Actually, unless a site uses javascript to specifically prevent this, IE does do this. I'm using IE 6 right now because that's all that's installed here at work, and it shows the url in the status bar at the bottom of the page when you mouse over a link.
You can't really replicate it with gnome panel, as all that can do as group buttons for multiple similar windows in the panel. It does nothing to save desktop space, unless you minimize whatever windows you aren't looking at. Having tabs that you can switch between is much more convenient in my opinion. The functionality of these two things is really only vaguely similar. A lot of text editors and IDE's support multiple tabs, and apps like Photoshop use MDI child windows to allow multiple documents in one window, so why not browsers too?
Have you ever used a browser other than IE? Every other browser I've used in the last year has offered a better browsing experience than IE. Mozilla has tabbed browsing and more recently pop up blocking. Phoenix has had both for a while. Plus IE doesn't render especially fast, and lacks a number of other features contained in most Gecko browsers. There are some reasons to use IE of course, like for plugins that only work in IE.
There is obviously good reason to look beyond IE though.
Is Debian really technically superior? After I had been using Linux for a while and had gotten the hang of installing things via RPM, portage, tarballs, etc, and editing config files, et all, I tried Debian. I hated it. If Debian had been the first Linux distribution I had ever used I would have returned to Windows and not looked back. Apt is better than RPM in some ways, but I still found it extremely awkward after having worked with portage.
But what bugs me most is the attitude Debian users seem to have, which is an air of ridiculous elitism. Of course this isn't true of all Debian users, but at least the most vocal ones I've seen. After having used Debian I can't say that I can see what that elitism is based on.
Anyway, I'm not trying to troll, just suggesting that maybe if Debian fades away, it's not the fault of people who don't look for the highest quality solution as much as the fault of them getting out of touch and too high in their ivory tower.
This is why I don't believe any of SCO's claims about how strong their case is. If everything McBride said was true and their case was so strong, then IBM would have bought them. He claims SCO's business has never been better, and wouldn't you want to buy out a solid company if it were going to save you a lawsuit worth a few billion?
Whether SCO wants to be bought out or just get paid off I have no idea, but IBM's not stupid, so if SCO were really in a position to threaten IBM, I imagine SCO would've been bought out when their shares were at.60
I'm definitely with you on this, but you have to take into consideration that corporate purchases will follow a different pattern than personal purchases. I'm playing to buy a new PowerBook when they release the new models but if I were in charge of tech purchasing for a large company I'd buy all of my employees the cheapest computers that could get their jobs done.
That's kind of funny, considering the Linux users I know can all get things done. The Windows users I know quite often have to ask the Linux users how to get things done.
The test failed, the program did not. If people are going to come down on NASA every time an experiment doesn't go to plan, they're either waisting their money because they dont' want an advanced science program to be run by the government or they need to shut up and realize that when you're trying to do things people haven't done before, it usually takes a few tries to get it just right.
In science, if you demand perfection, don't expect any advancement.
I agree about the UI and hardware integration, which is why I wouldn't buy a Mac to use Linux on. Darwin and Linux aren't the same though. Some people just like Linux better, maybe because there are software packages which haven't been ported from Linux or they're Linux developers who like Apple hardware, or whatever. Apples do tend to have high quality hardware, so I can see why some people would go this route (especially for laptops) if money for hardware weren't an issue.
If you're trying to kill people and break things, then you'd probably want a really reliable UNIX. If you were trying to kill people and break things using Windows, the only victim would be your computer.
Honestly though, it doesn't bother me that the Army bought all that Microsoft software, as long as someone quite knowledgable about such things made the decision and not someone who knew not enough about computers but knew a salesman. And despite what the Linux users are going to say, Windows actually is the right way to go sometimes.
What does bug me is why they payed so much. The Army has serious muscle in terms of buying power and in terms of having lots of people with guns. How about flexing that muscle to get a little better price, eh?
Arguably it wouldn't be insider trading because the facts of the case are available to the general public, except for SCO's actual code, which most executives would be able to say they don't know well enough for it to have influenced their selling decision. In order to make an effective insider trading case they would need internal documentation that showed that SCO knew the case was bogus and that that was why people were selling off their stock, as opposed to just selling it when it's up from 60 cents to 10 dollars a share.
Personal preference? Linux can be made to be much more light weight than OS X, it is more customizable, etc, so I can understand why some people would want to use Linux, but I don't think I'd pay the extra for Mac hardware if I didn't want OS X.
Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, so I can't cite a specific statute. Are you trying to say that it's not currently illegal in the US to reproduce copyrighted material without permission?
How about comparing it to the pre-drug war period? Granted there are other factors, but it's easy to point out examples of problems caused by the drug war (organized crime, gangs, etc) and there are also very clear parallels with prohibition which did not eliminate alcohol consumption and gave rise to unprecedented amounts of organized crime.
