The toolbar on each pop-up window is often disabled and the window itself just displays a large image which doesn't allow the average web surfer to easily close it.
If you're using Mozilla/Firebird (in which case this isn't really a problem), you can prevent this by typing "about:config" in the URL bar and changing some of the DOM preferences.
You'll want to switch...
dom.disable_window_open_feature.toolbar dom.disab le_window_open_feature.titlebar dom.disable_windo w_open_feature.status dom.disable_window_open_fea ture.scrollbars dom.disable_window_open_feature.r esizable dom.disable_window_open_feature.personal bar dom.disable_window_open_feature.minimizable dom.disable_window_open_feature.menubar dom.disab le_window_open_feature.location dom.disable_windo w_open_feature.close dom.disable_window_move_resi ze
There's a theme out there that makes Mozilla look like IE, and I've heard of several people who've used this to perform a Pepsi challenge -- install Firebird, delete the IE shortcut on the desktop then use the IE icon for Firebird (you have to do a bit of surgery to get the IE symbol into the top left of the window, but it's possible). Unless they look at the title bar and see "Mozilla Firebird," most people won't realize why IE's suddenly working so well.
Since Adblock also allows you to filter by image size, they'll have to start using non-standard image sizes as well, like 119x641, but there are only so many variations of this they can try before it starts interfering with the sites they're advertising on.
There is no feature to "fake" the user-agent request header within mozilla.
In Firebird you can do it through about:config.
One of the selling points for Mozilla, at least among computer geeks, is that it's entirely configurable and extensible. Now, specific modifications may not work on certain systems or with certain builds, but that is not an argument against modifying Mozilla. If you don't like mucking about with user files and extensions, you shouldn't do it.
This is not true. They do not verify your address.
Yes, they do. I remember quite clearly having to wait for their email so I could click the confirmation link. I remember because it took them over a bloody hour to send it out, by which point I'd decided against ever using their site again.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition -
Your ignorance on this subject is staggering -- "just over a 100 years ago" the US fought a blatantly imperialistic war with Spain for control of its colonies, including Cuba and the Philippines.
but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Ever been to mississippi? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Wyoming? These all have levels of povery that make places in Mexico and India look rich.
Well, duh. If you cherry pick the places you're comparing, you'll always be able to find some place in even the poorest country that's better than parts of the US. But the fact is, except for the actual homeless, even the poorest American lives a better life than their counterparts in Mexico or India. If you went into a shanty town of Mexico City and offered the inhabitants the chance to live in a the worst trailer park you could find in the US, every one of them would jump at the chance.
Bollocks, there is no free access to basic medical care for all the population in the US.
Good thing then that he wasn't talking about free medical care.
This would be a remarkable step forward for the US but it's not going to happen.
It'd be a remarkable step forward if any country came up with a system for free health care. But TANSTAAFL -- there's always someone paying for it, even in Canada.
If your interests in music fit in a small miche, you may be better served by CD's.
Actually, I find the opposite -- there are plenty of satellite and internet broadcasters who play obscure music that you'd have to special order through Amazon.
That doesn't work for news, hovever.
Listening to radio newscasts is like watching pr0n rendered with 8-bit graphics.
Have you ever seen it? I read the book and viewed the film right after: the movie is definitely a fairly close adaptation of the book of the same title.
I dare you to go into a Heinlein newsgroup and say that.
The movie lacks powersuits, tactical nukes, intelligent fleet formations (Lets put all our ships so close together that if one's destroyed, they'll all crash into each other!) or Heinlein's political philosophy. Apart from character names (added once the studio realized the script resembled the book) and basic plot of Earth vs the Bugs, there are few similarities.
If you go into a Heinlein newsgroup and suggest that the movie resembles the book, you'll be eaten alive.
I wonder, how much does the book make an issue of the race of the characters? If the character's race isn't relevant to their actions or the plot, then there's no reason for them to be played by a a "white" actor as opposed to someone else. Why not pick an actor who will bring something interesting to the stage? Who the Hell cares about what amount to little more than cosmetic differences in the characters?
Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but this movie isn't based upon the book in any meaningful sense. First off, the concept is a lot closer to The Caves of Steel than I, Robot; but more importantly, the script wasn't even written as an adaptation -- the studio bought an original script then realized they owned the rights to a similar book, so they slapped the title on and made a few changes.
This is the same thing that happened with Starship Troopers.
I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?
The French sponsored the effort to measure the distance from the pole to equator, so they got to decide where the line went.
Incidentally, many people of the time advocated defining the meter as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second, however scientists realized that'd only take a couple days to figure out, whereas measuring a quarter of the Earth's circumference would keep them employed for years.
