Well, considering that burning coal puts out more radioactivity than nuclear energy (not to mention all the soot, CO2, CO, etc), I'd say that nuclear is pretty green. It could be made even more green if we didn't ban reprocessing. A recent discover (or was it wired?) had a nice article on it, pick it up, it can tell you a lot more than me.
Opera caches the state of the DOM, Firefox doesn't. This is an informed decision on the part of the developers (I'm too busy to find a bug number, but it's there, as well as reasoned out some other places online.)
...we have to patch IE regardless so we might well just use it.
That's an unfriendly attitude to take... what about all the people who'll miss tabbed browsing/incremental search/etc.? I know every time I have to use IE I suffer, regardless of whether or not it's patched.
* The One True Cookie Policy(TM) is to prompt the user before accepting cookies and remember the user's preferences.
Does Options -> Privacy -> Cookies -> Keep cookies: Ask me every time not give you what you want?
Re:REQ: block flash / show url for failed page loa
on
Mozilla Roadmap Update
·
· Score: 1
Others already answered requests 1 and 2, so I'll just answer 3:
Go to about:config (for anyone who hasn't used it before, just type that in the URL bar). Filter for "dom.dis". You'll get a list of options. Most of them are self-explanatory, and should be set to true if you want to always have your status bar, url bar, etc., or false if you don't mind sites deciding that. You can probably google for the ones you don't understand.
Have you looked at Nvu? It's based on the Composer included in Mozilla (in much the same way that Firefox is based on the Mozilla browser). I've never used it myself, since I write all my HTML by hand, but I've heard good things about it.
I hear all the posters and academics argue about "free speech means tolerating speech you don't like"...
...but free speech != exploitation of the innocent.
Let me first say that I completely agree with the second part of that. Child pornography, while one could argue that it's "speech" of a sort, is not Free Speech of the kind that is and should be protected.
However, I think that the first part needs to be revised. Free speech means more than just tolerating speech you don't like, it also means giving up some of the ways we've traditionally had of getting rid of criminals. Now, this isn't to say that free speech means tolerating child porn, just that if you want it, it will be harder to get rid of child porn.
For me, free speech is worth that cost--I imagine a world without free speech, and I see things much worse; even the chance to solidify free speech that is already had is worth the cost, as I look around and see it precariously balanced, some days growing stronger, many growing weaker. I understand the horrors of child porn (not as clearly as some, of course, but vaugely), but--as important as it is to get rid of it--it's less important than getting and keeping free speech.
Anonymity--or the possibility of it--is also the foremost requirement of free speech. A few people doing things that are illegal is a tiny price to pay for supporting freedom.
For example, if you load a page in a new tab, it colours the caption text of that tab when the page is done loading.
Firefox has a little spinning thing (the same as is in the top right corner, my mind's blank right now and I can't think of what it's called) that's there when the page is loading.
You can move tabs around in opera (also available for FF with an extension).
An extension, as you said.
Also, Opera lets you save your current tabs and reload this configuration at any time.
Firefox does too--go to bookmark the page and check "bookmark all tabs in a folder.
If it crashes, it loads all the websites/tabs that were open before.
IIRC, there's an extension for this, too. You're trusting my memory on this, though...
Not quite true, it's just that Mozilla has had a trunk release more recently. The Firefox nightlies have the same core features (layout engine, etc) as the Mozilla nightlies.
Note: Right now the Firefox nightlies are somewhat broken, since the 1.0 branch features were merged onto the trunk and that, as expected, caused problems. If you're not doing testing work, it's probably best to stay away from them for a few weeks, or check the Burning Edge to see recent bugfixes/regressions.
The Mozilla Suite is a combined browser/mail/news/chat/addressbook. Firefox is just a browser. Thunderbird is just mail/news/addressbook. They all use the same rendering engine, and share much of their other code, but have different front ends.
I think the new (as in still in beta, not being used yet) update.mozilla.org will have the ability to automatically update the version string (but don't quote me on that).
