An interface that stays out of your way sounds wonderful, but do the minimal WMs have to be so plain and old looking?
Color and animation don't have to be frivolous, they can be very useful cues.
For example you may find mouse-over effects distracting or tacky or whatever, but people coming from XP or OS X are used to them - they let us know we've moved the mouse far enough. Without that I have to go a little farther in from the outside border of the widget to be sure.
If I move the mouse around and see no widget animation I start to worry something is frozen.
And those minimal window manager are terrible for showing Linux to new people, it hard to sell them on it when it's looking obsolete like that.
You personally prefer FVWM, fine, but why promote it?
"As for retroviruses"? You think HIV can't be an STD because it's a retroviruses?
A retrovirus is just a virus that incorporates its own DNA into the DNA of infected cells. Besides that it's like any other kind of virus and can still spread like any other virus, through semen for example.
Or maybe you admit it's contagious and just think it's harmless. This wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV and the sources it links to give a pretty details explanation of how HIV disables the immune system, and that means AIDS.
I think product review comments should be moderated just like discussion forums. When posts are edited, they should be clearly marked as edited with an explanation.
If they let you, consider taping it. I'm sure there are a lot of people who couldn't afford to go but would love to watch. You could probably convince a TV news station to buy some of the footage from you.
Sure they are, mostly. They're compatible enough with W3C that it's possible to write generic html that works in either, if you know what you're doing. If you think it's so difficult that it's unrealistic, maybe you don't know what you're doing.
Gaming yes, but that's not true anymore w.r.t. music and multimedia.
I watch videos (using Gentoo's win32 codecs ebuild) and play MP3s all the time in Linux. The only thing inferior I have to put up with is the gtk file selector that xmms uses.
Simply having a new/good idea should not be a lottery ticket...
Why not?
...nor should it be a license to impose a tax on others that come up with the same or similar idea independantly.
I agree with you there.
Because they are trying to sell their idea to people who have already thought of it on their own (or customers of those people)?
No, "they" are not. A morally depraved portion of them are. That doesn't make the whole system bad.
The purpose of the patent system is to promote progress. If the system no longer does that than maybe it has outlived it's usefullness.
The system no longer does that, eh? Meaning there is no significant number of good, well-deserved patents anymore? Too few good patents to justifiy the patent system? I think not.
If patents are bad because some people abuse them, then by that logic, P2P is bad because some people abuse it.
Here is a link to the GPL in html format. Find me where it says you are REQUIRED to assign to the FSF your copyright.
In reality, you keep the copyright and have every right to distribute your work under another license - even a commercial/proprietary/closed-source one. But you can't take back all the copies you gave out under the GPL, nor deny the rights of those who accepted those copies.
After all, your own master copy isn't under the GPL, it's not licensed to you at all - it's just yours! You can distribute it under any license you want.
some company was suing MS, and MS was forced to turn over emails, effective proving the other companies case?... I think that's how our legal system works, and that's how it will apply in SCO vs IBM.
How would they make it work? AFAIK inserted genes look just like native ones. How could they tell the difference without have all available genes on hand for reference?
Lots of viri get past virus scanners, do they expect gene scanner to do any better?
These people should get funding from companies who actually want objective analysis/research, ie companies who want good advice on which product to buy, investors, etc. not by companies that have a stake in the outcome of the research.
Yeah. It would be better if companies had to pay researchers up front. Then they could sue only if they could prove the researcher was BSing, negligent, or biased. That would put researchers in a better position to be objective.
Slashdot Mirror
An interface that stays out of your way sounds wonderful, but do the minimal WMs have to be so plain and old looking?
Color and animation don't have to be frivolous, they can be very useful cues.
For example you may find mouse-over effects distracting or tacky or whatever, but people coming from XP or OS X are used to them - they let us know we've moved the mouse far enough. Without that I have to go a little farther in from the outside border of the widget to be sure.
If I move the mouse around and see no widget animation I start to worry something is frozen.
And those minimal window manager are terrible for showing Linux to new people, it hard to sell them on it when it's looking obsolete like that.
