I've begun leaning towards PostgreSQL recently, but I never trust benchmarks given to me by one of the two sides instead of being done by a neutral party.
I tried Django out just recently, and it failed to do what I needed it to. The FileField and ImageField types just don't have the features I'm looking for (for a file heavy site), and knowing next to zip about Python, I'm not about to try to "fix" it to do what I want.
I fully agree with what the parent said. Flash Ads are evil.
Right now, I still don't have Google Ads blocked because I don't mind text ads, or even unobtrusive banner ads.
Flash is an entirely different story, as it starts sucking up CPU cycles.
I don't remember whom The Register uses for their ad network, but I blocked them explicitly because of those annoying Intel ads with the dogs/cougars/whatever looking at the mouse cursor as it moves around the screen because: 1. It's distracting. 2. It actually slowed things down on my computer. To follow a mouse cursor around the screen.
Oops, I forgot to list the one that may actually be relevant in this case. 5. Any search result that looks like a normal search result, but is in reality a paid search result.
No, disrupting my web browsing is evil, no matter whom the source is.
I consider all of the following disruptive: 1. In Your Face animated ads (subtle ones are OK) 2. Anything that makes sounds. 3. Flash Ads. I especially hate the Intel "follow the cursor" ads. 4. Ads that pop up when my mouse moves over a word. Chances are if your site does that, I put it on my personal blacklist.
I'm still not sure why people would actually listen to that. I mean... why would anyone just download a random program from a website without looking up said program in, say, google to see what it actually does?
Thank you for showing us what comment spam looks like. Unfortunately, and I'm sure I speak for others when I say this, we already know what spam looks like, so STFU.
I wouldn't object to that, as long as there's room to write things like "software" and "business methods" on there... and that they actually are written on there.
"Down Them All!" does much more than just let you queue or download a bunch of files at once. It is also a download accelerator, which uses FTP/HTTP resume to download files in multiple segments simultaneously. On most sites, this is considerably faster than one larger download.
Firefox 1.5.x.y and its poor caching system when using tabs was the last straw that got me to switch away from it. I don't know if it's been addressed in Firefox 2.0.x.y, but using up 700MB of RAM (which happened to me while browsing a multi-page image gallery (work-safe), although some of that memory was probably swapped out) is well over the line when other browsers manage to do it in less than 150MB.
I know you can limit it by setting browser.cache.memory.capacity in about:config, but there were some other things that were bothering me with Firefox at the time, so I gave Opera a spin and having been using it every since.
You're preaching to the choir in this case. In fact, here's a few additional points. 2) b) Current US Copyright law allows you to make copies of a program if it is needed to run the program. It does not restrict this to copies made in RAM... in case a company tries to claim that you need a license to install a program. 5) EULAs are not licenses under the legal definition of the word. Licenses grant rights; EULAs take away rights.
You may well be right, but you aren't even required to know that the supposed contracts in stores and parking lots exist--let alone to have read them--for the proprietor to claim that you have "agreed" to them. So, it would be a battle in court. One could change the T-Shirt to a "by letting me enter you store" agreement to make it a more "active" acceptance.
That's still not active acceptance, because it still involves no action on their part to the terms you proposed. Otherwise, I could wear a T-shirt that says "If you answer the door, you agree to pay me $500," then go around the neighborhood ringing doorbells and have that agreement be binding.
P.S. If you think that's OK, what's your address and when will you be home? I'm need a few thousand dollars.
IANAL, but it's too bad that T-shirt, sticker, and email signature ones wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because simply reading the terms of an agreement does not constitute acceptance of it. By the same token, they can send the material, payment, or business card back to you to reject your terms. The payment one is especially iffy, as payment is usually done up front and software is rarely bought directly from the manufacturers for the type of software that would contain a EULA.
For stores that have signs out front, entering the store is accepting the agreement presented to you. For EULAs, clicking that accept button/checkbox is accepting the agreement.
P.S. I think EULAs are immoral and illegal, in case you were wondering. I do not think that stooping to their level is a good way of combatting them, though.
Guess what? BSD-style licenses allow for exactly the same sharing. Except they do it with a faction of the amount of legalese that the GPL requires. Not only that, but code under a BSD-style license isn't restricted to being used in other BSD-style licensed software. With the proper notices, it can even be included in closed-source software released under a commercial license!
So not only do BSD-style licenses allow for that same sort of code reuse, but they take it a step further, opening that use to essentially everybody, not just those people using the same license.
Except that you don't necessarily get that code back from other people, something that the GPL guarantees.
I don't think what the grandparent said is FUD. This is coming from someone who questions some of the things the FSF is doing with the GPLv3, too.
The guarantee that, if you request it, people have to give you the source of any modifications they distribute is oft considered the major reason to use the GPL instead of the BSD family of licenses (Modified BSD, X11, etc...).
Slashdot Mirror
I've begun leaning towards PostgreSQL recently, but I never trust benchmarks given to me by one of the two sides instead of being done by a neutral party.
