Tabs are more efficient than windows - only one copy of the browser ui is present
And all of the pages I'm looking at go away when that one browser crashes. Nice.
There is no need to initialize yet another copy of the ui when you want to see a link without loosing the current page, and destroy it when you'r done
You act as if I'm doing some work; its the computer doing what it does best, running another application.
It's easier to switch between a browser and another application, than to switch betweeen 300 open browser windows and another application
Which is why I never open 300 browser windows; or 300 windows of anything, for that matter. I close what i don't need. I don't need 300 web pages all at once, I can only read one at a time.
Basicaly, MDI (and tabs are a kind of MDI) UIs were invented for a reason, and have their use cases And i find it irritating that many other applycations switched from MDI to SDI in the last years (eg: ms office, nero)... grrr...
MDI sucks, there's a reason everyone is pushing to get rid of it. Even MS is encouraging we leave MDI behind.
No, we need to be aware of retards like this. I mean seriously, does it matter THAT MUCH that athletes need to be watch at all times? I really don't care if they are taking drugs.. let them.
Banning an IP address and banning a user account are two different things. Or do you think that they only banned a particular user using a particular IP address? Banning IPs does not mean that you know WHO was on the other end of that IP.
How about it's a stupid law and is being rightfully ignored? Ya, that's it. It places an undo burden on business, and really, they're being asked to keep evidence which may incriminate them. Might as well ask a rapist to keep detailed records too so they can be subpoenaed.
Wow.. a point releas improved performance! Hopefully MS will do this with Vista in SP2, for those that seem to think performance is a problem.
But please, go install OSX 10.5 on a G4 mac and let me know how it performs. Vista runs fine on my computer which has a amd x2 3800+, released in 2005.
Uhh, no, that's not the "biggest" problem with Vista. To be fair it is a problem with both Vista AND XP (try running all your users as lusers without at least admin/power user rights on their machines in the business world using Windows -- hint: doesn't usually work if you use any non MS software) but it's not the "biggest" problem with Vista.
No, it's not a problem with Vista at all. It's a problem with crappy 3rd party developers. The fact that you realize that it's non-MS software that doesn't play well with standard user permissions in XP / Vista shows you probably know this. My applications continue to work just fine, but then I never stored settings in \program files or \Windows.
How is it the fault of 3rd party developers that Vista isn't stable?
Vista has been stable for me. Of course, 3rd party drivers can cause instability. That's nothing new, and it happens in any OS. Some drivers are worse than others, and it seems companies building sound card especially suck when writing drivers, which is why Vista moves sound drivers out of kernel space completely.
How is it the fault of 3rd party developers that Vista uses more system resources when idle then my XP workstation does while running 10-12 apps during a typical workday? Explain to me how KDE's memory usage (at idle) gets lower with each new release yet Windows gets higher and higher.
Try comparing apples to apples. Do a base install of a distro that has KDE 2, and then one that has KDE 3. Vista includes SERVICES as well, and you're counting the memory they take for Vista, but you're NOT counting memory when you talk about KDE's memory requirements... you're only talking about KDE usage. I think it's fair to say that newer Linux distro's require more memory than they did five years ago too.
What I find interesting though is, does anyone REALLY care about PC Mag to begin with? I mean really. They can say whatever they want about Vista, good or bad, but aren't they still irrelevent?
I can say, "RTFA" but obviously you won't. It will take a few minutes.
I did, as I said, its bunk.
Wow really? Oh BTW, I was the one who specified the exact sugars that comprise sucrose. I guess while I was mentioning percentages of glucose and fructose it might have lead somebody to believe that there is only one type of sugar. To make it very clear: Yes, know there are a number of types of sugars. If you have studied the creb cycle you will learn that your body needs glucose. Your body has no need for fructose. That is part of why sucrose is bad for you too.
Depending on the source, some claim your body needs no sugar at all, including glucose (which the body can make on its own). There are other things we intake the body doesn't need also, does that automatically make them bad for you? Not at all. Oh, you may want to know the actual name too before you try to claim to know your argument. Its Kreb's cycle. Named after one of the scientists that described it.