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
For one, this is a common fallacy. When you get to college, please take an introductory course on critical thinking.
Well, if it's a fallacy, I made a mistake somewhere, right? Now, there are three statements, one of which connects the other two. Let's look at each of them:
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content.
This looks right to me. I'm sure you agree?
If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist.
I don't have real-world data on this. However, I'm sure to most that this would seem common sense. Therfore, the burden of proof falls on you--if you wish to contest this, you must provide the data.
Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
This follows mathematically from the other two.
So how's my critical thinking?
For two, Bin Ladin and his gang are filthy rich. We're not being attacked by hungry people. We're being attacked by people with a lot of money and a lot of resources (and plenty of food, too, by the way).
The point, however, is that we're being attacked by people who were previously hungry. If there were fewer people going without food, bin Laden and other terrorist groups would have fewer new recruits and less support among the populaces.
Yes, we fucking WERE. What do you think 9/11 was, big guy?
Unrelated to Iraq. This has been substantiated many times over.
How, exactly, would giving food away work to combat terrorism?
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
The terrorists want to kill you, why? Because you're not a Muslim and because you offend them. They hate everything America stands for. It's not just about our politics; they hate the fact that we let the women show their faces in public.
This is true only of Extremist Islamic Terrorists. For other groups of terrorists, every single word of that is wrong.
Furthermore, for most of the Extremist Islamic Terrorists that only became the case after they became a terrorist. They originally became terrorists to avenge a killed friend or kinsman, to gain fame, to get food (after all, the terrorists eat better than most people in some parts of the world), or for a multitude of other reasons.
We're dealing with extremist whackos here. How would giving food away do a damn thing to combat them?
It would reduce their support base. They would have fewer new recruits and less money from the groups that fund them.
I hope your opinion on this matter is not representative of the rest of your generation.
(As far as I can tell) it is pretty representative of at least the intelligent part.
We didn't start a war.
Yes, we did.
We were attacked first.
No, we weren't.
Saddam at one time had weapons of mass destruction.
He did not when we attacked.
Saddam did NOT cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Neither did we. Had we, we would have realized that he didn't currently have any WMDs.
And Saddam openly pays [sic] money to the families of suicide bombers depending on how many people they kill.
Very true. He paid to the families amounts up to $25,000 for suicide bombers, and lesser amounts for wounds or disablement.
And since we are working to eliminate terrorism and the unstable dictators that support it, Iraq was a logical target.
Not to spend $200 billion on. It wasn't worth $200 billion.
No, marriage should just be scrapped from the legal system all together. Think (a variation of) Occam's Razor--it solves all the problems we currently have about different minor groups being unfairly treated, and it does so in one fell swoop. To solve all the problems with the current marriage system (interracial, homosexual, polygamous, etc., etc., etc.) has taken 200+ years in this country alone, and we're still nowhere near where we should be.
It also makes various other parts of the legal system much simpler. Think about it for a while.
I've never had 1000 dollars in my life. I probably would have, had I been paid (minimum wage) for all my volunteer hours, though. *calculates* Yep, about 1500. And I currently have about $200 in cash. So I'm a bit short of 90%, more like 88%. Aren't I such a hypocrite?
Actually, though, I do spend a lot of money as it comes in. I bought a bike last year, I rack up a pretty large phone bill talking to my friends internationally. I buy non-essential foods for myself and friends. Years ago I bought a gameboy for myself. I buy birthday and Winter Holiday presents for people. I buy little things for myself here and there. At a very rough estimate, I'd say that all tolled I've spent about 2 grand of my own in my life. 3 grand at most. And as I said, I've donated around 1500 dollars worth of volunteer time, so I'm at around 33% of what I have, I donate.
Of course, I'm a minor still, so I can do that. Obviously it gets harder when you're an adult--but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can when you can.
As a postscript, imagine what we could have done with the $200 billion we used in the war if we'd given it away instead of spent it. We could have completely funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years or so, for example. Now don't you think that would have done more to combat terrorism than starting a war?