I tried Django out just recently, and it failed to do what I needed it to. The FileField and ImageField types just don't have the features I'm looking for (for a file heavy site), and knowing next to zip about Python, I'm not about to try to "fix" it to do what I want.
So, if I consider someone donating $1 to a charity "good," is my sense of morality still fucked up? Evil and good are not absolutes.
I fully agree with what the parent said. Flash Ads are evil.
Right now, I still don't have Google Ads blocked because I don't mind text ads, or even unobtrusive banner ads.
Flash is an entirely different story, as it starts sucking up CPU cycles.
I don't remember whom The Register uses for their ad network, but I blocked them explicitly because of those annoying Intel ads with the dogs/cougars/whatever looking at the mouse cursor as it moves around the screen because:
1. It's distracting.
2. It actually slowed things down on my computer. To follow a mouse cursor around the screen.
Oops, I forgot to list the one that may actually be relevant in this case.
5. Any search result that looks like a normal search result, but is in reality a paid search result.
No, disrupting my web browsing is evil, no matter whom the source is.
I consider all of the following disruptive:
1. In Your Face animated ads (subtle ones are OK)
2. Anything that makes sounds.
3. Flash Ads. I especially hate the Intel "follow the cursor" ads.
4. Ads that pop up when my mouse moves over a word. Chances are if your site does that, I put it on my personal blacklist.
I'm still not sure why people would actually listen to that. I mean... why would anyone just download a random program from a website without looking up said program in, say, google to see what it actually does?
Thank you for showing us what comment spam looks like. Unfortunately, and I'm sure I speak for others when I say this, we already know what spam looks like, so STFU.
I wouldn't object to that, as long as there's room to write things like "software" and "business methods" on there... and that they actually are written on there.
On the contrary, they follow the law of unintended consequences quite closely.
I mean, look at all the unintended consequences caused by the laws they've passed!
Or by follow, did you mean learn what it means so that they can avoid unintended consequences?
I don't really like Access that much, but the only "competitor" that I know of for it is OpenOffice Base, which is essentially a clone of it.
Like it or not, Access is an excellent tool for creating simple databases with GUIs.
er... typoed that. It should be #!/usr/bin/perl\n
Don't forget to prepend !#/usr/bin/perl\n to the file. You have a much better chance of it working if you do.
I haven't changed any shortcut keys, so my guess is that / was also added for inline find so former Firefox users could find it.
To be honest, I just hit / before because I used to use Firefox, which uses / for inline searches.
As another poster pointed out, both , and . also open up inline find.
Have you tried hitting / in Opera to open the inline find command?
"Down Them All!" does much more than just let you queue or download a bunch of files at once. It is also a download accelerator, which uses FTP/HTTP resume to download files in multiple segments simultaneously. On most sites, this is considerably faster than one larger download.
Firefox 1.5.x.y and its poor caching system when using tabs was the last straw that got me to switch away from it. I don't know if it's been addressed in Firefox 2.0.x.y, but using up 700MB of RAM (which happened to me while browsing a multi-page image gallery (work-safe), although some of that memory was probably swapped out) is well over the line when other browsers manage to do it in less than 150MB.
I know you can limit it by setting browser.cache.memory.capacity in about:config, but there were some other things that were bothering me with Firefox at the time, so I gave Opera a spin and having been using it every since.
You're preaching to the choir in this case. In fact, here's a few additional points.
2) b) Current US Copyright law allows you to make copies of a program if it is needed to run the program. It does not restrict this to copies made in RAM... in case a company tries to claim that you need a license to install a program.
5) EULAs are not licenses under the legal definition of the word. Licenses grant rights; EULAs take away rights.
That's still not active acceptance, because it still involves no action on their part to the terms you proposed. Otherwise, I could wear a T-shirt that says "If you answer the door, you agree to pay me $500," then go around the neighborhood ringing doorbells and have that agreement be binding.
P.S. If you think that's OK, what's your address and when will you be home? I'm need a few thousand dollars.
None of the ones around here do.
IANAL, but it's too bad that T-shirt, sticker, and email signature ones wouldn't hold up in a court of law, because simply reading the terms of an agreement does not constitute acceptance of it. By the same token, they can send the material, payment, or business card back to you to reject your terms. The payment one is especially iffy, as payment is usually done up front and software is rarely bought directly from the manufacturers for the type of software that would contain a EULA.
For stores that have signs out front, entering the store is accepting the agreement presented to you. For EULAs, clicking that accept button/checkbox is accepting the agreement.
P.S. I think EULAs are immoral and illegal, in case you were wondering. I do not think that stooping to their level is a good way of combatting them, though.
I think the poster may have meant Sam's Club, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and does check receipts on the way out.
I don't think what the grandparent said is FUD. This is coming from someone who questions some of the things the FSF is doing with the GPLv3, too.
The guarantee that, if you request it, people have to give you the source of any modifications they distribute is oft considered the major reason to use the GPL instead of the BSD family of licenses (Modified BSD, X11, etc...).