The Mozilla team are number one on my list of open source projects that have the canned answers "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" and "don't like it, go fix it yourself".
I hate that when you click "view source", it reloads the page. I loagged this and was told that storing the page's source was a waste of memory. Forget that no other browser behaves that way. Forget that it's about 10k in the 200mb of ram used. Forget that it can be cached to disk.
I was also told that viewing the source made me a tiny minority and that if I wanted the feature I should go code it myself. Coz, y'know, viewing source is *such* a niche task. Only the tiny group of people with the very obscure jobs called "web developers" do it.
We were glad about the existence of Firefox, until Mozilla got greedy and sold out to corporate interests. I'm just waiting for the day that Mozilla decides to reinvent itself as a company with a profit interest as opposed to an non-profit company, which it really is now in name only.
I'm not saying that there are people who use it for only that. I'm not even saying you *shouldn't* use it for only that. What I'm saying is that if you decide to use it for only that, don't complain that it's bloated. What part of that don't *you* get?
Who gets to decide what's crass? You? Me? The MPAA? Congress? SCOTUS? To each their own I suppose, I just think there are more important issues that require my outrage then violence/sexuality in media.
I consider the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in magazines like Dolly and the romanticisation of sexual activity among children on television shows to be crass. Perhaps when you have kids you'll understand. And don't sing the "personal choice" song to me, you'll be singing a very different tune when your 19 year old daughter comes home one day to tell you she's pregnant with some local punk's child.
I believe I cited two magazines as evidence of my point, but I guess this is Slashdot, the place where people don't read articles or even fully read comments they are replying to.
And yes, I know I haven't "proven" my point, merely supplied evidence of its existence. But then again, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven either. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially when there is strong evidence in support of an idea.
Anyway, discussing females on Slashdot is like discussing astrophysics in kindergarten.
Given that the summary contains something to the effect that "The MacBook has so few standard features that TSA guys think that it doesn't count as a laptop" I wouldn't call it marketing. At least, not the positive kind anyway.
You still seem to have me mistaken for someone who dislikes liberals and the sexual revolution. I'm the first to stand up and defend civil rights.
Mind telling me why you'd let your pre-pubescent girl read/watch either of those things? They clearly aren't intended for her consumption. If I happen to like watching Sex in the City should I give up that because of the message it conveys to young children? Or should the parents of said children stop relying on the TV as a babysitter and actually talk to their kids?
I am a surrogate parent for a nephew. I consider unregulated TV to be the biggest mistake any parent can make, and take very great care to regulate what gets shown on our idiot box. The sad fact of the matter is, my nephew (and the daughters of like-minded parents) go to school with other kids with lunchboxes portraying half-naked MTV stars shakin' that ass. I can stop images like this from getting shown to my kid here in my home, but whether I like it or not, other parents who raise their kids like little Marilyn Mansons or Courtney Loves forge the environment that my child would have to learn in. No man is an island, neither is that man's son or daughter.
Then maybe you should be teaching different values? My values would dictate that I keep my kids away from the mall because I don't happen to agree with the message of consumption, greed and entitlement seen at most shopping malls. If you want your kids to learn your values then you need to teach them -- not rely on soceity to do it for you.
I'm not trying to rely on society to do it for me, but to think that you can perfectly shield children from the infectious Jackass/Cosmo non-culture is naive. I will decry the crass parts of society until the day I die because I realise that we all have to live together, I cannot make myself or my children an island in a sea of intellectual and spiritual dereliction. I must actively try to improve the lot of my fellow people, it is my duty.
Then don't buy shit from companies that employ underage models. I find it to be just as abhorrent as you do, which is why I refuse to buy stuff from them.
I agree. If only it made any difference to them at all. I suspect that you and I agree on all fundamental issues. I think however you've got me painted as a right wing conservative. I am mostcertainly not.
The overt sexualisation of females is certainly the result of feminism gone mad. The idea that women have to be independent is definitely a feminist idea. So far so good, great for women's rights. The hijacking of that idea and turning it into some kind of sexual movement is the work of marketers, who have successfully turned the movement into a cultural vehicle for selling ever more provocative clothing and products to an ever decreasing age range. As I said earlier, look no further than your local supermarket where you can find the latest edition of Dolly or Cosmo to affirm what I'm saying.
I think you have unfairly categorized me. "You people" ? I'm not Christian right. I have no problem with a naked breast. I have a problem with pre-pubescent girls being taught that women's rights boils down to being a slut. Pick up an edition of Cosmo, watch an episode of Sex in the City, hell, walk in a shopping mall and you'll see what values we are teaching to our children. Nudity is fine, but nudity and depravity are different things.
I have a friend who's a nude art model. That's fine with me. But a 10 year old modelling lingerie that looks straight out of an X rated film is not, at least in my view. To me, the distinction is about teaching children that the topic of sexuality covers more than the mechanics of having sex, the difference between nudity and immodesty and the difference between open mindedness and apathy toward morality. These distinctions I feel have been lost in this race to be the most "free thinking" or "liberated" individuals. Simply pissing on your parents' values is not the same as transcending limitations.
