The article only says that INTRANET pages are not shown in standards-compliant mode by default.
And beyond that this is a BETA release, not the final release. But hey, why let reality get in the way of a good Microsoft trashing.
So you're arguing it's a bug?
If it were an alpha release then that's fine. But if the feature is missing and they didn't manage to implement it right, rather than being altered out of choice - I don't see how that's better?
It sounds like you're buying a wedding band as an engagement ring (which I've not come across before, yet noone seems to have mentioned it).If your wife-to-be is going to wear any other ring alongside this one then you need to consider the relative hardness. With gold the higher carat value the softer.
Also, if you've got a bad memory (like me) you might consider having the date of your wedding inscribed inside the band... if your memory is really bad then get your wife's name put in there too. http://dot-jewellery.co.uk/commissions.php?c=emboss sounds like a nice way to do this, or something similar.
I'd probably have gone for a Mobius strip if I was rich enough to commission a ring.
Lastly, this is your gift to her.. I don't think you need to choose exactly what she would choose for herself. But, do remember the idea is for her to wear it for the rest of her life.
How silly. No, every woman does not dream of that. I got married in Vegas to avoid such a (to me) preposterous display, and I've never regretted it for a moment.
I call denial, either that or you're a post-op transexual.
It uninstalls?... I thought MS usually tried to break uninstall to help you avoid the mistake of going back to older stuff that works better.
[/bitchy]
Seriously though I didn't look hard but I couldn't find the info in the install notes, etc., about whether it uninstalled, nor did it warn at any point that it would overwrite IE7. I was assuming that the current beta would be a standalone install that I could add to my multiple-IEs virtualbox machine.
I'm so not saying it's right. However if you want to see their content they have a total right to demand that in return you view their ads, they could even have a site use contract that says you agree to read every advert (it may impact use stats a little!!).
There is an implicit contract in viewing a website that you agree to receive the whole content for viewing in your browser - thus in a very real sense you are not free to ignore the ads.
Yes, yes I know they open their website up and you read it by piping wget through a ring-buffer - that's fine, you'll get text-ads (or possibly nothing depending what sniffing / mod_security rules they have in place).
Slashdot is just like any other large _corporate_ site. How much are we the unsubscribed users paying Slashdot, how much is Dice paying, who wins? Dice do.
excellent advertising, because it's something I actually wanted!
At want point in the advertisers wet-dream did you decide you wanted it? If you'd not seen this ad would you have maybe forgotten about that game and bought something else? Or even perhaps just saved the cash.
I don't care how targetted the ads are, I don't have money to waste on frippery and I don't want to be psychologically persuaded into purchasing something (or being pursuaded I'm missing out) just because some companies shareholders require more cash.. I don't want any ads.
I know that so un-US-american, but I'm not USAmerican.
I know you're joking but, with on-the-fly content rewriting controlled by MS they can wipe out a lot of Google revenue. In about 4 months IE7 took about 40% reported market share. Imagine if that 40% (who I'd argue are more likely than FF users to be buying online than using the 'net for leisure/computing/hobbying) disappeared from Google stats almost overnight.
Block untrusted sites and trackers - includes Google. Replace whitespace with "relevant content" from "trusted partners". Now all adspace can belong to MS and of course with control at the user end adspace can be sold and targetted very precisely. This user has expensive sound equipment, this user uses Vista Business Overpriced Ultimate, this user has an ultra-cheap Lexmark (and ripped off MS Windows), etc..
If the parent post had just used email-case (aka lowercase) throughout I wouldn't have bothered. But it seems perverse to go the trouble of using capitals at the start of your sentences, where they are largely redundant, and then use lowercase where it changes the meaning entirely.
Oh, and could you read the above back to me because I can't;0)>
I'd have thought that it's possible in a limited scenario to produce the same machine code from various high-level languages. It surely depends on the compilation not the language?
Yup, watched the whole dam thing - that prof. was quite entertaining. But by the time the cop finished I was wondering what the mindset must be in the USA that law professors and police detectives tell their citizens to avoid providing evidence to help the police.
If you need a business policy then the party is probably a zoning violation (aka "contravenes planning law"). If you're noisy and the police come that's double jeopardy.
That damage may be to persons or property. Even if it's the church women's knitting group someone will spill hot tea on their doilies [that's got to be a euphemism for something]. If there's insurance, they'll sue.
OK, first video (7:44) - his point is that you've probably committed an offence and you shouldn't talk to the police because they may find out. So the reason you won't let the police search your laptop is that you believe yourself to be guilty of a crime. Which was my point. I said if he's innocent he'd let them see the laptop.
I really really don't think that you'll get serious jail-time if they find a picture of you holding a "short lobster" on your laptop!
