I concede that Sidebars, as mentioned by someone else further on down, would be OK if they are optional. But for most people, the solution to the problem is not really a solution at all. Tabs are popular because (gasp!) they work extremely well in a browser. Why do you think that Microsoft eventually capitulated and included them in IE7?
I guess what surprises me the most is that I'd have thought the biggest problem with having 20 tabs open is... you have 20 tabs open. Are you seriously reading all those websites at the one time? If so, then you must have the worst case of ADHD I've ever come across! Please, get some help:-)
I know - to see what a bad idea it would be, just look at the screenshot of the proof of concept. Notice how you have to scroll to the side in gmail just to see you mail subject lines. Hardly a good use of screen real-estate.
To be honest, the sidebar is very Windows Explorer Active Desktop-ish. And the first thing many people do is turn off the sidebar.
Mozilla has already given serious thought to the idea of replacing tabbed browsing itself. Aza Raskin, the head of user experience at Mozilla Labs, has already blogged on the possibility of moving tabs down the side of the browser, with tabs grouped by the type of activity involved (i.e. applications, work spaces).
Oh man. The very, very first thing I ever do on a fresh Windows XP installation is turn off folder grouping. And now Firefox wants to implement this stupidity? NOT a good idea.
Note to the Mozilla devs: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You're assuming that people are a. searching for his book, and b. actually downloading it in the first place.
I would love to know how he is certain that piracy is affecting his bottom line. After all, he's hardly going to be able to get download figures from the piraters. Couldn't it be that nobody is reading it in the first place?
I think he's already found his solution. Now that he's been published in the NYT and on slashdot, Google presents searchers with Amazon.com, the NYT and slashdot in the top 10 search results.
Sounds like if he did not accept the EULA-style agreement a few times and they keep asking him, he's being harassed at work. A good lawyer would put a stop to it. And if he did get caught out, then a good lawyer could definitely make a case that he was badgered into agreeing.
Why can't someone patent stupidity? They'd be sure to make a killing. Can you imagine the amount of infringement notices that they'd have to file though?
Sounds like there's a bigger issue at hand here. Surely there is a way of setting the EBCDIC code page to determine this? Is there something I'm missing?
How? If that crash is someone deliberately smashing the stack, I don't see any issue. If there's a bug, then there is a bug and it should be corrected. There's no disguising of the error really... someone is going to notice the data is wrong (depending on the context) and fix it up anyway.
The ABI is compatible with glibc, this doesn't preclude them from including new functions like strlcpy and strlcat - which again looks like something that Ulrich Drepper doesn't think is a good idea. In fact, the man went so far as to reject the patch, stating that:
This is horribly inefficient BSD crap. Using these function only leads to other errors. Correct string handling means that you always know how long your strings are and therefore you can you memcpy (instead of strcpy).
Beside, those who are using strcat or variants deserved to be punished
I know! For the record, he was talking about the problems of the patch in aquatic environments. "It's working fine everywhere but this carp architectures."
I'm not surprised that the project's been forked after reading this bug. Not only was he wrong, but he was adamantly wrong. It was only when his employer (RedHat) stepped in that it looks like they solved the issue.
"- Open two documents of each type. Then close one of each type using the X box in the upper right corner. Re-open and display each pair of document types so that both of a common type are visible at the same time."
Oh boy. Which version of Excel are we talking about here? Excel 2003 had the world's most brain dead X button. You'd think you were closing just one window, but it closed everything! Hardly intuitive.
Why should my interpretation of what the novel said be *less* reliable than my interpretation of what some critic said about that novel???
Whoa, cowboy! The parent didn't say that you couldn't quote a critic. They merely are saying that to satisfy the project's neutral point of view and original research policies, Wikipedia cannot state that someone hates something because that is the assertion of an opinion (a point of view) by the project. By all means, find a notable critic and cite them:-) If you did that you would not fall foul of the NPOV or OR policies.
To me, [citation needed] means "the editor who added this claim needs to add a reference, or I'll delete the claim in a week".
If I may stick my oar in here: I actually created that template, and I never specified or intended that after a week the material should be removed. Now I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing but I think that one should use their common-sense when removing material from an article. I would suggest that a sensible move would be to first add a note to the talk page about the fact before deleting the material. A week time frame after asking on the discussion page is pretty reasonable, but again it depends on the information you are removing.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of opening a new window?
I concede that Sidebars, as mentioned by someone else further on down, would be OK if they are optional. But for most people, the solution to the problem is not really a solution at all. Tabs are popular because (gasp!) they work extremely well in a browser. Why do you think that Microsoft eventually capitulated and included them in IE7?
