Why can't he come up with something new or at least factually correct?
I believe a lot of this crap is just copied verbatim from the anti-slash site: the theory is that if a post gets highly moderated *once*, posting it again might get a troll some karma, allowing them to post real troll crap safely later. I suspect the theory is bollocks.
I can't understand why bugfixes, which wont change any of the text shown to the user (other than perhaps the version number), cannot be released for all locals at the same time.
The localised versions, even if it's an apparently near identical one like British-English, still needs to be built by the relevant localisation team. Though I suspect it could be automated somewhat to avoid this TERRIBLE waiting;-)
Chumbawamba make a huge collection of back catalogue stuff and oddities available for free download. If you liked Tumbthumping you probably won't find much of interest;-) Likewise, mainstream politicos may be offended by what's on offer here. <voice type="outraged">these guys are like... anarchists!</voice>
Re:Waiting for apps isn't annoying, focus stealing
on
GNOME 2.12 Released
·
· Score: 1
TweakUI has a "Prevent applications from stealing focus" option.... You can have Windows either flash the taskbar button X number of times or until it is clicked. Quite useful.
Second that. However, it doesn't always work, particularly with older apps - we use an archaic (well, a few years old at least) version of WS_FTP that insists that telling me it's uploading another file is more important than me reading Slashdot... it's wrong, I tell you! Wrong!
It's a fair point (Slashdot's love in with Google vs. rest-of-world), but I'd argue there's a world of difference between assisting a totalitarian regime to jail a dissident (Yahoo) and omiting search results that the intended audience can't see anyway (Google).
Disclaimer: I think both are disgusting and, sadly, totally to be expected. Both Google and Yahoo "owe" it to their shareholders to operate in a way that maximises profits. Not pissing off the largest potential market in the World falls into this category. I don't like it, I'm sure there are others here who don't like it, but that's the way it goes).
Making it illegal for them [to use GPL'd software] will only make GPL enforcement harder.
OK, my understanding of GPL3 is as uninformed as the next man's (and, I believe,MSN), but what's currently being talked about *is*not* making it illegal to use GPL3 software if you hold software patents - rather, it appears that the FSF are *talking* about a clause that would kick in if a company attempted to enforce their patents. In other words, IBM == OK, SCO == no way. I'm basing this belief on Georg Greve's comments to El Reg that he's been misquoted in the press.
Disclaimer: it's possible I've misunderstood you, the original article, El Reg, and even my thought processes. YMMV. It's late, and I want to go home).
Aye, it looks like Google may be slightly wrong here... still, it gives me a chance to apologise to Phoronix, and more importantly say:
Netcraft confirms... Phoronix is not dying!
I was surprised at the discrepency between (a) sites linking to [2], and (b) sites refering to [67000+] Phoronix. I suspect Google may be underreporting links to Phoronix. I'm still none to impressed with the article submission: below par even by recent standards. Still, from now on I'll criticise "submitters" and not "submitted";-)
I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats.
Open Office is open and non-proprietary, and PDF is an open, published spec with many non-proprietary implementations. MS Office isn't open, and any implementations have been largely reverse-engineered.
...but, I suspect you're right. This is a nice step to take, but it won't make much difference in the real world - MS Office is a de facto standard, which we call *all* access (even if we choose not to run Windows). For my part I'd rather fire up AbiWord to open an MS Word document than have to endure yet another PDF.
Fair point. My point was more that these tossers are going to act illegally anyway - might as well force them to reveal their misdeeds (tear the envelope)... but I suspect we're circuitously agreeing with each other;-)
Lloyds Bank now own TSB so it's actually Lloyds TSB now
Dammit, your right. And Lloyds Trustee Savings Bank Bank had far more comedy potential... dammit!
Incidentally, I believe it was TSB wanting to shake off its Trustee status and become a fully fledged bank - that could merge/be taken over by other banks - that prompted the original change from TSB to TSB Bank?
If you hold a sealed envelope, over boiling water, it OPENS! Once it opens, if you close it back up and place it under a book, it will RESEAL!
Not the PIN mailers in the UK - you need to either tear open the sealed envelope *inside* the outer envelope (which, I concede, could maybe be steamed open), or you need to GIMP the whole shebang (I feel durty just saying that...)
Is it really worthy of Slashdot to mention a survey whose outcome was "well, it depends"?
I'm as sick of Yankee Group hype as much as anyone else, but to be fair to Slashdot I feel that in this one case it was worth mentioning: Laura DiDio has a history of making clue-free statements about Free Software; in this article she appears to have clued-up. That in itself was worth reporting[1].
...but aye, apart from that this is more of the same from a shill working for a shill-firm.
[1] Though strangely I don't feel I'll need to be informed when she issues her next clue-free puff piece.
What the hell did you have in your CV that could cause incompatibility between MS-Office and OpenOffice?
I can't speak for the GP, but I've just installed AbiWord to open Word docs that won't open in OpenOffice.org. Nothing fancy about the documents; old CVs with tables and fairly minimal formatting. Word 2000 era maybe?