What I'm trying to say is that this is a far more general issue than just nudity, which I have no particular objection with. Now excuse me, I have a bunch of X rated sites to go check out.
The reason the White Uses Outlook is so that they can easily schedule and manage meetings and common schedules. Outlook enables you to do so much more than just email. Calling Outlook an email program is like calling Word a text editor. Stop splitting hairs. All I'm saying is that there are things Outlook does very well. Handling an email back end is not one of them.
Holy crap I need to qualify that, coz it sounds so damn wrong. I was referring to only a narrow scope of "open mindedness", those parts of human activity these days that are degenerate, but get passed off as "freedom". Sexual depravity, such as advertising material that sexualises 10 year old girls is an example. Pick up an issue of Dolly Magazine for an example of what I'm referring to.
I agree with the sentiment that freedom of intellectual exploration is definitely a positive, but I disagree that intellectual freedom requires the absence of social or behavioural restraint.
I like arguing an opposing point with someone who can express him/herself with erudition. I'd like to hear more about your views, care to get in touch with me? There are a bunch of ways to contact me on my web site www.mrnaz.com.
There *is* an email only program. It's called Outlook Express. Your analogy would be better if you used a person who needed a text editor but was using word, and then arguing that Word is a bloated text editor. Word is for people who need more than plain text. Outlook is for people who need more than email. Oh, and you are a bone head.
Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're plain stupid. Given your other comments elsewhere, I'm guessing the latter. The conversation went like this:
QuantumG: Copyright doesn't work like that. You: Oh? Why not? QuantumG: Bad summary. You: Copyright does work like that. QuantumG: Like what? What are you talking about? If you want to have a conversation, state your freakin' opinion already. Me: (To QuantumG) Umm... dude, reread your two posts before that one. They're about as choc full of content as kdawson's head.
My comment to QuantumG was referring to his first two posts, the second of which did not even contain a full sentence. I shouldn't have bothered jumping in, because the argument between the two of you had all the skillful intellectual swordplay that I would expect to see between two kids with plastic spades in a sandpit.
I don't know why you feel the need to jump in and defend him, but I think the only conclusion I can come to here is that you are just plain retarded. Not that that's a bad thing, there are great institutions to provide the kind of care and support that special people like you need. Don't feel bad, downs syndrome isn't the handicap it used to be.
Most people don't know it's there (or don't care).
I believe the term is "bloatware" - it's supplied, but it's got many, many features that are almost never used.
Hey bone head, how many times does it need to be said that OUTLOOK IS NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. Anyone using Outlook as a mail program is using it wrong. To use a wheeled example, that's like using an 18 wheeler truck to take the kids to school and complaining that its too big for your garage. Outlook has its problems, but there are many large corporate environments that use Outlook as an integral part of their organisational infrastructure. If you haven't seen any then it's because you've never worked in any large enterprise environment. Now that's not an invitation to reel off the places you've worked, I don't care. I'm just saying none of the places you've worked have a proper MS Exchange Server infrastructure There's no comparable product on the market, so comparing Outlook to *anything* is an apples to oranges comparison.
And before you get all hot an indignant, I'm not saying Outlook is without it's problems, just that it's NOT A MAIL PROGRAM, coz you and all the other bone headed basement geeks seem to think that that's all it is. Outlook Express is just a mail program, Outlook is an integrated organisational management infrastructure, and just because you don't use/need it doesn't mean nobody does.
Based on comparing my experiance with non-MS mail programs
Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. I repeat: Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. It has it's problems, big ones, but it does many things very damn well. Yes, its mail functions are not as good as other mail programs, but Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM.
One part per billion of some, and one per trillion for others. TFA may have more details, but I won't waste your time with trivialities such as article reading.
Furthermore, constant, low grade exposure of bacteria to antibiotics places selection pressure on those that are resistant. I have a problem with the creation of an environment where antibiotic resistant bacteria are encouraged.
I'd also want to know the rationale behind sex hormones in the water. I've also been interested in the nature of the so-called sexual liberation of the 90s, and how that influences the political power balance between government and the governed. Sex has been, in my view, an integral part of the circuses half of the bread and circuses act for quite some time. Encouraging a mindless consumerist culture is easier when you bind it with sex, as you add a natural urge to the equation making the lifestyle of flagrant instant gratification and blissful ignorance even more seductive to the masses. Anyone from 100 years ago would consider our society unbearably sexually depraved, and it's only going further down that road. Mothers now dress pre-pubescent daughters in designer clothes that are designed to be sexually provocative. I find nothing more disgusting than an 8 year old in hotpants and a boob tube. Mothers: Women's liberation != Looking like the village slut.
Wait, I'm giving advice to mothers on the women's movement? Clearly I've totally lost track of what site I'm on.
You have obviously never used outlook for anything other than email. Outlook, for want of a better term because there is no other software tool that does what it does, is a fully integrated personal information manager.
