Using -ProfileManager won't blow away your data. The point of using -ProfileManager is to create a *new* profile which sits alongside your already-existing one, which will basically act as a clean installation. You can then switch back and forth with -ProfileManager as you choose, although you have to close all your browser windows before you can switch profile.
It also would have been far less enjoyable, and way too easy. Think about it - half of the fun of Portal is working out how to do flings or double-jumps in the right way to get where you want to go (although I personally don't think flinging was explored far enough in the game). In your proposal, you would essentially 'stick' to whichever surface you opened a portal on. It might make for some weird disorientation effects but if you can stick to a surface then there's no real skill involved. What skill would there be?
The poster didn't say anything about Linux. And he also didn't say anything at all about intellectual property, which we all know is a rather silly way of trying to exert control.
What he said was:...it's almost guaranteed that [free software] does infringe software patents (both those existing now, and those that will be granted in the future).
And guess what? It's true. It really is.
It's not just restricted to free software, of course - *any* piece of software, even those coming from Microsoft, are pretty much guaranteed to infringe on some software patent somewhere. The reason is pretty clear - it's because software patents are granted for things that are way too obvious, which is the one of the reasons why they're so utterly stupid. This was actually explored pretty well in this episode of Security Now! from grc.com. Do take a listen, or at least read the transcript on that page.
Now, did the poster say that they agreed with software patents? I certainly can't see that anywhere, so if you manage to find it I'd love to know. The use of the word "infringe" doesn't count; after all, the patents *are* being infringed on. They're just utterly silly patents that should be thrown out, and notice that I didn't say that the patents are *right*.
Notice that I also haven't said that the patent owners should win in court if they have a software patent. Most likely, they shouldn't, and you pretty much won't ever find me backing Microsoft in a battle against FOSS.
Do software patents constitute a kind of 'intellectual property'? Not in my books; not in the way I understand IP. The idea that it does is ludicrous.
Yes, Linux code infringes on software patents. Which ones? I don't know, but I'm fairly sure it does. Are these software patents *right*? Does Linux contain anybody else's 'intellectual property'? Hell no.
No probs.:) I'm in Dallas too. According to the forums, the hosts should have started shipping to their destination by now and the Linode staff are hoping to start migrating people at the weekend.
I was the user who posted the entry in no_lj_ads, and commented on the post in lj_ads.
I know you're probably not referring to me, but for reference, I'm not LiveJournal staff and nor do I play one on TV. I hate LiveJournal ads and I wish they would get rid of them already.
Just to clear things up for anybody who was wondering.
I wish to eat my own words here. Well, I don't wish to, but I need to, because I'm wrong.
Turns out I forgot two important things - an XML declaration, and an xmlns attribute on the HTML tag, without which all the tags in the file are meaningless. Why didn't the validator detect these? Because it already knew that this was an XHTML file from the doctype, and because without the xmlns attribute it didn't know what to validate the existing tags against.
Adding those two things gives us http://matrix.theblob.org/xhtml-3.html , which displays properly in Firefox. It also happens to display properly in IE, but it isn't following the specs - that can be proven by http://matrix.theblob.org/xhtml-4.html . That's a malformed file, and Firefox will quite correctly choke on it, whereas IE will display it - meaning that it's not using a proper XML parser.
Interestingly, this means that Opera also isn't following the specs, since it displayed the link in the parent as if it had the xmlns attribute already in it, when it didn't. That's not good.
That's fine. I think the mods simply misread that *your* comment was making the point that I was making to you. But yeah, I could tell that's not true.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless he logged out, I assume.
I have one of those too - a Gateway 2000 AnyKey. I haven't come across another keyboard like it.
If you have a different keyboard, what is it? I'd love to know.
Very useful if you are in the office and find you forgot to close the connection at home.
You can also use 'screen -d -R' if you wanted to detach it first.
(I use 'screen -x' myself, but just letting you know there are other, perhaps better ways to do what you're looking to do.)
First of all, it would be
DELETE * FROM comments WHERE poster_name="Anonymous Coward";
Actually, no, it wouldn't. The DELETE command doesn't take field names. You'd either do an ALTER TABLE or an UPDATE to do what you want.
(yes, I checked against multiple SQL references, all for different products, before opening my big mouth.)
Using -ProfileManager won't blow away your data. The point of using -ProfileManager is to create a *new* profile which sits alongside your already-existing one, which will basically act as a clean installation. You can then switch back and forth with -ProfileManager as you choose, although you have to close all your browser windows before you can switch profile.
It also would have been far less enjoyable, and way too easy. Think about it - half of the fun of Portal is working out how to do flings or double-jumps in the right way to get where you want to go (although I personally don't think flinging was explored far enough in the game). In your proposal, you would essentially 'stick' to whichever surface you opened a portal on. It might make for some weird disorientation effects but if you can stick to a surface then there's no real skill involved. What skill would there be?