Can't recall saying that "fructose is the cause of all of our problems". But with what we are learning about it, it makes sense that it is a big contributing factor. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ingesting something that tends to fool your body into remaining hungry would obviously be a tipping point in the balance between a healthy couch potato and an obese one wouldn't it? Hmmmm... (Fructose could be the cause of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis though!)
You rant on and one about high fructose corn syrup, saying that's why the US is fat; you fail to mention any other reason other than claiming "ITS EVERYWHERE!" The truth is Americans simply consume too much and don't expend enough. HFCS by itself doesn't cause anything.
Great point! The earth is flat! - First you have presented no basis for any numbers of doctors that believe or disbelieve these concepts about fructose. Frankly, you have no idea how many doctors believe the contents of that interview. Secondly and more importantly, changes in scientific understanding NEVER starts with consensus. That comes after a lot of work that the interviewee clearly points out hasn't been done yet.
Yet here you are blaming HFCS before there is any consensus at all. Its fine to think the earth is flat until science comes to a consensus that it's not. I know a lot of doctors don't agree because otherwise we'd see the same reaction that trans-fats are right now.
Oh, and Robert is a man's name.
And my typing her instead of him is relevent to this debate how? Attacking simply grammar mistakes is a sign of weakness in your argument.
The interviewee relates that eliminating fructose seems to have the effect of causing people to become more active and to eat less. All without any prompting. Hmmm... Sounds like your method but without the struggle. I guess that wouldn't be of interest to an overweight person...
Funny, I became active and starting eating less and haven't eliminated fructose. Removing fructose won't cause someone to stop watching TV and go out and bike or something. That's possibly the sillyist thing I've ever heard.
You can lose weight by eating less only. Exercise will help you lose it quicker though, and give you other benefits as well such as lowering blood pressure, improving your cardiovascular, respitory, and immune systems, keeping your bones strong, etc. All of these benefits DO have a consensus right now. I don't know if you're trying to imply that I am overweight, but I'll let you know was, but am not anymore. Am I hungry alot now? Yes, but I'm also doing a muscle building program, and my previous fat burning program kicked up my metabolism as well. Nothing to do with fructose, it had instead to do with my increased activity.
How exactly is exercise and eating a sensible portion (that is, only what your body really requires) a struggle?
As the interview transcript clearly explains, issues with fruct
I had a longer post written, but it got lost. Oh well. Too much effort for a troll anyway. Next time you try to troll though, don't claim to know more about a situation that the person you are trolling was personally involved in. It makes you look stupid and your trolling obvious.
The coloring has nothing to do with health or safety standards, and the colors are a shade off. If it WAS vital, the colors would be completely different. As it was, no one notice the wrong shade color being used for SIX MONTHS, and that was about five and a half months before my wife even worked in the office. The white text in a black box does nothing for clarity or preventing mistakes; since I've changed them to bold black text in white, the only thing different is the $200,000 savings in toner / ink saved.
Finally, don't accuse the person you're trolling of being way too broad then close with a statement like this: If a teacher tells you to stop doing something while you're sitting in a classroom, you do it. If you have a problem with the imperative, you make use of the appropriate venue to deal with it.
Obey simply because you're told to? No thanks. The student (which doesn't exist, because apparently this was a hoax) wouldn't have been doing any harm. He wouldn't have been disruptive, nor would it damage the computer in question. Someone shouldn't be punished if there wasn't any harm done.
If you're asked to print a memo on green paper, print the damn thing on green paper. There is no ground to be taken by questioning the decision.
Ahh, you mean like my wife being told to redo charts at her clinic because the paper used was a shade off? Nevermind that meant tossing a bunch of used paper, re-creating on the new paper could lead to errors (if one record were not recreated, for example) and in general be a waste of her time.
Or like when I questioned why we print orders / invoices with white text in black boxes as column headings. No one had a real good reason for it to be that way, but I had a good one for not doing that, namely that they were using more black ink / toner to have that effect.
But you're right, next time I won't question anything.
