For web development, the Javascript console, DOM Inspector, web developer and javascript debuggers are a godsend. It makes dealing with CSS and Javasctipt so much quicker and easier.
Re:Had to completely uninstall the Preview Release
on
Firefox 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I had to do the same thing. Still, I don't see it as a problem for 1.0, as long as post 1.0 installs don't have this problem.
After all, pre-1.0 install are installs of beta software, not for the general public, and if you have one you should be clued in enough to be able to remove it first. Now it is for "everyone", install, it ought to install without hassels
No it doesn't. The Googlebar is an extention you need to install.
It does come with a general search, that is usually set to Google by default. If you click on the little arrow you can search with Yahoo, Amazon and others. Choose "Add engine" and you can put just about any seatch engine in. It just does search not all the other stuff the Googlebar does.
IE has something similar, View > Explorer Bar > Search, unsuprisingly it uses MSN and isn't as easy to change. I'm pretty sure you will find Mozilla, Opera and Safari have a search function somewhere too.
This isn't 'fluff' it is a standard part of any modern browser. If you really hate it, just use customise to remove it.
So of course, is someone ignores you, it logically follows that they must then laugh, attack and lose? Of course not. It isn't a magic formula, no guarantee blogs or Linux will 'win'.
I've payed my geek dues and seen some fans of other sci-fi/fantasy/anime stuff take it very seriously indeed. The most extreme I've seen is Vampire LARPers, some are people who internalise and identify with fiction waaaay to much.
Maybe it's the same proportion of people who get, um, carried away, as other stuff, just there are more Trekkies. Also, the public recognises them, so they get picked up on TV documentries and more mainstream stuff becuase you don't have to explain it.
You'd probably need some serious study to know for sure. Someone doing their PHD in fandom or something:)
But Trekkies take it a step farther: they create new material that is meant to merge with the pre-existing Trek world. In this way, Trekkie-ness is more like playing D&D than being in a Sci-Fi film club.
This is hardly unique to Trek, all sorts of TV shows, comics, movies and books have fan fiction. These days quite a lot have fan films. A lot of it is very bad, but that is another issue.
There has to be a non zero probability that a small group of coca plants have a mutated gene which is resistant to whatever herbicide they are using.
Why does there? Some chemicals are so potent that there isn't any resitsance. There isn't, for example, a non-zero probability some small group of humans are resistant to sarin.
If the plants are allowed to pollinate naturally
They weren't, or at least not exclusively. Farmers gave/sold/traded cuttings from plants that seemed to be resistant. This was selective breeding, not genetic engineering, but not exactly "all natrual".
I think you didn't RTFA. They were not suprised is happened without genetic engeeniring, but that it happened so quickly. Even without the engineering, it still happened becuase farmers traded the resitant cuttings.
Nature didn't do these things without human help, the new strain wouldn't have spread that quickly by itself.
How are they not customers because they didn't understand how their computers worked? They payed AOL for a product, that makes them customers. That makes them a customer, and if they leave for another provider, they are a lost customer.
Just goes to prove my point that people who want guns will find them on the black market anyway,
That strikes we as something of an oversimplification. You are saying that no matter how difficult or expensive it is to get a gun illegaly, criminals will end up with as many guns?
Gun control laws aren't going to stop every crinimal getting a gun, but aim to stop some getting guns.
so restricting law-abiding citizens from owning them only serves to strengthen the positions of gun-wielding criminals.
And stop accidents with guns, and stop people using guns in the heat of the moment (they may find other lethal weapons, but the victim has more chance), and reduce the number of criminals with guns.
Lets remember that outside the USA the population of the rest of the 1st world generally doesn't want guns and is largely in favour of them being heavily restricted. They like their much lower murder rates. Some criminals will always get guns, and things like this shooting will always happen. You can't look at one crime though, you have to look at the bigger picture.
So much for a thousands-of-dollars price tag deterring crime.
Citing when counter example doesn't help you disprove a point about a general deterent. Not saying the high price works, but your logic certainly doesn't.
Deterrents will always fail on some people, that doesn't mean you give up on all deterrants.
gun related crime has INCREASED in Australia since the "tough new gun laws" were introduced.
So? Do you think the gun laws are the only factor in gun crime? Of course not. Crime and gun crime is a complex issue, depending on all sorts of social and economic issues.
So the issue is, if there were not any strict gun laws, would the rate be rising faster or slower?
On Slashdot you confuse free as in beer with free as in speach? Still, lets look at the freedom as in rights part.
