Who needs to wash their face first? Dry shaves are easy with a good electric shaver. I use PhiliShave; always does the job for me. Have to take a shower after though or the skin irritation gets annoying.
The US version of representational democracy / republic isn't a total crock of ****:) Its the least worst of all systems anybody has managed to come up with.
violate them as an act of civil disobedience and accept the consequences in the hope of gaining sympathy for your cause and eventual change.
Seems that was one of the things he was doing; *I'm* sympathetic with his plight and hope that change happens. Unfortunately I'm not USian and don't have a few billion to bribe your politicians with, so I can't do much about it.
There are certainly times and places where censorship is a lesser evil than what it's meant to prevent. However, we all probably agree that those times are few and far between
The founding fathers of the US didn't agree with you and nor do I.
Middle clicking on a tab will also close the tab without your having to nail the [X] with the pointer.
Does it, in Linux? Certainly 1.5 didn't do it the Windows way; middle click tried to open the URL of whatever you currently had copied into the clipboard. I always HATED this behaviour, but apparently it's intuitive for Linux users.
Gah. That's still *way* under-saturated. I don't understand why so many people like this theme, the icons look so washed out it really makes it look amateurish, IMHO. Winstripe had virtually no opacity change on mouseover (just like the theme for virtually every other GUI program out there), and looks MUCH nicer. What's the point in designing vivid, colourful icons if they're only gonna be in full colour 0.01% of the time (on mouseover)??
Prey tell, does anybody know of a theme that REMOVES the opacity change on mouseover, and just leaves all the icons at 100% opacity all the time? That's what I'd like. I looked into making it myself, but from that above theme it looks like quite a lot of work.:-\ Until I find such a theme, I'll be using this.
I'm amazed by the apathy about Firefox's new icons. Do they really not bother people?
I and hundreds of other people have been actively commenting, throughout the betas, that the new icons looked *horrible*. The main problem is their ridiculously low default opacity, seemingly for the sole reason that they could increase it to 100% when the mouse is over the icon. This is a BAD IDEA, and I have no idea why the developers of the theme stubbornly refuse to admit it. Those washed out icons did, and continue to, look awful.
Whatsmore, the icons themselves are nasty. They don't scale down (small icons) well, they look frankly amateurish compared to Winstripe, and any extension that inserts its own icon into the toolbar (like mine) will immediately look out of place, because its default opacity isn't about 50% like the rest of the icons. Sorry Firefox, but I think this new theme SUCKS BIGTIME. The first thing I did was grab the classic Winstripe theme.
Scrapping public service or finding other means of funding is hardly an option considering how vitally important it is for a country to maintain its own public service infrastructure for use in emergencies such as natural catastrophies, war and not least independence.
Quite. There's ample evidence to show that The US, Canada, Spain, Bulgaria, New Zealand, Australia, and most of the rest of the world that doesn't have a public service broadcaster licence fee have had trouble dealing with war and catastrophies, and lost their independence. Right?
I agree with that sentiment; although I'd rather see absolutely no public money go to any media coproration. Here in the UK, the justification that's used to separate the licence fee from general taxation is that it would cause the BBC (who receive the money) to become biased by government influence. Frankly, I think they're a lot more scared that the chancellor might actually ask them to become accountable for the BILLIONS they spend every year, and realise that their budget ought to be cut by about 95%. The notion that any corporation, by the way, can operate in a complete unbiased mode, is utter nonsense. People are always biased; they have their beliefs and ideals. The BBC are as biased as anyone. Perhaps they're just biased in a more politically correct way. That doesn't justify public funding, IMHO.
This feels stupid because it is stupid. It is stupid because TV/radio licence fees, in the age of the Internet and multichannel television, are an utter anachronism. The fact that this ridiculous (and close to unenforcable, by the way) law has been enacted in Germany and some other European countries does not change that. I urge everybody in Britain not currently doing so to boycott the TV licence fee, as a growing number of people are already doing. It is frankly in the interests of the large majority of people. The only ones who may suffer are old folk with no internet access who have a passion for TV without adverts, limited to a few channels. Unfortunate for them, but I think it's about time society stopped taxing EVERYONE to pay for those few.