Sugar (table sugar) is sucrose. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Yup it is bad for you but only half as bad as fructose is. Try this link and click "Show Transcript":
There's quite a bit of difference between "high fructose corn syrup" and sucrose. Oh, by the way, not all sugar is table sugar. For example, milk contains sugar. Its not sucrose. For you to say fructose is the cause of all our problems is simply bogus.
The person relating this "Bunk" is Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of California, San Francisco
Ahh. Surely then there's millions of other doctors that agree with her? Oh, there's not? I see.
Don't believe it? Fine. Do what you want but I suspect in ten years this will be one of those things where everybody asks, "why were we doing that".
My god, with all this fructose, no wonder I couldn't lose weight! Oh, I did though, by exercising and reducing portions to sensible amounts. Still, I guess I'll throw away my apple anyway. Its LOADED with fructose!
I'm guessing you have a dislike of teachers, and probably authority in general and are bringing it in to an issue completely seperate from what you are talking about.
There is much reason to dislike authority, especially when authority is exercised when it shouldn't be, over trivial things. I'm more distrubed by people that blindly bow to authority of them than anyone who questions it. Its our duty as citizens of this nation to always question authority, and if we find said authority over-reaching, to ignore it or remove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true really. They are on XM now too, so I imagine thier listenership is up.
I actually never hard of AAR until I hard ads for it on XM.
No kidding. Half the things on that list were only announced this year, and AFAIK the release was always 08. Why does that make it vaporware?
We? Are you a developer on IronPython?
Tabs are more efficient than windows - only one copy of the browser ui is present
... grrr...
And all of the pages I'm looking at go away when that one browser crashes. Nice.
There is no need to initialize yet another copy of the ui when you want to see a link without loosing the current page, and destroy it when you'r done
You act as if I'm doing some work; its the computer doing what it does best, running another application.
It's easier to switch between a browser and another application, than to switch betweeen 300 open browser windows and another application
Which is why I never open 300 browser windows; or 300 windows of anything, for that matter. I close what i don't need. I don't need 300 web pages all at once, I can only read one at a time.
Basicaly, MDI (and tabs are a kind of MDI) UIs were invented for a reason, and have their use cases
And i find it irritating that many other applycations switched from MDI to SDI in the last years (eg: ms office, nero)
MDI sucks, there's a reason everyone is pushing to get rid of it. Even MS is encouraging we leave MDI behind.
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?design.4.181903.38
Good, now hopefully we can have more interesting TALK radio, everything from O&A to Rush. Should be plenty of room for all kinds of radio shows.
I think the bigger question is well FF3 pass the acid2 test?
IE implementing it first would be pretty embarrising for FF, considering the FF fanboys like to use that the beat up on IE.
DISCLAIMER: I use FF as my primary browser.
No, we need to be aware of retards like this. I mean seriously, does it matter THAT MUCH that athletes need to be watch at all times? I really don't care if they are taking drugs.. let them.
Huh? There's no reason to use it if it's NOT going to be over the web.
Actually the CLR handles dynamic languages quite well. Check out IronPython.
Banning an IP address and banning a user account are two different things. Or do you think that they only banned a particular user using a particular IP address? Banning IPs does not mean that you know WHO was on the other end of that IP.
Well, thanks for explaining how the economy works! People will only pay what they think the item is worth. Big suprise!
Not that they sold the USB cable to me anyway. I just went elsewher and purchased a longer USB cable for $5.
There are PowerMacs (G4/867 Quicksilver) that meet the minimum OS X 10.5 requirements that were made in 2001.
So lets see how OSX 10.5 performs on a Mac circa 2001, since we want to compare the latest OS at the time MS released XP.
If you read the article, or even the summary, it was someone checking the MD5 that discovered the poisioning. So... I'd say it certainly helped.
How about it's a stupid law and is being rightfully ignored? Ya, that's it. It places an undo burden on business, and really, they're being asked to keep evidence which may incriminate them. Might as well ask a rapist to keep detailed records too so they can be subpoenaed.