Does he mean that the bell would have to be rung so that people will stay clear of the vehicle? If so, why not affix the bell to the car?
(From wikipedia) ...a backlash against these large speedy vehicles resulted in passing laws that self-propelled vehicles on public roads in the United Kingdom must be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn.
So, a vehicular-mounted bell wouldn't cut it - you needed the full servant-with-flag-and-horn set-up to remain lawful. This wasn't as hard as it might seem; at that time if you could afford a motor vehicle you could afford numerous servants. (And if you couldn't afford servants, you wouldn't be voting anyway and consequently didn't matter).
This was during the 19th century, but, to be fair, we're still capable of silly ideas now;-)
Ah, my mistake. I was understand the impression that a Socialist government was one where the bulk of the representatives were representatives elected by Socialists, not conservatives/Christian Democrats. Damn, and there was me bemoaning Europe's current crop of legislators as being right-wing. Silly me.
Guess I don't need to wait until the GPES are re-elected - I live in a Socialist paradise right now!
Maybe (and maybe not), but it's hardly relevant: as of 10th July 2005 the largest bloc in the European Parliament was not the GPES (European Socialist Party - including those notorious revolutionaries in the British Labour Party currently supporting Comrade Bush), but the EPP-ED (European Peoples Party - the conservative/Christian Democrat group): Wikipedia. Nice troll, though.
What do the two (security & standards) have to do with each other?
They're both features I/we were hoping would be improved in IE7.
Why does having one preclude the other?
It doesn't - at least to me. Personally, I *was* hoping for improved standards-compliance, because I have to develop for standards+IE at the moment, and I'm a lazy bastard. But now IE7 is (almost) out, it occurs to me that my needs are trivial compared to the wider (security) needs of the web as a whole. But you're quite right: security shouldn't preclude standards, particularly in a product that (theoretically) has been four years in the making.
Slashdot Mirror
Why can't he come up with something new or at least factually correct?
I believe a lot of this crap is just copied verbatim from the anti-slash site: the theory is that if a post gets highly moderated *once*, posting it again might get a troll some karma, allowing them to post real troll crap safely later. I suspect the theory is bollocks.
You can pretty easily be killed by 110V as well, it's not really significantly safer than 220...
As my old physics teacher used to say: "it's not the Volts that jolts, but the Mills that kills."
I can't understand why bugfixes, which wont change any of the text shown to the user (other than perhaps the version number), cannot be released for all locals at the same time.
The localised versions, even if it's an apparently near identical one like British-English, still needs to be built by the relevant localisation team. Though I suspect it could be automated somewhat to avoid this TERRIBLE waiting ;-)
/also still waiting on British 1.0.6...
Some fine choices, sir!
Chumbawamba make a huge collection of back catalogue stuff and oddities available for free download. If you liked Tumbthumping you probably won't find much of interest ;-) Likewise, mainstream politicos may be offended by what's on offer here. <voice type="outraged">these guys are like... anarchists!</voice>
TweakUI has a "Prevent applications from stealing focus" option.... You can have Windows either flash the taskbar button X number of times or until it is clicked. Quite useful.
Second that. However, it doesn't always work, particularly with older apps - we use an archaic (well, a few years old at least) version of WS_FTP that insists that telling me it's uploading another file is more important than me reading Slashdot... it's wrong, I tell you! Wrong!
It's a fair point (Slashdot's love in with Google vs. rest-of-world), but I'd argue there's a world of difference between assisting a totalitarian regime to jail a dissident (Yahoo) and omiting search results that the intended audience can't see anyway (Google).
Disclaimer: I think both are disgusting and, sadly, totally to be expected. Both Google and Yahoo "owe" it to their shareholders to operate in a way that maximises profits. Not pissing off the largest potential market in the World falls into this category. I don't like it, I'm sure there are others here who don't like it, but that's the way it goes).
Making it illegal for them [to use GPL'd software] will only make GPL enforcement harder.
OK, my understanding of GPL3 is as uninformed as the next man's (and, I believe ,MSN), but what's currently being talked about *is*not* making it illegal to use GPL3 software if you hold software patents - rather, it appears that the FSF are *talking* about a clause that would kick in if a company attempted to enforce their patents. In other words, IBM == OK, SCO == no way. I'm basing this belief on Georg Greve's comments to El Reg that he's been misquoted in the press.
Disclaimer: it's possible I've misunderstood you, the original article, El Reg, and even my thought processes. YMMV. It's late, and I want to go home).
Aye, it looks like Google may be slightly wrong here... still, it gives me a chance to apologise to Phoronix, and more importantly say:
Netcraft confirms... Phoronix is not dying!
I was surprised at the discrepency between (a) sites linking to [2], and (b) sites refering to [67000+] Phoronix. I suspect Google may be underreporting links to Phoronix. I'm still none to impressed with the article submission: below par even by recent standards. Still, from now on I'll criticise "submitters" and not "submitted" ;-)
And Phoronix is a popular Linux site?
According to google a whole 2 other sites link to it... :-o
I suspect I'm as shocked as you to find this on Slashdot (assuming you're not very shocked at all).