I tried to play a video on that site and it prompted me to download a DivX Windows binary before I could play anything. I declined to install it because I don't even know where it came from. If an average user came across such a link I'd advise them not to run the exe. I think you've made my point there.
Dude, Flash is one of the few things that sucks worse than IE. On any OS it's buggy, poorly designed, and frequently misused.
I don't think I agree with that analysis. With the arrival of things like YouTube and Google Video, it's starting to be used properly and implemented well. These companies get large numbers of people using their services mainly because they can pretty much assume Flash 7 is installed on the vast majority of browsers and they know they have it available. Would streaming video over the net be anywhere near as popular if they required an MPG-compatible embedded media player? I rather doubt it; we had those before, and they never got as popular.
Does that apply to warezed copies of XP? From what I heard, IE7 requires a valid copy of Windows to install. That's quite a large chunk of machines without it.
We hear reports of huge numbers of corporate machines using a warezed XP key to allow them to install Windows en masse; huger numbers of people in countries in Asia, etc. that can't afford an official copy of XP and so warez it.
How widely will IE7 be installed? I think a relatively large percentage of the Windows userbase will be unable to install it because of the WGA stuff. You might end up with a long term 50/50 split between IE6 and IE7.
You 'older' TV... is that the "32" RCA" you list on the page? If not, how much is that on standby?
If things can use virtually no power on standby, i'll never understand why everything isn't designed that way. It irritates me when people go around saying no to put stuff on standby, why aren't they forcing (not telling, forcing) manufacturers to make a better, more efficient, standby?
However the worst fault v3 of Firefox could have would be "mehhhh, its no different to v2 or IE7". Call it the Vista effect.
Depressingly, that's what the visual refresh in v2 was all about. Many of the initial testers have been complaining bitterly about the new 'glass' interface, but it has to fit in with Vista. Apparently.
Though personally I feel some things should just be built in (remembering tabs on restart for instance)
Well that example rather proves the point that very little in the way of 'extra' features should be built in. Always remembering tabs could be a damn pain for me. Often I'll end up opening 10/20 tabs and just want to close the browser, having a fresh session start up next time. Your preference is totally subjective.
a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
Except that I've heard they've ruled out using video ads... or was that only YouTube (before the Google takeover)? this article certainly seems to say that they've ruled out video ads; "YouTube, by contrast, has ruled out using traditional ads that precede or follow a video. A Viacom executive said the company is open to other ways of placing advertising with its partners and is using the Google deal to test different methods."
I did find this rather curious as video ads would probably be accepted by users (especially if there were a 'skip ad' button), and make way more money than text ads that most people will probably ignore. In addition, freeloaders couldn't use ad-blockers to block these video ads (apologies to AdBlock users, but I politely disagree with your freeloader stance).
I had a quick discussion with my co-workers too, and they were of the mind TEN MINUTES AGO that Google needs the following:
a. the users and more importantly b. the usage pattern of these users
Quite. And I wonder about b. How useful, really, is a video hosting site in determining social patterns of users? It's quite obvious that people will be drawn more to zany, weird, sexual, entertaining content. It's ESPECIALLY questionable when Google already has, um, video.google.com. I already use that instead of YouTube, I think it's a better implementation of the same idea - and it already has a large userbase. I can only guess Google bought YouTube to increase its shard of the market (dramatically), but as has been said elsewhere I was puzzled at the amount they paid for it, given its lack of profit and the fact they'll probably be binning YouTube's code and using video.google.com instead.
Boy, he could've given an alternative. Like the internet. The internet is a vastly better source of news than TV nowadays, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up in this thread yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Soon, we won't need to burn fossil fuels to obtain our energy. We're fine.
Who needs to wash their face first? Dry shaves are easy with a good electric shaver. I use PhiliShave; always does the job for me. Have to take a shower after though or the skin irritation gets annoying.