As a postpostscript, I volunteer(ed) at my local library, not somewhere like Greenpeace or the Peace Corps. You may count me down for that if you like.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering that burning coal puts out more radioactivity than nuclear energy (not to mention all the soot, CO2, CO, etc), I'd say that nuclear is pretty green. It could be made even more green if we didn't ban reprocessing. A recent discover (or was it wired?) had a nice article on it, pick it up, it can tell you a lot more than me.
Opera caches the state of the DOM, Firefox doesn't. This is an informed decision on the part of the developers (I'm too busy to find a bug number, but it's there, as well as reasoned out some other places online.)
I might just be naive, but doesn't database performance depend a lot more on filesystem than OS?
That's an unfriendly attitude to take... what about all the people who'll miss tabbed browsing/incremental search/etc.? I know every time I have to use IE I suffer, regardless of whether or not it's patched.
Does Options -> Privacy -> Cookies -> Keep cookies: Ask me every time not give you what you want?
Others already answered requests 1 and 2, so I'll just answer 3:
Go to about:config (for anyone who hasn't used it before, just type that in the URL bar). Filter for "dom.dis". You'll get a list of options. Most of them are self-explanatory, and should be set to true if you want to always have your status bar, url bar, etc., or false if you don't mind sites deciding that. You can probably google for the ones you don't understand.
Try flashblock: http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic =45.
Have you looked at Nvu? It's based on the Composer included in Mozilla (in much the same way that Firefox is based on the Mozilla browser). I've never used it myself, since I write all my HTML by hand, but I've heard good things about it.
Let me first say that I completely agree with the second part of that. Child pornography, while one could argue that it's "speech" of a sort, is not Free Speech of the kind that is and should be protected.
However, I think that the first part needs to be revised. Free speech means more than just tolerating speech you don't like, it also means giving up some of the ways we've traditionally had of getting rid of criminals. Now, this isn't to say that free speech means tolerating child porn, just that if you want it, it will be harder to get rid of child porn.
For me, free speech is worth that cost--I imagine a world without free speech, and I see things much worse; even the chance to solidify free speech that is already had is worth the cost, as I look around and see it precariously balanced, some days growing stronger, many growing weaker. I understand the horrors of child porn (not as clearly as some, of course, but vaugely), but--as important as it is to get rid of it--it's less important than getting and keeping free speech.
I run freenet because of that.
Anonymity--or the possibility of it--is also the foremost requirement of free speech. A few people doing things that are illegal is a tiny price to pay for supporting freedom.
Firefox has a little spinning thing (the same as is in the top right corner, my mind's blank right now and I can't think of what it's called) that's there when the page is loading.
An extension, as you said.
Firefox does too--go to bookmark the page and check "bookmark all tabs in a folder.
IIRC, there's an extension for this, too. You're trusting my memory on this, though...
Not quite true, it's just that Mozilla has had a trunk release more recently. The Firefox nightlies have the same core features (layout engine, etc) as the Mozilla nightlies.
Note: Right now the Firefox nightlies are somewhat broken, since the 1.0 branch features were merged onto the trunk and that, as expected, caused problems. If you're not doing testing work, it's probably best to stay away from them for a few weeks, or check the Burning Edge to see recent bugfixes/regressions.
The Mozilla Suite is a combined browser/mail/news/chat/addressbook. Firefox is just a browser. Thunderbird is just mail/news/addressbook. They all use the same rendering engine, and share much of their other code, but have different front ends.
They're not gonna take anywhere close to the same beating they got for Firefox. Firefox has a lot more hype than Thunderbird.
Well does Win2k come with an email client? :-P
I think the new (as in still in beta, not being used yet) update.mozilla.org will have the ability to automatically update the version string (but don't quote me on that).
Ignore my comment above, I didn't read closely enough.
Have you tried editing the default profile? I do that with Firefox at school so I don't need to redo my settings for every computer.