You see the people freely elect a governement that does this, and if they don't like it they are free to elect one that will change it. Strangely enough, in countries with private health care, you don't find many politicians campaigning against it.
In a perfect world, a government wouldn't need to provide these things, people would never be unfortunate or short sigted enough to need them. Hell, in a perfect world you wouldn't need Governments or taxes.
In the real world you have a choice, let everyone decide and some suffer (both those who could have avoided it and those who couldn't).
All societies require a compromise on freedoms. You have to give some stuff up so everyone, including you, can benefit. Which freedom is more important? Your freedom to spend every bit of your money as you wish, or other people's freedom to live their lives free(er) from sickness?
Sure, some people will then be lazy and take advantage, won't get private healthcare they could afford, but surely to anyone with some basic humanity it is better than letting them become sick or die. That's before you even count
If you feel compelled to put self interest first, consider this. It is in everyone's interest to stop the spread of disease, it isn't like a virus cares if you have health insurance, and some will make you sick and kill you anyway. Good free healthcare benfits everyone, even those with private health insurance.
To safely surf the internet on a PC you need at least, a firewall, virus scanner, ad aware or similar program, and a decent popup blocker. To do the same on a mac, you just need, well, a mac.
I wouldn't connenct any any machine to the net without firewall and anti-virus. Really, nobody should. It isn't like non-Windows OS don't have secureity alerts. Less certainly, but one virus or guy owning your machine is enough.
Sure, you are less likely to suffer for being really stupid and not doing it on the Mac, but that isn't really a good thing. If your right, and the Mac does become more popular, these unprotected people are going to be firing viruses around just like their unprotected PC counterparts. It certainly isn't a waste of system resources to prevent that.
As for websurfing experience, IE on the PC gives you better site compatability that anyother browser/OS. Personally, I use Firefox whenever possible, still need IE for some things. Even Mac IE isn't compatable with the latest IE (IIRC it's more standards compliant in some areas). For a surfing experience (rather than staying secure), Windows/IE still beats anything else, although the gap is closing.
Adware is a very Windows-centric problem. For techy types it's rarely an issue, but for average users who often don't know they have it, using a Mac they certainly wouldn't get the hassles. The catch 22 is the users who know using a Mac would avoid the issue are the ones who could easily avoid it on the PC.
A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails, causing mass spreads of viruses.
I don't think it's ever been true, certainly not for a whule, although for a long time you could trick Outlook and OE into doing that. If anything now Outlook is too secure and won't let you open some stuff at all. Besides, loads of people use non MS mail software, lets not confuse Windows with MS software.
Now out the box a Mac is going to beat a PC senseless for dealing with and editing media. You would have to go out and purchase stuff for the PC bumping up the price.
I'm not at all convinced that using the same software (office, photoshop, whatever) the Mac is more productive. Mac users will be, becuase they know and like that. A lot is going to come down to preferance and familiarity. Looking for some feature in a program is really down to the program design, not the OS.
I'm also sceptical about these non-geeks embracing non-Windows, where are they? Why aren't they reflected in sales? I do think for a relatively clueless users who just wants web, mail, and some media stuff they will be better off with a Mac. You do have to learn less to keep it running OK.
If you are used to PCs, and know what you are doing, the advantage of the Mac "superior experience" seems pretty slight. I've used Macs, their nice to use, but I've not noticed a superior experience for things like web and mail.
If you think it is usual that the naysayers don't try something, why do you find it amazing? Do things you expect usually amaze you? You must find life... amazing.
That makes no sense. The Mafia and the drug/gang scene in Miami were just as real as 90s LA. Lots of people died in all three. All three are equally 'real', all three have games have a fictional protagonist , and fictional location and time modeled on a real one.
Becuase manufacturers don't keep update their Windows drivers? I could see you have a case for older hardware, that isn't really supported and with open source people can continue to improve. Most Windows hardware I've had has had updated drivers over it's lifetime though.
Slashdot Mirror
For web development, the Javascript console, DOM Inspector, web developer and javascript debuggers are a godsend. It makes dealing with CSS and Javasctipt so much quicker and easier.
I had to do the same thing. Still, I don't see it as a problem for 1.0, as long as post 1.0 installs don't have this problem.
After all, pre-1.0 install are installs of beta software, not for the general public, and if you have one you should be clued in enough to be able to remove it first. Now it is for "everyone", install, it ought to install without hassels
No it doesn't. The Googlebar is an extention you need to install.