I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats.
Open Office is open and non-proprietary, and PDF is an open, published spec with many non-proprietary implementations. MS Office isn't open, and any implementations have been largely reverse-engineered.
...but, I suspect you're right. This is a nice step to take, but it won't make much difference in the real world - MS Office is a de facto standard, which we call *all* access (even if we choose not to run Windows). For my part I'd rather fire up AbiWord to open an MS Word document than have to endure yet another PDF.
God, I hate reading typoes!
Uh, dude, that's typos, not typoes! ;-)
/me slinks off...
Fair point. My point was more that these tossers are going to act illegally anyway - might as well force them to reveal their misdeeds (tear the envelope)... but I suspect we're circuitously agreeing with each other ;-)
Lloyds Bank now own TSB so it's actually Lloyds TSB now
Dammit, your right. And Lloyds Trustee Savings Bank Bank had far more comedy potential... dammit!
Incidentally, I believe it was TSB wanting to shake off its Trustee status and become a fully fledged bank - that could merge/be taken over by other banks - that prompted the original change from TSB to TSB Bank?
If you hold a sealed envelope, over boiling water, it OPENS! Once it opens, if you close it back up and place it under a book, it will RESEAL!
Not the PIN mailers in the UK - you need to either tear open the sealed envelope *inside* the outer envelope (which, I concede, could maybe be steamed open), or you need to GIMP the whole shebang (I feel durty just saying that...)
If some has my Personal Identification Number Number, they may use it in an Automatic Teller Machine Machine.
This being a UK story, would they use the ATM Machine at the Trustee Savings Bank Bank?!
(The TSB was renamed to "TSB Bank" back in the 1980s, as a precursor to something or other boring and pointless)
An even better way of reading the PIN is to open up the envelope and look inside. One doesn't even need a computer for that.
Except, as soon as you've broken the seal you've effectively announced to the intended victim: "Beware! Your PIN has been compromised!"
But it can't be everything I want... and more. I don't want "more."
Pah! Set your standards higher. At the very least want everything you want... and a pony.
(with apologies to Calvin and Hobbes)
Is it really worthy of Slashdot to mention a survey whose outcome was "well, it depends"?
I'm as sick of Yankee Group hype as much as anyone else, but to be fair to Slashdot I feel that in this one case it was worth mentioning: Laura DiDio has a history of making clue-free statements about Free Software; in this article she appears to have clued-up. That in itself was worth reporting[1].
...but aye, apart from that this is more of the same from a shill working for a shill-firm.
[1] Though strangely I don't feel I'll need to be informed when she issues her next clue-free puff piece.
What the hell did you have in your CV that could cause incompatibility between MS-Office and OpenOffice?
I can't speak for the GP, but I've just installed AbiWord to open Word docs that won't open in OpenOffice.org. Nothing fancy about the documents; old CVs with tables and fairly minimal formatting. Word 2000 era maybe?
Of course, at the time I blamed MS Word ;-)
Does he mean that the bell would have to be rung so that people will stay clear of the vehicle? If so, why not affix the bell to the car?
(From wikipedia)
...a backlash against these large speedy vehicles resulted in passing laws that self-propelled vehicles on public roads in the United Kingdom must be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn.
So, a vehicular-mounted bell wouldn't cut it - you needed the full servant-with-flag-and-horn set-up to remain lawful. This wasn't as hard as it might seem; at that time if you could afford a motor vehicle you could afford numerous servants. (And if you couldn't afford servants, you wouldn't be voting anyway and consequently didn't matter).
This was during the 19th century, but, to be fair, we're still capable of silly ideas now ;-)
So what?
Ah, my mistake. I was understand the impression that a Socialist government was one where the bulk of the representatives were representatives elected by Socialists, not conservatives/Christian Democrats. Damn, and there was me bemoaning Europe's current crop of legislators as being right-wing. Silly me.
Guess I don't need to wait until the GPES are re-elected - I live in a Socialist paradise right now!
Socialist governments like imprecise laws...
Maybe (and maybe not), but it's hardly relevant: as of 10th July 2005 the largest bloc in the European Parliament was not the GPES (European Socialist Party - including those notorious revolutionaries in the British Labour Party currently supporting Comrade Bush), but the EPP-ED (European Peoples Party - the conservative/Christian Democrat group): Wikipedia. Nice troll, though.
Just pounding the rubber stamp on any piece of paper that comes into your office sounds like the easiest job on the face of the earth.
It's not as simple as that... since the USPTO granted a patent on rubber-stamping daft patent applications.
;-)
What do the two (security & standards) have to do with each other?
They're both features I/we were hoping would be improved in IE7.
Why does having one preclude the other?
It doesn't - at least to me. Personally, I *was* hoping for improved standards-compliance, because I have to develop for standards+IE at the moment, and I'm a lazy bastard. But now IE7 is (almost) out, it occurs to me that my needs are trivial compared to the wider (security) needs of the web as a whole. But you're quite right: security shouldn't preclude standards, particularly in a product that (theoretically) has been four years in the making.