Wow.. a point releas improved performance! Hopefully MS will do this with Vista in SP2, for those that seem to think performance is a problem.
But please, go install OSX 10.5 on a G4 mac and let me know how it performs. Vista runs fine on my computer which has a amd x2 3800+, released in 2005.
Uhh, no, that's not the "biggest" problem with Vista. To be fair it is a problem with both Vista AND XP (try running all your users as lusers without at least admin/power user rights on their machines in the business world using Windows -- hint: doesn't usually work if you use any non MS software) but it's not the "biggest" problem with Vista.
No, it's not a problem with Vista at all. It's a problem with crappy 3rd party developers. The fact that you realize that it's non-MS software that doesn't play well with standard user permissions in XP / Vista shows you probably know this. My applications continue to work just fine, but then I never stored settings in \program files or \Windows.
How is it the fault of 3rd party developers that Vista isn't stable?
Vista has been stable for me. Of course, 3rd party drivers can cause instability. That's nothing new, and it happens in any OS. Some drivers are worse than others, and it seems companies building sound card especially suck when writing drivers, which is why Vista moves sound drivers out of kernel space completely.
How is it the fault of 3rd party developers that Vista uses more system resources when idle then my XP workstation does while running 10-12 apps during a typical workday? Explain to me how KDE's memory usage (at idle) gets lower with each new release yet Windows gets higher and higher.
Try comparing apples to apples. Do a base install of a distro that has KDE 2, and then one that has KDE 3. Vista includes SERVICES as well, and you're counting the memory they take for Vista, but you're NOT counting memory when you talk about KDE's memory requirements... you're only talking about KDE usage. I think it's fair to say that newer Linux distro's require more memory than they did five years ago too.
I agree with your post.
What I find interesting though is, does anyone REALLY care about PC Mag to begin with? I mean really. They can say whatever they want about Vista, good or bad, but aren't they still irrelevent?
I can say, "RTFA" but obviously you won't. It will take a few minutes.
I did, as I said, its bunk.
Wow really? Oh BTW, I was the one who specified the exact sugars that comprise sucrose. I guess while I was mentioning percentages of glucose and fructose it might have lead somebody to believe that there is only one type of sugar. To make it very clear: Yes, know there are a number of types of sugars. If you have studied the creb cycle you will learn that your body needs glucose. Your body has no need for fructose. That is part of why sucrose is bad for you too.
Depending on the source, some claim your body needs no sugar at all, including glucose (which the body can make on its own). There are other things we intake the body doesn't need also, does that automatically make them bad for you? Not at all. Oh, you may want to know the actual name too before you try to claim to know your argument. Its Kreb's cycle. Named after one of the scientists that described it.
Can't recall saying that "fructose is the cause of all of our problems". But with what we are learning about it, it makes sense that it is a big contributing factor. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ingesting something that tends to fool your body into remaining hungry would obviously be a tipping point in the balance between a healthy couch potato and an obese one wouldn't it? Hmmmm... (Fructose could be the cause of the current sub-prime mortgage crisis though!)
You rant on and one about high fructose corn syrup, saying that's why the US is fat; you fail to mention any other reason other than claiming "ITS EVERYWHERE!" The truth is Americans simply consume too much and don't expend enough. HFCS by itself doesn't cause anything.
Great point! The earth is flat!
- First you have presented no basis for any numbers of doctors that believe or disbelieve these concepts about fructose. Frankly, you have no idea how many doctors believe the contents of that interview.
Secondly and more importantly, changes in scientific understanding NEVER starts with consensus. That comes after a lot of work that the interviewee clearly points out hasn't been done yet.
Yet here you are blaming HFCS before there is any consensus at all. Its fine to think the earth is flat until science comes to a consensus that it's not. I know a lot of doctors don't agree because otherwise we'd see the same reaction that trans-fats are right now.
Oh, and Robert is a man's name.
And my typing her instead of him is relevent to this debate how? Attacking simply grammar mistakes is a sign of weakness in your argument.
The interviewee relates that eliminating fructose seems to have the effect of causing people to become more active and to eat less. All without any prompting. Hmmm... Sounds like your method but without the struggle. I guess that wouldn't be of interest to an overweight person...