I'd like to know about this puzzle for which it's the only conceivable way, because I never used that trick at all during my playing of the game.
But you WHERE fooled ;-) She tricked you into destroying her "morality core".
:P
There's a difference between "being fooled" and "playing the game". What *else* could you do at that point?
(psssst... you can use loadable modules on Gentoo and LFS too.)
The poster didn't say anything about Linux. And he also didn't say anything at all about intellectual property, which we all know is a rather silly way of trying to exert control.
...it's almost guaranteed that [free software] does infringe software patents (both those existing now, and those that will be granted in the future).
What he said was:
And guess what? It's true. It really is.
It's not just restricted to free software, of course - *any* piece of software, even those coming from Microsoft, are pretty much guaranteed to infringe on some software patent somewhere. The reason is pretty clear - it's because software patents are granted for things that are way too obvious, which is the one of the reasons why they're so utterly stupid. This was actually explored pretty well in this episode of Security Now! from grc.com. Do take a listen, or at least read the transcript on that page.
Now, did the poster say that they agreed with software patents? I certainly can't see that anywhere, so if you manage to find it I'd love to know. The use of the word "infringe" doesn't count; after all, the patents *are* being infringed on. They're just utterly silly patents that should be thrown out, and notice that I didn't say that the patents are *right*.
Notice that I also haven't said that the patent owners should win in court if they have a software patent. Most likely, they shouldn't, and you pretty much won't ever find me backing Microsoft in a battle against FOSS.
Do software patents constitute a kind of 'intellectual property'? Not in my books; not in the way I understand IP. The idea that it does is ludicrous.
Yes, Linux code infringes on software patents. Which ones? I don't know, but I'm fairly sure it does. Are these software patents *right*? Does Linux contain anybody else's 'intellectual property'? Hell no.
You forgot something. The juice joke doesn't make sense without that. :P
Looking at a quick Google search, Thinstaller appears to be adware.
They bought .NET, of course.
No probs. :) I'm in Dallas too. According to the forums, the hosts should have started shipping to their destination by now and the Linode staff are hoping to start migrating people at the weekend.
Are you in the Dallas datacenter? Because if not, you might want to reboot again. ;-)
Works for me for OOo 2.2.0 on Gentoo.
Actually, both words are correct the way the parent commenter used them; he was referring to the meaning being different.
:)
"P2P affected sales" means that P2P had an effect on sales, whether good or bad.
"P2P effected sales" means that P2P *caused* sales.
Regarding your first two points, who said he was using XHTML? Those are only XHTML rules, not HTML ones.
The semicolon thing I can agree with, though.
I was the user who posted the entry in no_lj_ads, and commented on the post in lj_ads.
I know you're probably not referring to me, but for reference, I'm not LiveJournal staff and nor do I play one on TV. I hate LiveJournal ads and I wish they would get rid of them already.
Just to clear things up for anybody who was wondering.
Damn, if I had mod points I would so mod this comment up. I would love to be able to choose what design I see.
Poor, misunderstood emails. All they ever wanted was to be loved. :(
Do browsers even have exposed functionality for rendering in a backbuffer? And even if they did, how would you use it except by using JavaScript?
I wish to eat my own words here. Well, I don't wish to, but I need to, because I'm wrong.
Turns out I forgot two important things - an XML declaration, and an xmlns attribute on the HTML tag, without which all the tags in the file are meaningless. Why didn't the validator detect these? Because it already knew that this was an XHTML file from the doctype, and because without the xmlns attribute it didn't know what to validate the existing tags against.
Adding those two things gives us http://matrix.theblob.org/xhtml-3.html , which displays properly in Firefox. It also happens to display properly in IE, but it isn't following the specs - that can be proven by http://matrix.theblob.org/xhtml-4.html . That's a malformed file, and Firefox will quite correctly choke on it, whereas IE will display it - meaning that it's not using a proper XML parser.
Interestingly, this means that Opera also isn't following the specs, since it displayed the link in the parent as if it had the xmlns attribute already in it, when it didn't. That's not good.
In short, every browser sucks.
Firefox doesn't have proper support for it either, assuming you meant "application/xhtml+xml". I know, I've tried it.
If you don't believe me, try it for yourself: http://matrix.theblob.org/xhtml.html . That's a valid XHTML page served up with a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml.
* IE prompts you to download it.
* Firefox presents you with a XML tree.
* Safari renders it correctly.
I hate IE as much as you do, but Firefox has some way to go too.
That's fine. I think the mods simply misread that *your* comment was making the point that I was making to you. But yeah, I could tell that's not true.