How exactly do you need them customized? They are open source, after all. XUL's not even that hard to learn.
It is? :-( I'd gotten attached to that bug... Slashdot looks all strange now without it.
That's the same gradient as is on the mozilla.org page. The whole thing looks like the mozilla.org pages.
Well, if it's a fallacy, I made a mistake somewhere, right? Now, there are three statements, one of which connects the other two. Let's look at each of them:
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. This looks right to me. I'm sure you agree? If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. I don't have real-world data on this. However, I'm sure to most that this would seem common sense. Therfore, the burden of proof falls on you--if you wish to contest this, you must provide the data. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist. This follows mathematically from the other two.So how's my critical thinking?
The point, however, is that we're being attacked by people who were previously hungry. If there were fewer people going without food, bin Laden and other terrorist groups would have fewer new recruits and less support among the populaces.
Unrelated to Iraq. This has been substantiated many times over.
Furthermore, we weren't in danger of being attacked by Iraq either. This is evidenced by the the whole "WMD" -> "WMD programs" -> "WMD program related activities" slide that the Bush administration went through and things like this: Saddam Hussein's military posed no threat to either regional stability or American interests.
But it didn't prevent another 9/11. It wasn't worth it.
If someone has food, they are more likely to be content. If someone is content, they are less likely to be a terrorist. Therefore, if someone has food, they are less likely to become a terrorist.
This is true only of Extremist Islamic Terrorists. For other groups of terrorists, every single word of that is wrong.
Furthermore, for most of the Extremist Islamic Terrorists that only became the case after they became a terrorist. They originally became terrorists to avenge a killed friend or kinsman, to gain fame, to get food (after all, the terrorists eat better than most people in some parts of the world), or for a multitude of other reasons.
It would reduce their support base. They would have fewer new recruits and less money from the groups that fund them.
(As far as I can tell) it is pretty representative of at least the intelligent part.
Yes, we did.
No, we weren't.
He did not when we attacked.
Neither did we. Had we, we would have realized that he didn't currently have any WMDs.
Very true. He paid to the families amounts up to $25,000 for suicide bombers, and lesser amounts for wounds or disablement.
Not to spend $200 billion on. It wasn't worth $200 billion.
No, marriage should just be scrapped from the legal system all together. Think (a variation of) Occam's Razor--it solves all the problems we currently have about different minor groups being unfairly treated, and it does so in one fell swoop. To solve all the problems with the current marriage system (interracial, homosexual, polygamous, etc., etc., etc.) has taken 200+ years in this country alone, and we're still nowhere near where we should be.
It also makes various other parts of the legal system much simpler. Think about it for a while.
Makes me glad that 2/3 of my Congresspeople are independents. :-)
I've never had 1000 dollars in my life. I probably would have, had I been paid (minimum wage) for all my volunteer hours, though. *calculates* Yep, about 1500. And I currently have about $200 in cash. So I'm a bit short of 90%, more like 88%. Aren't I such a hypocrite?
Actually, though, I do spend a lot of money as it comes in. I bought a bike last year, I rack up a pretty large phone bill talking to my friends internationally. I buy non-essential foods for myself and friends. Years ago I bought a gameboy for myself. I buy birthday and Winter Holiday presents for people. I buy little things for myself here and there. At a very rough estimate, I'd say that all tolled I've spent about 2 grand of my own in my life. 3 grand at most. And as I said, I've donated around 1500 dollars worth of volunteer time, so I'm at around 33% of what I have, I donate.
Of course, I'm a minor still, so I can do that. Obviously it gets harder when you're an adult--but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can when you can.
As a postscript, imagine what we could have done with the $200 billion we used in the war if we'd given it away instead of spent it. We could have completely funded global anti-hunger efforts for 8 years or so, for example. Now don't you think that would have done more to combat terrorism than starting a war?
As a postpostscript, I volunteer(ed) at my local library, not somewhere like Greenpeace or the Peace Corps. You may count me down for that if you like.