Message to the universe: Keep out, bio-organic contaminates. Considered a hazard to mental health and social/economic well-being of any developed society.
Extremely virulent and agressive. Have been known to exterminate others, both by accident and design. Population doubles in 12.6 standard wens.
Currently contained to one planet, but attempting to expand...
That would probably depend: Are you blocking it just for one customer? Or just from one site?
The common case is that they are blocking all access to a port for a class of customers. (And they say this in the contract any customer in that class has signed.)
There is no favoratism in that approach: Everyone is blocked, regardless of content, politics, etc. The service provider just does not provide service on that port. (And they don't claim to.) That would be legal.
Providing limited service, when you say you provide unlimited, that's a problem. Worse yet is if you descrimiate while doing so...
Thanks for that last sentence, I've been wondering about that.
So, does anyone know about the feasability of active shielding for solar and plastics/water/fuel for GCR? Would having the magnetic coils under the passive shielding help with the braking radiation?
Well, I'll put it on my 'someday' list: I've done some programming in Cocoa, and this should be fairly easy with Webkit. (The hardest part would be figuring out what I need to do to override the default Webkit behaviors.)
Sounds like we would have different objectives.;) (Not a bad thing, just different.) I would question every 'of course', just because I wanted to see what other choices there were. Maybe they are good choices, maybe not. I'd be trying to find out. It's a very theoritical approach. You sound to be more interested in a practical approach. Also useful, just not what I'd me most interested in.
I've never written, or looked at writing a Firefox extension, so I have no idea what they can do. (I use Firefox at work, but at home I use Safari.)
Maybe; I don't know what is possible with an extension in Firefox. But I actually doubt it, and even if you could it probably would defeat the purpose.
The purpose would be to re-think the interface to the web, from the ground up. A click selects a link: What does that mean? Hey, maybe the 'address' bar should hold the current 'selected' link, not the current page (unless you are typing in something else). Benefit: you can edit the link easily, and see where you are going.
Now, if that's the 'selected' link, and you can edit it, does that edit in the page? Probably not, so the page will have to de-select the link as you type.
So, what happens if you click a bookmark? The obvious thing is to select it: load it into the address bar, but not load it. Well, if we can save that back then we have just simplified bookmark management, but we may want to work on how you use bookmarks. Preferably you should double-click them... A new window? (Wait, Firefox has this.)
Oh, and what does 'save' mean?...
The point would be to re-build the UI, from scratch. See if any interesting ideas come from it. An extension, even if it was possible, would prompt you to be lazy: not change anything, just use what is there. But that is exactly what we are examining.
Actually, I agree that Firefox, and web browsing in general, is a bad example for this. They fact that it still works, even margianally, shows the robustness of the theory.
Part of this is just because web browsing was never designed with this in mind, consequently no browser acts in a way that would support this fully.
The basic theory in the ideology is this: One click selects, two executes, and a hold allows movement.
Contrast this to a browser: One click executes, two clicks is irrelevent, and a hold (usually) shows options/alternate actions.
It would be interesting to go back and create a browser that actually followed the 'ideal' rules: you would have to double-click to open a link, but you could put other actions in menus on the top, and the double-click would just be the most common of those. Probably you could drag to open in a tab, or to save the link (or link address, depending on your theory of what is represented) someplace.
Did I say that anyone prevented you from using the second button? The point is to make the developer think about what goes on it, and why. You just descriped a case in point: Firefox is designed with the assumption of a context menu, so it has some actions that can only (well, quibble*, but...) be done through a context menu. This is wrong. All actions should be possible without the context menu. The purpose of the context menu is to give you quick access to likely actions.
*(Actually, the list of things that can only be done through a context menu in Firefox is much shorter than it appears. Some of the actions just take more steps without it. Both of your examples for instance can be converted to a two-step process that doesn't use a context menu.)
Apple is perfectly aware that intelegent users can handle more than one button at a time. They just don't believe that the average developer can handle more than one button at a time. At least, not and keep a good interface.
So, they force the delevopers to think 'Oh, shit: this is a Mac, the user only has one button!', and then they actually think about what goes on the second.
You are right: I knew they were working on it, but I couldn't remember if they had actually launched anyone. (Same with the European Space Agency: have they actually lauched a human?)
Not so odd. The set-up cost of a space program (launch vechicle design, location, landing location, monitering center, etc.) is a very high sunk cost. Russia has it, built and paid for. So all they have to pay for is each launch, and ongoing maintenice. Since their budget has been cut, they have a strong incentive to find alternative funding.
In other words: They have the capablitly set up, and they have a reason. No one else has that: NASA is funded enough to keep going, and no one else has existing human-spaceflight capablity.
No, the story says that the RIAA says that they spend less than they used to spend. There could be several explainations for this, including the one that they are not buying it because they are pirating it instead.
Sorry, but at this point if the RIAA said that the sun rose in the east, I'd check which planet they were talking about. Not that they lie, exactly, just that I've seen them shade the truth enough that I don't trust their numbers.
This isn't farsight: it is "I don't want to do this every *%&#$% time Microsoft finds another hole..."
