.
I believe he's referring to what make is your DVD drive (i.e. what Laptop are you using, etc.)
That must be one big speck of lint
So one "study" ran by a pair of guys says Microsoft is more secure. Fuck-a-doodle-doo. How many tests and real-life experiences say Linux/BSD/etc. is more secure?
If this were hockey (we'd all be somewhere else, maybe talking about Mac's) the score would be MS-1 : Linux/BSD-1000000000000 (or something to that effect).
Ah, fuck it. I really don't give a shit.
So, my argument is silly because it points out that not everyone will believe that the BSDL is more fair?
Perhaps, we have different qualifications for something being "fair"?
All I was pointing out is that the BSDL is no more "fair" than the GPL. It's all a matter of whom you talk to and what they want from a licence.