You personally prefer FVWM, fine, but why promote it?
I thought that was the French RIAA, not the French government.
Sure we do.
I speak only English :(
Maybe you tried it back when it used to be buggy?
"As for retroviruses"? You think HIV can't be an STD because it's a retroviruses?
A retrovirus is just a virus that incorporates its own DNA into the DNA of infected cells. Besides that it's like any other kind of virus and can still spread like any other virus, through semen for example.
Or maybe you admit it's contagious and just think it's harmless.
This wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
and the sources it links to give a pretty details explanation of how HIV disables the immune system, and that means AIDS.
I think product review comments should be moderated just like discussion forums. When posts are edited, they should be clearly marked as edited with an explanation.
If they let you, consider taping it. I'm sure there are a lot of people who couldn't afford to go but would love to watch. You could probably convince a TV news station to buy some of the footage from you.
Sure they are, mostly. They're compatible enough with W3C that it's possible to write generic html that works in either, if you know what you're doing. If you think it's so difficult that it's unrealistic, maybe you don't know what you're doing.
Can a star really be that thin? Doesn't its own gravity dictate a minimum density to maintain that volume?
Gaming yes, but that's not true anymore w.r.t. music and multimedia.
I watch videos (using Gentoo's win32 codecs ebuild) and play MP3s all the time in Linux. The only thing inferior I have to put up with is the gtk file selector that xmms uses.
Simply having a new/good idea should not be a lottery ticket...
...nor should it be a license to impose a tax on others that come up with the same or similar idea independantly.
Why not?
I agree with you there.
Because they are trying to sell their idea to people who have already thought of it on their own (or customers of those people)?
No, "they" are not. A morally depraved portion of them are. That doesn't make the whole system bad.
The purpose of the patent system is to promote progress. If the system no longer does that than maybe it has outlived it's usefullness. The system no longer does that, eh? Meaning there is no significant number of good, well-deserved patents anymore? Too few good patents to justifiy the patent system? I think not.
If patents are bad because some people abuse them, then by that logic, P2P is bad because some people abuse it.
Maybe, but new/good ideas should be rewarded. Why not just let thinkers reap their own reward by selling their idea? Can you think of a better system?
Here is a link to the GPL in html format. Find me where it says you are REQUIRED to assign to the FSF your copyright.
In reality, you keep the copyright and have every right to distribute your work under another license - even a commercial/proprietary/closed-source one. But you can't take back all the copies you gave out under the GPL, nor deny the rights of those who accepted those copies.
After all, your own master copy isn't under the GPL, it's not licensed to you at all - it's just yours! You can distribute it under any license you want.
Show me where the FSF says otherwise!
This probably sets a record. Least active topic in how long? A month, a year?
Actually MS would be very happy about that: the BSD license allows MS take the code and put it into Windows.
Or maybe the other way around. I, Robot (the book) is a lot older than Animatrix
some company was suing MS, and MS was forced to turn over emails, effective proving the other companies case?... I think that's how our legal system works, and that's how it will apply in SCO vs IBM.
Wouldn't it have to be relevant to the case? Antitrust enforcement would be seen as a different matter.
You're right, sorry. But does it really matter? I think my typos detract from it's understandability more so. Good grief, way to jump down my throat.
How would they make it work? AFAIK inserted genes look just like native ones. How could they tell the difference without have all available genes on hand for reference?
Lots of viri get past virus scanners, do they expect gene scanner to do any better?
Could it be that Windows and IE only seem faster because you're running them on this new faster machine?
I suggest you dual boot Linux on this XP computer before making up your mind as to which is better.
These people should get funding from companies who actually want objective analysis/research, ie companies who want good advice on which product to buy, investors, etc. not by companies that have a stake in the outcome of the research.
Yeah. It would be better if companies had to pay researchers up front. Then they could sue only if they could prove the researcher was BSing, negligent, or biased. That would put researchers in a better position to be objective.
What researcher doesn't have this problem? They can either tell their financial backers what they want to hear or lose funding.
It's the same way in the pharmaceutical industry isn't it?