This said by the head of IT for the company.
At the size of company I'm talking about, the cost of a complete migration can actaully be quite minimal: They test a few nessesary apps, and answer a few help calls. But if Microsoft makes it impossible for one IT guy to do the support, that's a cost.
As I said, this alone isn't enough. It is but one straw on the camel's back.
Large companies do. A medium-sized company (in my terminology, exact cut-off points differ) probably only has a hundered or so employees, not all of whom may need a computer. So, they may not have bought a volume license. Think *just* large enough to have their own IT guy.
You haven't seen the recent Transformers TV series, have you? Messing up is assured.
Beast Wars was good, better than the orginal series. The orginal series... Is not as good as you remember. The other recent TV series (what's the plural for series?) are utter crap.
Probably true... But think about this: You're the IT person for a medium-sized company. You know that Linux is there, and know some stuff about it. You don't use it though.
Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.
Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.
No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.
This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...
Um, Russia should be the *definition* of a second world country... First world was (roughly) the NATO group, Second world was (roughly) Warsaw Pact, Third world was everybody else.
If that's the case, as an INTJ myself I'll say you probably aren't presenting the data correctly. Which is to say, you haven't applied it to whatever criteria he's using to judge the idea, which is what you need to do to get him to listen.
Of course, the criteria he's using may be totally wack, but in all likelyhood his ideas make sense--to him.
(Oh, and I make no representations on whether he's applied the data correctly to the criteria. I'm sure he thinks he has, or that it is irrelevent, but he's only human.;))
OS/2 is still around. This post is being written on an OS/2 machine, in Firefox. (The company where I work uses OS/2 nearly exclusively for desktops, and whenever it can for servers.)
It has some advantages, but from a day-to-day use standpoint right now I feel it combines the worst of Windows and Linux: It doesn't have all the commercial support, and has a limited (MS-DOS like) comandline/compiler tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Message to the universe:
Keep out, bio-organic contaminates. Considered a hazard to mental health and social/economic well-being of any developed society.
Extremely virulent and agressive. Have been known to exterminate others, both by accident and design. Population doubles in 12.6 standard wens.
Currently contained to one planet, but attempting to expand...
So, does anyone have an address where we can write to the FCC and weigh in/complain on this issue?
It might not make much difference, but at least the attempt would have been made...
That would probably depend: Are you blocking it just for one customer? Or just from one site?
The common case is that they are blocking all access to a port for a class of customers. (And they say this in the contract any customer in that class has signed.)
There is no favoratism in that approach: Everyone is blocked, regardless of content, politics, etc. The service provider just does not provide service on that port. (And they don't claim to.) That would be legal.
Providing limited service, when you say you provide unlimited, that's a problem. Worse yet is if you descrimiate while doing so...
Thanks for that last sentence, I've been wondering about that.
So, does anyone know about the feasability of active shielding for solar and plastics/water/fuel for GCR? Would having the magnetic coils under the passive shielding help with the braking radiation?
Well, I'll put it on my 'someday' list: I've done some programming in Cocoa, and this should be fairly easy with Webkit. (The hardest part would be figuring out what I need to do to override the default Webkit behaviors.)
Sounds like we would have different objectives. ;) (Not a bad thing, just different.) I would question every 'of course', just because I wanted to see what other choices there were. Maybe they are good choices, maybe not. I'd be trying to find out. It's a very theoritical approach. You sound to be more interested in a practical approach. Also useful, just not what I'd me most interested in.
I've never written, or looked at writing a Firefox extension, so I have no idea what they can do. (I use Firefox at work, but at home I use Safari.)
Maybe; I don't know what is possible with an extension in Firefox. But I actually doubt it, and even if you could it probably would defeat the purpose.
The purpose would be to re-think the interface to the web, from the ground up. A click selects a link: What does that mean? Hey, maybe the 'address' bar should hold the current 'selected' link, not the current page (unless you are typing in something else). Benefit: you can edit the link easily, and see where you are going.
Now, if that's the 'selected' link, and you can edit it, does that edit in the page? Probably not, so the page will have to de-select the link as you type.
So, what happens if you click a bookmark? The obvious thing is to select it: load it into the address bar, but not load it. Well, if we can save that back then we have just simplified bookmark management, but we may want to work on how you use bookmarks. Preferably you should double-click them... A new window? (Wait, Firefox has this.)
Oh, and what does 'save' mean?...
The point would be to re-build the UI, from scratch. See if any interesting ideas come from it. An extension, even if it was possible, would prompt you to be lazy: not change anything, just use what is there. But that is exactly what we are examining.
Actually, I agree that Firefox, and web browsing in general, is a bad example for this. They fact that it still works, even margianally, shows the robustness of the theory.
Part of this is just because web browsing was never designed with this in mind, consequently no browser acts in a way that would support this fully.
The basic theory in the ideology is this: One click selects, two executes, and a hold allows movement.
Contrast this to a browser: One click executes, two clicks is irrelevent, and a hold (usually) shows options/alternate actions.