And then you get into some of the reasons why your legal system is really messed up. In the UK a police officer serves the public good (or they should), they are a neutral witness, they answer the questions on the stand they're asked. According to this guy the police are barred from saying anything which may aid the defence - that's in direct opposition to "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Seriously,... that's perverse.
How much compensation did you get. Your work lost property which they can prove (testimony + backups) was destroyed whilst in police custody. They must have got quite a lot?
The FBI aren't going to copy your "trade secrets" and sell them to the Russians.
This is not just a case of someone knocking on the door with no evidence and saying I have a warrant to search your laptop. A crime was witnessed by officers who represent the legal establishment of your country.
As for the idea that you have pictures of your wife on there. That's fine, but that's not the guys defence. If it's true, tell the judge (via your attorney). You'll need to have your wife take the stand of course. It shifts the balance of probabilities but when they ask the police "was that the woman you saw" and they say "there were several different females" you'd better have a good answer.
If the only thing you think is important is to not be prosecuted when you follow the leaders rules and a free market economy
When did China stop being communist?
I'm from the UK incidentally.
Anyway, who is this leader - I live in a representative democracy. The leader is the people. Sure they take a while to change their momentum but it's government by some of the people on behalf of the rest of them. It's far from perfect but there's no "leader" with supreme power nor authority.
So your point is that rather than prove his innocence against claims of retaining child porn on his computer he is choosing to "resist efforts to trash the civil rights of U.S. citizens". Those police must have just seen wrong - he's a freedom fighter "sticking it to the man"?
Individual rights are important, but so are group rights.
If the sacred core of/your/ state is to get paedophiles freed because they use encryption then I'm more glad today that I'm not a part of it.
Slashdot Mirror
And beyond that this is a BETA release, not the final release. But hey, why let reality get in the way of a good Microsoft trashing.
So you're arguing it's a bug?
If it were an alpha release then that's fine. But if the feature is missing and they didn't manage to implement it right, rather than being altered out of choice - I don't see how that's better?
Interesting I can't say how much I paid as I don't wish my wife to know, unless she wants to ask me.
But, unfortunately I had to pay for the most expensive bit.
What couldn't you smelt the metal and make your own cast?
A real geek starts by making a spade and pick-axe and takes it from there ...
... he's hoping his gf will post and tell him what she wants.
Let's hope those numbers match ...!
Slightly below average is ideal.
(cf Craniopagus Parasiticus, though I've not actually checked that bodily conjoined twins don't balance this out).
It sounds like you're buying a wedding band as an engagement ring (which I've not come across before, yet noone seems to have mentioned it).If your wife-to-be is going to wear any other ring alongside this one then you need to consider the relative hardness. With gold the higher carat value the softer.
Also, if you've got a bad memory (like me) you might consider having the date of your wedding inscribed inside the band ... if your memory is really bad then get your wife's name put in there too. http://dot-jewellery.co.uk/commissions.php?c=emboss sounds like a nice way to do this, or something similar.
I'd probably have gone for a Mobius strip if I was rich enough to commission a ring.
Lastly, this is your gift to her .. I don't think you need to choose exactly what she would choose for herself. But, do remember the idea is for her to wear it for the rest of her life.
How silly. No, every woman does not dream of that. I got married in Vegas to avoid such a (to me) preposterous display, and I've never regretted it for a moment.
I call denial, either that or you're a post-op transexual.
It uninstalls? ... I thought MS usually tried to break uninstall to help you avoid the mistake of going back to older stuff that works better.
[/bitchy]
Seriously though I didn't look hard but I couldn't find the info in the install notes, etc., about whether it uninstalled, nor did it warn at any point that it would overwrite IE7. I was assuming that the current beta would be a standalone install that I could add to my multiple-IEs virtualbox machine.
I'm so not saying it's right. However if you want to see their content they have a total right to demand that in return you view their ads, they could even have a site use contract that says you agree to read every advert (it may impact use stats a little!!).
There is an implicit contract in viewing a website that you agree to receive the whole content for viewing in your browser - thus in a very real sense you are not free to ignore the ads.
Yes, yes I know they open their website up and you read it by piping wget through a ring-buffer - that's fine, you'll get text-ads (or possibly nothing depending what sniffing / mod_security rules they have in place).
Slashdot is just like any other large _corporate_ site. How much are we the unsubscribed users paying Slashdot, how much is Dice paying, who wins? Dice do.
excellent advertising, because it's something I actually wanted!
At want point in the advertisers wet-dream did you decide you wanted it? If you'd not seen this ad would you have maybe forgotten about that game and bought something else? Or even perhaps just saved the cash.
I don't care how targetted the ads are, I don't have money to waste on frippery and I don't want to be psychologically persuaded into purchasing something (or being pursuaded I'm missing out) just because some companies shareholders require more cash .. I don't want any ads.