Christ, if I were to put down a features table of the major office apps--MS Office, Star/Open Office, Wordperfect's bundle, and Lotus Smartsuite(does IBM even still sell it?)--you'd be hard pressed to find features in one that you can't find in another.
I can think of one -- in Word you can type special characters in an intuitive fashion -- ctrl-'+e gives you an accented e. As near as I can determine, in OOo you have to pull up the character map if you ever want to type a diacritical mark.
Sorry but a 25 year old man in New Zeland was really flying a year before them and had a more advanced plane with real control surfaces and could manuver turns.
Try again -- even Pearse said he didn't achieve controlled flight, and gave credit to the Wright Bros.
Pearse himself, in two letters, the first to Dunedin's Evening Star, published on May 10th 1915, the second published in the Christchurch Star on September 15th 1928, didn't believe, by his own rigorous standards, that he had achieved 'proper' flight, which for him meant a powered take-off followed by "sustained and controlled flight". Pearse's flights, characterised by powered take-offs but followed by erratic descents, failed to meet this criteria. In the letters he states that he set out to solve the problem of aerial navigation in February or March 1904, and also concedes that pre-eminence should be given to the Wright Brothers, who flew on 17 December 1903 and achieved aerial navigation in 1905
You know the meaning of FUD, right? Just because something is wrong OR unverified, doesn't make it FUD.
Well obviously it's anti-Microsoft FUD, trying to convince people that not every business computer runs Office. Silly, I know, but there are probably some managers out there feeling uncertainty and doubt about the hegemony of Microsoft, and wondering why they don't switch.
We don't bandwidth limit our DSL customers, but with the cost of bandwidth being what it is it may be something we have to look at. Currently less than 1% of our customers use 75% of our bandwidth.
It's NOT in our best interest for "Mr. Bandwidth Hog" to pay the same amount as "Grandma Smith" who only checks her email once a day.
Then don't charge the same. No one would complain if ISPs offered "Broadband access up to x gigs per month".
But if you advertise "unlimited" access, don't be surprised when people take you literally.
You ever hear of buyer beware? You didn't read the AUP did you?
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
Prohibited Uses and Activities
(viii) restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
Since this rule is to prevent a degradation of service, and the service I'm paying for includes unlimited access, I don't see how they can claim that unlimited access is disrupting the service.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and they want to send men to Mars to drill for oil. Put down that copy of the Illuminatus! Not everything is a conspiracy.
Umm, gkrellm? Just look at the bandwidth meters and if something is strange, kill your browser.
Yes, someone tries to force an unwanted download on you, you should just abort everything you're doing, close all your tabs, and start over.
The only thing keeping me from being angry about this is the knowledge that Firebird won't allow it to happen.
If you're using Mozilla/Firebird (in which case this isn't really a problem), you can prevent this by typing "about:config" in the URL bar and changing some of the DOM preferences.
You'll want to switch...
If Mozilla played video files automatically, the devs would be strung up by their thumbs by now.
There's a theme out there that makes Mozilla look like IE, and I've heard of several people who've used this to perform a Pepsi challenge -- install Firebird, delete the IE shortcut on the desktop then use the IE icon for Firebird (you have to do a bit of surgery to get the IE symbol into the top left of the window, but it's possible). Unless they look at the title bar and see "Mozilla Firebird," most people won't realize why IE's suddenly working so well.
Since Adblock also allows you to filter by image size, they'll have to start using non-standard image sizes as well, like 119x641, but there are only so many variations of this they can try before it starts interfering with the sites they're advertising on.
There is no feature to "fake" the user-agent request header within mozilla.
In Firebird you can do it through about:config.
One of the selling points for Mozilla, at least among computer geeks, is that it's entirely configurable and extensible. Now, specific modifications may not work on certain systems or with certain builds, but that is not an argument against modifying Mozilla. If you don't like mucking about with user files and extensions, you shouldn't do it.
This is not true. They do not verify your address.
Yes, they do. I remember quite clearly having to wait for their email so I could click the confirmation link. I remember because it took them over a bloody hour to send it out, by which point I'd decided against ever using their site again.
Psssst...don't tell anyone I told you this, but...you don't have to use your real information.
You most certainly do -- the NYTimes requires a valid email address, and giving it to them is a sure-fire way to increase your daily spam intake.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition -
Your ignorance on this subject is staggering -- "just over a 100 years ago" the US fought a blatantly imperialistic war with Spain for control of its colonies, including Cuba and the Philippines.
but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
The US had forces in Panama longbefore WWII.
Ever been to mississippi? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Wyoming? These all have levels of povery that make places in Mexico and India look rich.