It does come with a general search, that is usually set to Google by default. If you click on the little arrow you can search with Yahoo, Amazon and others. Choose "Add engine" and you can put just about any seatch engine in. It just does search not all the other stuff the Googlebar does.
IE has something similar, View > Explorer Bar > Search, unsuprisingly it uses MSN and isn't as easy to change. I'm pretty sure you will find Mozilla, Opera and Safari have a search function somewhere too.
This isn't 'fluff' it is a standard part of any modern browser. If you really hate it, just use customise to remove it.
So of course, is someone ignores you, it logically follows that they must then laugh, attack and lose? Of course not. It isn't a magic formula, no guarantee blogs or Linux will 'win'.
I've payed my geek dues and seen some fans of other sci-fi/fantasy/anime stuff take it very seriously indeed. The most extreme I've seen is Vampire LARPers, some are people who internalise and identify with fiction waaaay to much.
Maybe it's the same proportion of people who get, um, carried away, as other stuff, just there are more Trekkies. Also, the public recognises them, so they get picked up on TV documentries and more mainstream stuff becuase you don't have to explain it.
You'd probably need some serious study to know for sure. Someone doing their PHD in fandom or something :)
But Trekkies take it a step farther: they create new material that is meant to merge with the pre-existing Trek world. In this way, Trekkie-ness is more like playing D&D than being in a Sci-Fi film club.
This is hardly unique to Trek, all sorts of TV shows, comics, movies and books have fan fiction. These days quite a lot have fan films. A lot of it is very bad, but that is another issue.
There are already problems with the herbicide killing legal crops that the farmers need to grow for cash.
Can you imagine the repercussions of dropping napalm in the wrong place?
By forcibly limiting the supply, we ensure that few addicts will be willing to share with others.
No, instead you get drug dealers and addicts desperate for cash for their fix. No social cost there, no sir...
There has to be a non zero probability that a small group of coca plants have a mutated gene which is resistant to whatever herbicide they are using.
Why does there? Some chemicals are so potent that there isn't any resitsance. There isn't, for example, a non-zero probability some small group of humans are resistant to sarin.
If the plants are allowed to pollinate naturally
They weren't, or at least not exclusively. Farmers gave/sold/traded cuttings from plants that seemed to be resistant. This was selective breeding, not genetic engineering, but not exactly "all natrual".
I think you didn't RTFA. They were not suprised is happened without genetic engeeniring, but that it happened so quickly. Even without the engineering, it still happened becuase farmers traded the resitant cuttings.
Nature didn't do these things without human help, the new strain wouldn't have spread that quickly by itself.
How are they not customers because they didn't understand how their computers worked? They payed AOL for a product, that makes them customers. That makes them a customer, and if they leave for another provider, they are a lost customer.
Just goes to prove my point that people who want guns will find them on the black market anyway,
That strikes we as something of an oversimplification. You are saying that no matter how difficult or expensive it is to get a gun illegaly, criminals will end up with as many guns?
Gun control laws aren't going to stop every crinimal getting a gun, but aim to stop some getting guns.
so restricting law-abiding citizens from owning them only serves to strengthen the positions of gun-wielding criminals.
And stop accidents with guns, and stop people using guns in the heat of the moment (they may find other lethal weapons, but the victim has more chance), and reduce the number of criminals with guns.
Lets remember that outside the USA the population of the rest of the 1st world generally doesn't want guns and is largely in favour of them being heavily restricted. They like their much lower murder rates. Some criminals will always get guns, and things like this shooting will always happen. You can't look at one crime though, you have to look at the bigger picture.
So much for a thousands-of-dollars price tag deterring crime.
Citing when counter example doesn't help you disprove a point about a general deterent. Not saying the high price works, but your logic certainly doesn't.
Deterrents will always fail on some people, that doesn't mean you give up on all deterrants.
gun related crime has INCREASED in Australia since the "tough new gun laws" were introduced.
So? Do you think the gun laws are the only factor in gun crime? Of course not. Crime and gun crime is a complex issue, depending on all sorts of social and economic issues.
So the issue is, if there were not any strict gun laws, would the rate be rising faster or slower?
On Slashdot you confuse free as in beer with free as in speach? Still, lets look at the freedom as in rights part.
You see the people freely elect a governement that does this, and if they don't like it they are free to elect one that will change it. Strangely enough, in countries with private health care, you don't find many politicians campaigning against it.
In a perfect world, a government wouldn't need to provide these things, people would never be unfortunate or short sigted enough to need them. Hell, in a perfect world you wouldn't need Governments or taxes.