Funny, I became active and starting eating less and haven't eliminated fructose. Removing fructose won't cause someone to stop watching TV and go out and bike or something. That's possibly the sillyist thing I've ever heard.
You can lose weight by eating less only. Exercise will help you lose it quicker though, and give you other benefits as well such as lowering blood pressure, improving your cardiovascular, respitory, and immune systems, keeping your bones strong, etc. All of these benefits DO have a consensus right now. I don't know if you're trying to imply that I am overweight, but I'll let you know was, but am not anymore. Am I hungry alot now? Yes, but I'm also doing a muscle building program, and my previous fat burning program kicked up my metabolism as well. Nothing to do with fructose, it had instead to do with my increased activity.
How exactly is exercise and eating a sensible portion (that is, only what your body really requires) a struggle?
As the interview transcript clearly explains, issues with fruct
I had a longer post written, but it got lost. Oh well. Too much effort for a troll anyway. Next time you try to troll though, don't claim to know more about a situation that the person you are trolling was personally involved in. It makes you look stupid and your trolling obvious.
The coloring has nothing to do with health or safety standards, and the colors are a shade off. If it WAS vital, the colors would be completely different. As it was, no one notice the wrong shade color being used for SIX MONTHS, and that was about five and a half months before my wife even worked in the office. The white text in a black box does nothing for clarity or preventing mistakes; since I've changed them to bold black text in white, the only thing different is the $200,000 savings in toner / ink saved.
Finally, don't accuse the person you're trolling of being way too broad then close with a statement like this: If a teacher tells you to stop doing something while you're sitting in a classroom, you do it. If you have a problem with the imperative, you make use of the appropriate venue to deal with it.
Why would this matter to you at all, if you never enable it?
/.ers continually say MS can't do anything right, then don't think at all MS could have screwed up the algorthm or backdoor?
More to the point, why do
Obey simply because you're told to? No thanks. The student (which doesn't exist, because apparently this was a hoax) wouldn't have been doing any harm. He wouldn't have been disruptive, nor would it damage the computer in question. Someone shouldn't be punished if there wasn't any harm done.
If you're asked to print a memo on green paper, print the damn thing on green paper. There is no ground to be taken by questioning the decision.
Ahh, you mean like my wife being told to redo charts at her clinic because the paper used was a shade off? Nevermind that meant tossing a bunch of used paper, re-creating on the new paper could lead to errors (if one record were not recreated, for example) and in general be a waste of her time.
Or like when I questioned why we print orders / invoices with white text in black boxes as column headings. No one had a real good reason for it to be that way, but I had a good one for not doing that, namely that they were using more black ink / toner to have that effect.
But you're right, next time I won't question anything.
Sugar (table sugar) is sucrose. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Yup it is bad for you but only half as bad as fructose is. Try this link and click "Show Transcript":
There's quite a bit of difference between "high fructose corn syrup" and sucrose. Oh, by the way, not all sugar is table sugar. For example, milk contains sugar. Its not sucrose. For you to say fructose is the cause of all our problems is simply bogus.
The person relating this "Bunk" is Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology, University of California, San Francisco
Ahh. Surely then there's millions of other doctors that agree with her? Oh, there's not? I see.
Don't believe it? Fine. Do what you want but I suspect in ten years this will be one of those things where everybody asks, "why were we doing that".
My god, with all this fructose, no wonder I couldn't lose weight! Oh, I did though, by exercising and reducing portions to sensible amounts. Still, I guess I'll throw away my apple anyway. Its LOADED with fructose!
I'm guessing you have a dislike of teachers, and probably authority in general and are bringing it in to an issue completely seperate from what you are talking about.
There is much reason to dislike authority, especially when authority is exercised when it shouldn't be, over trivial things. I'm more distrubed by people that blindly bow to authority of them than anyone who questions it. Its our duty as citizens of this nation to always question authority, and if we find said authority over-reaching, to ignore it or remove it.
Debating idiocity lends some validity to said idiocity.