As to how it funds terrorism, the government say drugs fund terrorism, I say drug prices have been inflated by thousands of percent by the drug war, plus if they could be grown in the US there would be no reason to buy them from places which fund terrorism.
And saying it hasn't slowed down the drug problem doesn't need a comparision.
Re:This will be another solid update
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Haha, I see this exact same message on just about every board about macs. Get a new post.
Ok, clearly the level of enforcement that is needed is debatable, but until copyright law is eliminated it needs to be enforced, and right now it is essentially not enforced at all except in the corporate case. So while I'm not advocating the FBI breaking into kids houses, etc, I would be in favor of a more reasonable measure, such as fines, suspension of internet service, etc.
Which copyrights are the more idiotic ones that you think need to be gotten rid of, anyway? The DMCA? Agreed. The limit on copyright lengths shorted? Possibly, but not too much. I don't think that it should be legal to share copyrighted information, and that's what is in question.
How do people want the system to be fixed anyway though? Just make all music public domain? Say goodbye to a very large number of your favorite musical acts. People keep saying that file sharing means that the music industry has to adapt, but how do you compete with free? You don't. If everyone who owns a computer can have your product for free, you're out of business, like the dotcoms. Except recording companies have much higher expenses than your standard dotcom.
The music industry should adapt to the internet and to be more customer/artist friendly, but even if they do adapt, like the iTunes music store for example, law enforcement of copyrights is going to be required or there will be no incentive for people to pay the record companies or the musicians anything at all.
What happens if you get a tax refund? Does that make it legal for people to stab you?
And if you have evidence that a corporation is illegally using something that you own the copyright to then you shuld be able to report them to the FBI, which plenty of corporations have done to one another and as for illegally obtaining personal information about you, that's a tough one to prosecute since the borders about what are legal ways to obtain information and what aren't are pretty hazy. Of course you shouldn't be able to do either if it's just because you want to "stick it to the man" without any actual evidence or something else along those lines.
Does anyone else find it amusing that people use terrorism prevention to justify any argument they make in the US now, no matter how unrelated? Well, amusing and yet at the same time very sad.
So if the government serves the taxpayers but shouldn't be protecting corporations, corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes, right?
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but Corporations and copyright holders deserve protection under the law too. If not the FBI then who should be involved with copyright issues? The FBI is not the CIA, or the military, it's the government association responsible for enforcing most federal laws. Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved. Unless you want to abolish copyrights, or create another law enforcement body to handle this sort of thing, then it is the FBI's business, this law would just make it a higher priority for them .
And you're hoping it's like the drug campaigns? The war on drugs is one of the most enormous failures that hte US government has ever embarked upon. It's caused increased violence, helped to fund terrorism, and not slowed down the drug problem.
Uhh.. are you serious or just trolling? If you're not into music, that's fine, to each his own. But to say that music as a whole is just a waste of time basically ignores mountains and mountains of evidence (i.e. I'd guess about 99% of the people in the history of the world have connected with music in one way or another). I have nothing against books. I love reading, but to say that all musicians should abandon music and start writing is ludicrous. Music tends to affect people in a completely different way than literature and often to completely different people. Just because not everyone likes reading, does that mean that all your favorite writers should quit?
Don't assume that what's true for you is true for everyone else, or that just because you aren't interested in something that it isn't valuable.
well, I don't do it often because i don't spend that much money on music lately, but I do prefer to just go to the store to buy a cd because it's more convenient and I don't have to pay shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, unless a site uses javascript to specifically prevent this, IE does do this. I'm using IE 6 right now because that's all that's installed here at work, and it shows the url in the status bar at the bottom of the page when you mouse over a link.
You can't really replicate it with gnome panel, as all that can do as group buttons for multiple similar windows in the panel. It does nothing to save desktop space, unless you minimize whatever windows you aren't looking at. Having tabs that you can switch between is much more convenient in my opinion. The functionality of these two things is really only vaguely similar. A lot of text editors and IDE's support multiple tabs, and apps like Photoshop use MDI child windows to allow multiple documents in one window, so why not browsers too?
Have you ever used a browser other than IE? Every other browser I've used in the last year has offered a better browsing experience than IE. Mozilla has tabbed browsing and more recently pop up blocking. Phoenix has had both for a while. Plus IE doesn't render especially fast, and lacks a number of other features contained in most Gecko browsers. There are some reasons to use IE of course, like for plugins that only work in IE.
There is obviously good reason to look beyond IE though.
are you comparing Solaris x86 to Linux or to SCO's Unix products?
But what bugs me most is the attitude Debian users seem to have, which is an air of ridiculous elitism. Of course this isn't true of all Debian users, but at least the most vocal ones I've seen. After having used Debian I can't say that I can see what that elitism is based on.
Anyway, I'm not trying to troll, just suggesting that maybe if Debian fades away, it's not the fault of people who don't look for the highest quality solution as much as the fault of them getting out of touch and too high in their ivory tower.