The US version of representational democracy / republic isn't a total crock of **** :) Its the least worst of all systems anybody has managed to come up with.
Some people would take issue to that.
violate them as an act of civil disobedience and accept the consequences in the hope of gaining sympathy for your cause and eventual change.
Seems that was one of the things he was doing; *I'm* sympathetic with his plight and hope that change happens. Unfortunately I'm not USian and don't have a few billion to bribe your politicians with, so I can't do much about it.
I don't know, but they made a pretty clear amendment that seems to guarantee your right to do that.
There are certainly times and places where censorship is a lesser evil than what it's meant to prevent. However, we all probably agree that those times are few and far between
The founding fathers of the US didn't agree with you and nor do I.
Middle clicking on a tab will also close the tab without your having to nail the [X] with the pointer.
Does it, in Linux? Certainly 1.5 didn't do it the Windows way; middle click tried to open the URL of whatever you currently had copied into the clipboard. I always HATED this behaviour, but apparently it's intuitive for Linux users.
Gah. That's still *way* under-saturated. I don't understand why so many people like this theme, the icons look so washed out it really makes it look amateurish, IMHO. Winstripe had virtually no opacity change on mouseover (just like the theme for virtually every other GUI program out there), and looks MUCH nicer. What's the point in designing vivid, colourful icons if they're only gonna be in full colour 0.01% of the time (on mouseover)??
:-\ Until I find such a theme, I'll be using this.
Prey tell, does anybody know of a theme that REMOVES the opacity change on mouseover, and just leaves all the icons at 100% opacity all the time? That's what I'd like. I looked into making it myself, but from that above theme it looks like quite a lot of work.
I'm amazed by the apathy about Firefox's new icons. Do they really not bother people?
I and hundreds of other people have been actively commenting, throughout the betas, that the new icons looked *horrible*. The main problem is their ridiculously low default opacity, seemingly for the sole reason that they could increase it to 100% when the mouse is over the icon. This is a BAD IDEA, and I have no idea why the developers of the theme stubbornly refuse to admit it. Those washed out icons did, and continue to, look awful.
Whatsmore, the icons themselves are nasty. They don't scale down (small icons) well, they look frankly amateurish compared to Winstripe, and any extension that inserts its own icon into the toolbar (like mine) will immediately look out of place, because its default opacity isn't about 50% like the rest of the icons. Sorry Firefox, but I think this new theme SUCKS BIGTIME. The first thing I did was grab the classic Winstripe theme.
Scrapping public service or finding other means of funding is hardly an option considering how vitally important it is for a country to maintain its own public service infrastructure for use in emergencies such as natural catastrophies, war and not least independence.
Quite. There's ample evidence to show that The US, Canada, Spain, Bulgaria, New Zealand, Australia, and most of the rest of the world that doesn't have a public service broadcaster licence fee have had trouble dealing with war and catastrophies, and lost their independence. Right?
I agree with that sentiment; although I'd rather see absolutely no public money go to any media coproration. Here in the UK, the justification that's used to separate the licence fee from general taxation is that it would cause the BBC (who receive the money) to become biased by government influence. Frankly, I think they're a lot more scared that the chancellor might actually ask them to become accountable for the BILLIONS they spend every year, and realise that their budget ought to be cut by about 95%. The notion that any corporation, by the way, can operate in a complete unbiased mode, is utter nonsense. People are always biased; they have their beliefs and ideals. The BBC are as biased as anyone. Perhaps they're just biased in a more politically correct way. That doesn't justify public funding, IMHO.
This feels stupid because it is stupid. It is stupid because TV/radio licence fees, in the age of the Internet and multichannel television, are an utter anachronism. The fact that this ridiculous (and close to unenforcable, by the way) law has been enacted in Germany and some other European countries does not change that. I urge everybody in Britain not currently doing so to boycott the TV licence fee, as a growing number of people are already doing. It is frankly in the interests of the large majority of people. The only ones who may suffer are old folk with no internet access who have a passion for TV without adverts, limited to a few channels. Unfortunate for them, but I think it's about time society stopped taxing EVERYONE to pay for those few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#CFCs_ in_the_atmosphere, and the text below that section, seem to call bullshit on your assertion that CFCs have no effect on the ozone.