It would be interesting to go back and create a browser that actually followed the 'ideal' rules: you would have to double-click to open a link, but you could put other actions in menus on the top, and the double-click would just be the most common of those. Probably you could drag to open in a tab, or to save the link (or link address, depending on your theory of what is represented) someplace.
Did I say that anyone prevented you from using the second button? The point is to make the developer think about what goes on it, and why. You just descriped a case in point: Firefox is designed with the assumption of a context menu, so it has some actions that can only (well, quibble*, but...) be done through a context menu. This is wrong. All actions should be possible without the context menu. The purpose of the context menu is to give you quick access to likely actions.
*(Actually, the list of things that can only be done through a context menu in Firefox is much shorter than it appears. Some of the actions just take more steps without it. Both of your examples for instance can be converted to a two-step process that doesn't use a context menu.)
Apple is perfectly aware that intelegent users can handle more than one button at a time. They just don't believe that the average developer can handle more than one button at a time. At least, not and keep a good interface.
So, they force the delevopers to think 'Oh, shit: this is a Mac, the user only has one button!', and then they actually think about what goes on the second.
Not to be confused with regular gobly-gook: ineffective, inefficient, and incredibly dense code produced wilst 'in the zone'.
Getting the two mixed up has caused all kinds of problems...
And this would stop/slow down Microsoft how?
You are right: I knew they were working on it, but I couldn't remember if they had actually launched anyone. (Same with the European Space Agency: have they actually lauched a human?)
Not so odd. The set-up cost of a space program (launch vechicle design, location, landing location, monitering center, etc.) is a very high sunk cost. Russia has it, built and paid for. So all they have to pay for is each launch, and ongoing maintenice. Since their budget has been cut, they have a strong incentive to find alternative funding.
In other words: They have the capablitly set up, and they have a reason. No one else has that: NASA is funded enough to keep going, and no one else has existing human-spaceflight capablity.
No, the story says that the RIAA says that they spend less than they used to spend. There could be several explainations for this, including the one that they are not buying it because they are pirating it instead.
Sorry, but at this point if the RIAA said that the sun rose in the east, I'd check which planet they were talking about. Not that they lie, exactly, just that I've seen them shade the truth enough that I don't trust their numbers.
This isn't farsight: it is "I don't want to do this every *%&#$% time Microsoft finds another hole..."
This said by the head of IT for the company.
At the size of company I'm talking about, the cost of a complete migration can actaully be quite minimal: They test a few nessesary apps, and answer a few help calls. But if Microsoft makes it impossible for one IT guy to do the support, that's a cost.
As I said, this alone isn't enough. It is but one straw on the camel's back.
Large companies do. A medium-sized company (in my terminology, exact cut-off points differ) probably only has a hundered or so employees, not all of whom may need a computer. So, they may not have bought a volume license. Think *just* large enough to have their own IT guy.
You haven't seen the recent Transformers TV series, have you? Messing up is assured.
Beast Wars was good, better than the orginal series. The orginal series... Is not as good as you remember. The other recent TV series (what's the plural for series?) are utter crap.
Probably true... But think about this: You're the IT person for a medium-sized company. You know that Linux is there, and know some stuff about it. You don't use it though.
Now, Microsoft suddenly decides to make it more labor-intensive to keep your systems up to date: You have to verify the license. It's not much, but it would be enough to make you start looking at Linux a little harder, just after your next update round.
Maybe you'll switch, maybe you won't, but you are thinking about it. If you do, you now will show every user in the company that Linux works. They had probably never heard of it. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe even take a look at it at home. Even if you don't, you may talk about it with your boss. Who make look at it, if you make a good enough case.
No one cost in this is enough to force a switch. But every small cost is enough to make switching just that little bit more attractive. And any one switch is one more real-world example, making more switches more likely.
This is how empires fall. Not all at once, but in pieces...
Um, Russia should be the *definition* of a second world country... First world was (roughly) the NATO group, Second world was (roughly) Warsaw Pact, Third world was everybody else.
Just being unbearably pendantic.
If that's the case, as an INTJ myself I'll say you probably aren't presenting the data correctly. Which is to say, you haven't applied it to whatever criteria he's using to judge the idea, which is what you need to do to get him to listen.
;))
Of course, the criteria he's using may be totally wack, but in all likelyhood his ideas make sense--to him.
(Oh, and I make no representations on whether he's applied the data correctly to the criteria. I'm sure he thinks he has, or that it is irrelevent, but he's only human.
OS/2 is still around. This post is being written on an OS/2 machine, in Firefox. (The company where I work uses OS/2 nearly exclusively for desktops, and whenever it can for servers.)
It has some advantages, but from a day-to-day use standpoint right now I feel it combines the worst of Windows and Linux: It doesn't have all the commercial support, and has a limited (MS-DOS like) comandline/compiler tools.
Most African governments in my experience (check my bio if you want to see if I have any) don't really care about ethnic cleansing.
Taxing, on the other hand, is something every government wants...
Africa is more civilized than most people realize. For good and bad.
Finally! A use for lusers!
OS X on CD/DVD works. How else do you install it?
However, the current system has problems if you try to boot off USB. (Firewire works.)