In the real world you have a choice, let everyone decide and some suffer (both those who could have avoided it and those who couldn't).
All societies require a compromise on freedoms. You have to give some stuff up so everyone, including you, can benefit. Which freedom is more important? Your freedom to spend every bit of your money as you wish, or other people's freedom to live their lives free(er) from sickness?
Sure, some people will then be lazy and take advantage, won't get private healthcare they could afford, but surely to anyone with some basic humanity it is better than letting them become sick or die. That's before you even count
If you feel compelled to put self interest first, consider this. It is in everyone's interest to stop the spread of disease, it isn't like a virus cares if you have health insurance, and some will make you sick and kill you anyway. Good free healthcare benfits everyone, even those with private health insurance.
You believe wrong, it isn't even compliant 3.2. Run it through a validator and watch all the problems it shows.
You don't understand, they are actually making it easier for you. Really.
Just back up one song from the album, and a text file that says "more shit like this". Think of the space you save.
Becuase US military planners don't think China will just build more misiles?
To safely surf the internet on a PC you need at least, a firewall, virus scanner, ad aware or similar program, and a decent popup blocker. To do the same on a mac, you just need, well, a mac.
I wouldn't connenct any any machine to the net without firewall and anti-virus. Really, nobody should. It isn't like non-Windows OS don't have secureity alerts. Less certainly, but one virus or guy owning your machine is enough.
Sure, you are less likely to suffer for being really stupid and not doing it on the Mac, but that isn't really a good thing. If your right, and the Mac does become more popular, these unprotected people are going to be firing viruses around just like their unprotected PC counterparts. It certainly isn't a waste of system resources to prevent that.
As for websurfing experience, IE on the PC gives you better site compatability that anyother browser/OS. Personally, I use Firefox whenever possible, still need IE for some things. Even Mac IE isn't compatable with the latest IE (IIRC it's more standards compliant in some areas). For a surfing experience (rather than staying secure), Windows/IE still beats anything else, although the gap is closing.
Adware is a very Windows-centric problem. For techy types it's rarely an issue, but for average users who often don't know they have it, using a Mac they certainly wouldn't get the hassles. The catch 22 is the users who know using a Mac would avoid the issue are the ones who could easily avoid it on the PC.
A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails, causing mass spreads of viruses.
I don't think it's ever been true, certainly not for a whule, although for a long time you could trick Outlook and OE into doing that. If anything now Outlook is too secure and won't let you open some stuff at all. Besides, loads of people use non MS mail software, lets not confuse Windows with MS software.
Now out the box a Mac is going to beat a PC senseless for dealing with and editing media. You would have to go out and purchase stuff for the PC bumping up the price.
I'm not at all convinced that using the same software (office, photoshop, whatever) the Mac is more productive. Mac users will be, becuase they know and like that. A lot is going to come down to preferance and familiarity. Looking for some feature in a program is really down to the program design, not the OS.
I'm also sceptical about these non-geeks embracing non-Windows, where are they? Why aren't they reflected in sales? I do think for a relatively clueless users who just wants web, mail, and some media stuff they will be better off with a Mac. You do have to learn less to keep it running OK.
If you are used to PCs, and know what you are doing, the advantage of the Mac "superior experience" seems pretty slight. I've used Macs, their nice to use, but I've not noticed a superior experience for things like web and mail.
Yes, clicking on the new tab button in Firefox is much more complex than clicking on the new tab button in Mozilla.
And really, how can anyone be expected to click on the bookmark all tabs checkbox in the bookmark dialog? That would baffle a Mensa member.
Yeah, that sort of problem has really cut into portable MP3 players. I mean, it isn't like they are selling millions of the things.
If you think it is usual that the naysayers don't try something, why do you find it amazing? Do things you expect usually amaze you? You must find life... amazing.
That makes no sense. The Mafia and the drug/gang scene in Miami were just as real as 90s LA. Lots of people died in all three. All three are equally 'real', all three have games have a fictional protagonist , and fictional location and time modeled on a real one.
Becuase manufacturers don't keep update their Windows drivers? I could see you have a case for older hardware, that isn't really supported and with open source people can continue to improve. Most Windows hardware I've had has had updated drivers over it's lifetime though.
Someone missed the point. The point isn't to build all these things into Firefox that everyone downloads.
The point is Firefox is an environment you can run these things on in XUL. Firefox already does this.
God knows how you managed to get marked as insightful.