Well, duh. If you cherry pick the places you're comparing, you'll always be able to find some place in even the poorest country that's better than parts of the US. But the fact is, except for the actual homeless, even the poorest American lives a better life than their counterparts in Mexico or India. If you went into a shanty town of Mexico City and offered the inhabitants the chance to live in a the worst trailer park you could find in the US, every one of them would jump at the chance.
Bollocks, there is no free access to basic medical care for all the population in the US.
Good thing then that he wasn't talking about free medical care.
This would be a remarkable step forward for the US but it's not going to happen.
It'd be a remarkable step forward if any country came up with a system for free health care. But TANSTAAFL -- there's always someone paying for it, even in Canada.
So when they say "best albums of the year" they actually mean "most admired by critics." Gotcha.
If your interests in music fit in a small miche, you may be better served by CD's.
Actually, I find the opposite -- there are plenty of satellite and internet broadcasters who play obscure music that you'd have to special order through Amazon.
That doesn't work for news, hovever.
Listening to radio newscasts is like watching pr0n rendered with 8-bit graphics.
Have you ever seen it? I read the book and viewed the film right after: the movie is definitely a fairly close adaptation of the book of the same title.
I dare you to go into a Heinlein newsgroup and say that.
The movie lacks powersuits, tactical nukes, intelligent fleet formations (Lets put all our ships so close together that if one's destroyed, they'll all crash into each other!) or Heinlein's political philosophy. Apart from character names (added once the studio realized the script resembled the book) and basic plot of Earth vs the Bugs, there are few similarities.
If you go into a Heinlein newsgroup and suggest that the movie resembles the book, you'll be eaten alive.
I wonder, how much does the book make an issue of the race of the characters? If the character's race isn't relevant to their actions or the plot, then there's no reason for them to be played by a a "white" actor as opposed to someone else. Why not pick an actor who will bring something interesting to the stage? Who the Hell cares about what amount to little more than cosmetic differences in the characters?
Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but this movie isn't based upon the book in any meaningful sense. First off, the concept is a lot closer to The Caves of Steel than I, Robot; but more importantly, the script wasn't even written as an adaptation -- the studio bought an original script then realized they owned the rights to a similar book, so they slapped the title on and made a few changes.
This is the same thing that happened with Starship Troopers.
That's some weak, diluted coffee you're drinking if it's the same color as Will Smith.
So SCO has changed from a technology company to an employment agency for lawyers? I'd be interest to see what the step was just before "Profit!"
"And then a miracle happens"
Obviously Gary Larson's found new work.
Imagine how bad it'll look for them if someone wins the X-Prize before the shuttles goes back into service.
I wonder, though... in those days, did they think that there was something special about the line through Paris as opposed to, say, a line through the Atlantic ocean? Or was mentioning Paris just a political gimme?
The French sponsored the effort to measure the distance from the pole to equator, so they got to decide where the line went.
Incidentally, many people of the time advocated defining the meter as the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second, however scientists realized that'd only take a couple days to figure out, whereas measuring a quarter of the Earth's circumference would keep them employed for years.
Christ, if I were to put down a features table of the major office apps--MS Office, Star/Open Office, Wordperfect's bundle, and Lotus Smartsuite(does IBM even still sell it?)--you'd be hard pressed to find features in one that you can't find in another.
I can think of one -- in Word you can type special characters in an intuitive fashion -- ctrl-'+e gives you an accented e. As near as I can determine, in OOo you have to pull up the character map if you ever want to type a diacritical mark.
Try again -- even Pearse said he didn't achieve controlled flight, and gave credit to the Wright Bros.
You know the meaning of FUD, right? Just because something is wrong OR unverified, doesn't make it FUD.
Well obviously it's anti-Microsoft FUD, trying to convince people that not every business computer runs Office. Silly, I know, but there are probably some managers out there feeling uncertainty and doubt about the hegemony of Microsoft, and wondering why they don't switch.
We don't bandwidth limit our DSL customers, but with the cost of bandwidth being what it is it may be something we have to look at. Currently less than 1% of our customers use 75% of our bandwidth.
It's NOT in our best interest for "Mr. Bandwidth Hog" to pay the same amount as "Grandma Smith" who only checks her email once a day.
Then don't charge the same. No one would complain if ISPs offered "Broadband access up to x gigs per month".
But if you advertise "unlimited" access, don't be surprised when people take you literally.
You ever hear of buyer beware? You didn't read the AUP did you?
http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp Prohibited Uses and Activities
(viii) restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
Since this rule is to prevent a degradation of service, and the service I'm paying for includes unlimited access, I don't see how they can claim that unlimited access is disrupting the service.