I guess what surprises me the most is that I'd have thought the biggest problem with having 20 tabs open is... you have 20 tabs open. Are you seriously reading all those websites at the one time? If so, then you must have the worst case of ADHD I've ever come across! Please, get some help :-)
I know - to see what a bad idea it would be, just look at the screenshot of the proof of concept. Notice how you have to scroll to the side in gmail just to see you mail subject lines. Hardly a good use of screen real-estate.
To be honest, the sidebar is very Windows Explorer Active Desktop-ish. And the first thing many people do is turn off the sidebar.
From the article:
Oh man. The very, very first thing I ever do on a fresh Windows XP installation is turn off folder grouping. And now Firefox wants to implement this stupidity? NOT a good idea.
Note to the Mozilla devs: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What, you actually had a chance to use it? Someone preserve this man's brain for posterity!
Er... sales drive the bottom line my friend. Without sales, the bottom line is adversely effected.
You're assuming that people are a. searching for his book, and b. actually downloading it in the first place.
I would love to know how he is certain that piracy is affecting his bottom line. After all, he's hardly going to be able to get download figures from the piraters. Couldn't it be that nobody is reading it in the first place?
Yeah, because twitter makes a noise when you send out a tweet. Good one.
I think he's already found his solution. Now that he's been published in the NYT and on slashdot, Google presents searchers with Amazon.com, the NYT and slashdot in the top 10 search results.
Problem is solved, time to move on.
Sounds like if he did not accept the EULA-style agreement a few times and they keep asking him, he's being harassed at work. A good lawyer would put a stop to it. And if he did get caught out, then a good lawyer could definitely make a case that he was badgered into agreeing.
As I saw on a bumper sticker the other day "We have a fountain of youth, why can't we have a fountain of SMART?".
I see you are posting anonymously on slashdot. Why do I suspect you are a 17 year old pimply faced teenager?
Never fear, if someone else attempts to actually patent stupidity you can claim prior art. You're in a no-lose situation there buddy!
Why can't someone patent stupidity? They'd be sure to make a killing. Can you imagine the amount of infringement notices that they'd have to file though?
Sounds like there's a bigger issue at hand here. Surely there is a way of setting the EBCDIC code page to determine this? Is there something I'm missing?
Yeah, I know. It makes finding bugs just that much more easier.
How? If that crash is someone deliberately smashing the stack, I don't see any issue. If there's a bug, then there is a bug and it should be corrected. There's no disguising of the error really... someone is going to notice the data is wrong (depending on the context) and fix it up anyway.
I reckon that within the next decade, they're going to find out that they've made a huge mistake somewhere along the line.
Indeed - and not just ordinary, non-involved people. In one bug alone, he managed to upset Gentoo's Mike Frysinger, he told Petr Baudis of SuSE that "I never saw your name on my paycheck. Since if that's not the case you cannot order me around., and gave the MirOS developer Thorsten Glaser cause to comment on Drepper's standards.
Nice going!
The ABI is compatible with glibc, this doesn't preclude them from including new functions like strlcpy and strlcat - which again looks like something that Ulrich Drepper doesn't think is a good idea. In fact, the man went so far as to reject the patch, stating that:
Fork couldn't have come soon enough!
I know! For the record, he was talking about the problems of the patch in aquatic environments. "It's working fine everywhere but this carp architectures."
I'm not surprised that the project's been forked after reading this bug. Not only was he wrong, but he was adamantly wrong. It was only when his employer (RedHat) stepped in that it looks like they solved the issue.
In Australia, non-compete clauses are classed as restraint of trade, and thus illegal. Sucked in ex-EMC executive!
Oh man! Someone mod that as +1 Funny!
"- Open two documents of each type. Then close one of each type using the X box in the upper right corner. Re-open and display each pair of document types so that both of a common type are visible at the same time."
Oh boy. Which version of Excel are we talking about here? Excel 2003 had the world's most brain dead X button. You'd think you were closing just one window, but it closed everything! Hardly intuitive.
Whoa, cowboy! The parent didn't say that you couldn't quote a critic. They merely are saying that to satisfy the project's neutral point of view and original research policies, Wikipedia cannot state that someone hates something because that is the assertion of an opinion (a point of view) by the project. By all means, find a notable critic and cite them :-) If you did that you would not fall foul of the NPOV or OR policies.
If I may stick my oar in here: I actually created that template, and I never specified or intended that after a week the material should be removed. Now I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing but I think that one should use their common-sense when removing material from an article. I would suggest that a sensible move would be to first add a note to the talk page about the fact before deleting the material. A week time frame after asking on the discussion page is pretty reasonable, but again it depends on the information you are removing.