I tried to play a video on that site and it prompted me to download a DivX Windows binary before I could play anything. I declined to install it because I don't even know where it came from. If an average user came across such a link I'd advise them not to run the exe. I think you've made my point there.
Dude, Flash is one of the few things that sucks worse than IE. On any OS it's buggy, poorly designed, and frequently misused.
I don't think I agree with that analysis. With the arrival of things like YouTube and Google Video, it's starting to be used properly and implemented well. These companies get large numbers of people using their services mainly because they can pretty much assume Flash 7 is installed on the vast majority of browsers and they know they have it available. Would streaming video over the net be anywhere near as popular if they required an MPG-compatible embedded media player? I rather doubt it; we had those before, and they never got as popular.
Does that apply to warezed copies of XP? From what I heard, IE7 requires a valid copy of Windows to install. That's quite a large chunk of machines without it.
We hear reports of huge numbers of corporate machines using a warezed XP key to allow them to install Windows en masse; huger numbers of people in countries in Asia, etc. that can't afford an official copy of XP and so warez it.
How widely will IE7 be installed? I think a relatively large percentage of the Windows userbase will be unable to install it because of the WGA stuff. You might end up with a long term 50/50 split between IE6 and IE7.
You 'older' TV... is that the "32" RCA" you list on the page? If not, how much is that on standby?
If things can use virtually no power on standby, i'll never understand why everything isn't designed that way. It irritates me when people go around saying no to put stuff on standby, why aren't they forcing (not telling, forcing) manufacturers to make a better, more efficient, standby?
The above linked URL, fixed.
However the worst fault v3 of Firefox could have would be "mehhhh, its no different to v2 or IE7". Call it the Vista effect.
Depressingly, that's what the visual refresh in v2 was all about. Many of the initial testers have been complaining bitterly about the new 'glass' interface, but it has to fit in with Vista. Apparently.
Though personally I feel some things should just be built in (remembering tabs on restart for instance)
Well that example rather proves the point that very little in the way of 'extra' features should be built in. Always remembering tabs could be a damn pain for me. Often I'll end up opening 10/20 tabs and just want to close the browser, having a fresh session start up next time. Your preference is totally subjective.
a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
Except that I've heard they've ruled out using video ads... or was that only YouTube (before the Google takeover)? this article certainly seems to say that they've ruled out video ads; "YouTube, by contrast, has ruled out using traditional ads that precede or follow a video. A Viacom executive said the company is open to other ways of placing advertising with its partners and is using the Google deal to test different methods."
I did find this rather curious as video ads would probably be accepted by users (especially if there were a 'skip ad' button), and make way more money than text ads that most people will probably ignore. In addition, freeloaders couldn't use ad-blockers to block these video ads (apologies to AdBlock users, but I politely disagree with your freeloader stance).
I had a quick discussion with my co-workers too, and they were of the mind TEN MINUTES AGO that Google needs the following:
a. the users and more importantly
b. the usage pattern of these users
Quite. And I wonder about b. How useful, really, is a video hosting site in determining social patterns of users? It's quite obvious that people will be drawn more to zany, weird, sexual, entertaining content. It's ESPECIALLY questionable when Google already has, um, video.google.com. I already use that instead of YouTube, I think it's a better implementation of the same idea - and it already has a large userbase. I can only guess Google bought YouTube to increase its shard of the market (dramatically), but as has been said elsewhere I was puzzled at the amount they paid for it, given its lack of profit and the fact they'll probably be binning YouTube's code and using video.google.com instead.
The Boring World of Neils Bohr!
Boy, he could've given an alternative. Like the internet. The internet is a vastly better source of news than TV nowadays, I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up in this thread yet.