I know that so un-US-american, but I'm not USAmerican.
I know you're joking but, with on-the-fly content rewriting controlled by MS they can wipe out a lot of Google revenue. In about 4 months IE7 took about 40% reported market share. Imagine if that 40% (who I'd argue are more likely than FF users to be buying online than using the 'net for leisure/computing/hobbying) disappeared from Google stats almost overnight.
Block untrusted sites and trackers - includes Google. Replace whitespace with "relevant content" from "trusted partners". Now all adspace can belong to MS and of course with control at the user end adspace can be sold and targetted very precisely. This user has expensive sound equipment, this user uses Vista Business Overpriced Ultimate, this user has an ultra-cheap Lexmark (and ripped off MS Windows), etc..
Scary-biscuits.
The classic geek "blah-blah-Lassie-blah-blah" just spooks them.
To be honest if Lassie is blocking your ads for you I'd be a bit spooked. Do you find that mostly dog-food ads get through?
Lassie: Woof-woof, wooof, wroofff
You: What's that Lassie you've altered my squid-proxy to block the latest MSN ads, attaway Lassie.
---
Perhaps you were thinking of "laissez" as in "to let [go of something|something happen]"?
Yes, I'm illiterate! Netcraft confirms it.
If the parent post had just used email-case (aka lowercase) throughout I wouldn't have bothered. But it seems perverse to go the trouble of using capitals at the start of your sentences, where they are largely redundant, and then use lowercase where it changes the meaning entirely.
Oh, and could you read the above back to me because I can't ;0)>
---
Yes, I'm a fan of run-on sentences.
I'd have thought that it's possible in a limited scenario to produce the same machine code from various high-level languages. It surely depends on the compilation not the language?
[You're right, I'm not a programmer]
6mb? What the heck is a milli-bit?
Perhaps you meant 6Mb, so 0.000715255737 megabytes?
Or just maybe 6MB or 50 million bits.
Ooo, did I just invent a new type of /. nazism - the SI-Nazi??
sorry, yeah, it was a game show over the pond wasn't it, i meant "twice as troublesome"
Yup, watched the whole dam thing - that prof. was quite entertaining. But by the time the cop finished I was wondering what the mindset must be in the USA that law professors and police detectives tell their citizens to avoid providing evidence to help the police.
If you need a business policy then the party is probably a zoning violation (aka "contravenes planning law"). If you're noisy and the police come that's double jeopardy.
There's a joke there involving venn diagrams, but i'll leave it to someone else.
40 people in a house = damage
That damage may be to persons or property. Even if it's the church women's knitting group someone will spill hot tea on their doilies [that's got to be a euphemism for something]. If there's insurance, they'll sue.
Nice lacy doilies ain't cheap!
OK, first video (7:44) - his point is that you've probably committed an offence and you shouldn't talk to the police because they may find out. So the reason you won't let the police search your laptop is that you believe yourself to be guilty of a crime. Which was my point. I said if he's innocent he'd let them see the laptop.
I really really don't think that you'll get serious jail-time if they find a picture of you holding a "short lobster" on your laptop!
And then you get into some of the reasons why your legal system is really messed up. In the UK a police officer serves the public good (or they should), they are a neutral witness, they answer the questions on the stand they're asked. According to this guy the police are barred from saying anything which may aid the defence - that's in direct opposition to "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Seriously, ... that's perverse.
How much compensation did you get. Your work lost property which they can prove (testimony + backups) was destroyed whilst in police custody. They must have got quite a lot?
You guys watch too much TV.
The FBI aren't going to copy your "trade secrets" and sell them to the Russians.
This is not just a case of someone knocking on the door with no evidence and saying I have a warrant to search your laptop. A crime was witnessed by officers who represent the legal establishment of your country.
As for the idea that you have pictures of your wife on there. That's fine, but that's not the guys defence. If it's true, tell the judge (via your attorney). You'll need to have your wife take the stand of course. It shifts the balance of probabilities but when they ask the police "was that the woman you saw" and they say "there were several different females" you'd better have a good answer.
If the only thing you think is important is to not be prosecuted when you follow the leaders rules and a free market economy
When did China stop being communist?
I'm from the UK incidentally.
Anyway, who is this leader - I live in a representative democracy. The leader is the people. Sure they take a while to change their momentum but it's government by some of the people on behalf of the rest of them. It's far from perfect but there's no "leader" with supreme power nor authority.
So your point is that rather than prove his innocence against claims of retaining child porn on his computer he is choosing to "resist efforts to trash the civil rights of U.S. citizens". Those police must have just seen wrong - he's a freedom fighter "sticking it to the man"?
Individual rights are important, but so are group rights.
If the sacred core of /your/ state is to get paedophiles freed because they use encryption then I'm more glad today that I'm not a part of it.