Whether SCO wants to be bought out or just get paid off I have no idea, but IBM's not stupid, so if SCO were really in a position to threaten IBM, I imagine SCO would've been bought out when their shares were at .60
I'm definitely with you on this, but you have to take into consideration that corporate purchases will follow a different pattern than personal purchases. I'm playing to buy a new PowerBook when they release the new models but if I were in charge of tech purchasing for a large company I'd buy all of my employees the cheapest computers that could get their jobs done.
That's kind of funny, considering the Linux users I know can all get things done. The Windows users I know quite often have to ask the Linux users how to get things done.
In science, if you demand perfection, don't expect any advancement.
I agree about the UI and hardware integration, which is why I wouldn't buy a Mac to use Linux on. Darwin and Linux aren't the same though. Some people just like Linux better, maybe because there are software packages which haven't been ported from Linux or they're Linux developers who like Apple hardware, or whatever. Apples do tend to have high quality hardware, so I can see why some people would go this route (especially for laptops) if money for hardware weren't an issue.
Honestly though, it doesn't bother me that the Army bought all that Microsoft software, as long as someone quite knowledgable about such things made the decision and not someone who knew not enough about computers but knew a salesman. And despite what the Linux users are going to say, Windows actually is the right way to go sometimes.
What does bug me is why they payed so much. The Army has serious muscle in terms of buying power and in terms of having lots of people with guns. How about flexing that muscle to get a little better price, eh?
Arguably it wouldn't be insider trading because the facts of the case are available to the general public, except for SCO's actual code, which most executives would be able to say they don't know well enough for it to have influenced their selling decision. In order to make an effective insider trading case they would need internal documentation that showed that SCO knew the case was bogus and that that was why people were selling off their stock, as opposed to just selling it when it's up from 60 cents to 10 dollars a share.
Personal preference? Linux can be made to be much more light weight than OS X, it is more customizable, etc, so I can understand why some people would want to use Linux, but I don't think I'd pay the extra for Mac hardware if I didn't want OS X.
Xfree isn't required, it's just there for those who want to use X11 apps. So far it doesn't even come installed.
And soon we will be able to combine Gentoo and OSX. Excellent..
Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, so I can't cite a specific statute. Are you trying to say that it's not currently illegal in the US to reproduce copyrighted material without permission?
As to how it funds terrorism, the government say drugs fund terrorism, I say drug prices have been inflated by thousands of percent by the drug war, plus if they could be grown in the US there would be no reason to buy them from places which fund terrorism.
And saying it hasn't slowed down the drug problem doesn't need a comparision.
Haha, I see this exact same message on just about every board about macs. Get a new post.
Which copyrights are the more idiotic ones that you think need to be gotten rid of, anyway? The DMCA? Agreed. The limit on copyright lengths shorted? Possibly, but not too much. I don't think that it should be legal to share copyrighted information, and that's what is in question.
How do people want the system to be fixed anyway though? Just make all music public domain? Say goodbye to a very large number of your favorite musical acts. People keep saying that file sharing means that the music industry has to adapt, but how do you compete with free? You don't. If everyone who owns a computer can have your product for free, you're out of business, like the dotcoms. Except recording companies have much higher expenses than your standard dotcom.
The music industry should adapt to the internet and to be more customer/artist friendly, but even if they do adapt, like the iTunes music store for example, law enforcement of copyrights is going to be required or there will be no incentive for people to pay the record companies or the musicians anything at all.
And if you have evidence that a corporation is illegally using something that you own the copyright to then you shuld be able to report them to the FBI, which plenty of corporations have done to one another and as for illegally obtaining personal information about you, that's a tough one to prosecute since the borders about what are legal ways to obtain information and what aren't are pretty hazy. Of course you shouldn't be able to do either if it's just because you want to "stick it to the man" without any actual evidence or something else along those lines.
So if the government serves the taxpayers but shouldn't be protecting corporations, corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes, right?
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but Corporations and copyright holders deserve protection under the law too. If not the FBI then who should be involved with copyright issues? The FBI is not the CIA, or the military, it's the government association responsible for enforcing most federal laws. Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved. Unless you want to abolish copyrights, or create another law enforcement body to handle this sort of thing, then it is the FBI's business, this law would just make it a higher priority for them .
And you're hoping it's like the drug campaigns? The war on drugs is one of the most enormous failures that hte US government has ever embarked upon. It's caused increased violence, helped to fund terrorism, and not slowed down the drug problem.
Don't assume that what's true for you is true for everyone else, or that just because you aren't interested in something that it isn't valuable.
well, I don't do it often because i don't spend that much money on music lately, but I do prefer to just go to the store to buy a cd because it's more convenient and I don't have to pay shipping.
It'd be a lot easier for a bank teller to steal your information than for a hacker to do it.