It does (among many thing as well as email) task management, schedule management, meeting tracking and coordination and integrates with exchange server to perform all these tasks in an organisation-wide coordinated manner. There is nothing else like it, except perhaps Lotus notes. It's a very good product. But ooh, it's M$ so I just lost my geek street cred by saying so.
And susceptible to a whole host of other problems. Imagine what would happen to an optically based computer circuit that was exposed to goatse radiation!
Slashdot Mirror
Touché :)
The Mozilla team are number one on my list of open source projects that have the canned answers "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" and "don't like it, go fix it yourself".
I hate that when you click "view source", it reloads the page. I loagged this and was told that storing the page's source was a waste of memory. Forget that no other browser behaves that way. Forget that it's about 10k in the 200mb of ram used. Forget that it can be cached to disk.
I was also told that viewing the source made me a tiny minority and that if I wanted the feature I should go code it myself. Coz, y'know, viewing source is *such* a niche task. Only the tiny group of people with the very obscure jobs called "web developers" do it.
Idiots.
We were glad about the existence of Firefox, until Mozilla got greedy and sold out to corporate interests. I'm just waiting for the day that Mozilla decides to reinvent itself as a company with a profit interest as opposed to an non-profit company, which it really is now in name only.
I'm not saying that there are people who use it for only that. I'm not even saying you *shouldn't* use it for only that. What I'm saying is that if you decide to use it for only that, don't complain that it's bloated. What part of that don't *you* get?
I consider the sexualisation of pre-pubescent girls in magazines like Dolly and the romanticisation of sexual activity among children on television shows to be crass. Perhaps when you have kids you'll understand. And don't sing the "personal choice" song to me, you'll be singing a very different tune when your 19 year old daughter comes home one day to tell you she's pregnant with some local punk's child.
I believe I cited two magazines as evidence of my point, but I guess this is Slashdot, the place where people don't read articles or even fully read comments they are replying to.
And yes, I know I haven't "proven" my point, merely supplied evidence of its existence. But then again, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven either. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, especially when there is strong evidence in support of an idea.
Anyway, discussing females on Slashdot is like discussing astrophysics in kindergarten.
Given that the summary contains something to the effect that "The MacBook has so few standard features that TSA guys think that it doesn't count as a laptop" I wouldn't call it marketing. At least, not the positive kind anyway.
You still seem to have me mistaken for someone who dislikes liberals and the sexual revolution. I'm the first to stand up and defend civil rights.
I am a surrogate parent for a nephew. I consider unregulated TV to be the biggest mistake any parent can make, and take very great care to regulate what gets shown on our idiot box. The sad fact of the matter is, my nephew (and the daughters of like-minded parents) go to school with other kids with lunchboxes portraying half-naked MTV stars shakin' that ass. I can stop images like this from getting shown to my kid here in my home, but whether I like it or not, other parents who raise their kids like little Marilyn Mansons or Courtney Loves forge the environment that my child would have to learn in. No man is an island, neither is that man's son or daughter.
I'm not trying to rely on society to do it for me, but to think that you can perfectly shield children from the infectious Jackass/Cosmo non-culture is naive. I will decry the crass parts of society until the day I die because I realise that we all have to live together, I cannot make myself or my children an island in a sea of intellectual and spiritual dereliction. I must actively try to improve the lot of my fellow people, it is my duty.
I agree. If only it made any difference to them at all. I suspect that you and I agree on all fundamental issues. I think however you've got me painted as a right wing conservative. I am most certainly not.
The overt sexualisation of females is certainly the result of feminism gone mad. The idea that women have to be independent is definitely a feminist idea. So far so good, great for women's rights. The hijacking of that idea and turning it into some kind of sexual movement is the work of marketers, who have successfully turned the movement into a cultural vehicle for selling ever more provocative clothing and products to an ever decreasing age range. As I said earlier, look no further than your local supermarket where you can find the latest edition of Dolly or Cosmo to affirm what I'm saying.
I think you have unfairly categorized me. "You people" ? I'm not Christian right. I have no problem with a naked breast. I have a problem with pre-pubescent girls being taught that women's rights boils down to being a slut. Pick up an edition of Cosmo, watch an episode of Sex in the City, hell, walk in a shopping mall and you'll see what values we are teaching to our children. Nudity is fine, but nudity and depravity are different things.
I have a friend who's a nude art model. That's fine with me. But a 10 year old modelling lingerie that looks straight out of an X rated film is not, at least in my view. To me, the distinction is about teaching children that the topic of sexuality covers more than the mechanics of having sex, the difference between nudity and immodesty and the difference between open mindedness and apathy toward morality. These distinctions I feel have been lost in this race to be the most "free thinking" or "liberated" individuals. Simply pissing on your parents' values is not the same as transcending limitations.
What I'm trying to say is that this is a far more general issue than just nudity, which I have no particular objection with. Now excuse me, I have a bunch of X rated sites to go check out.
The reason the White Uses Outlook is so that they can easily schedule and manage meetings and common schedules. Outlook enables you to do so much more than just email. Calling Outlook an email program is like calling Word a text editor. Stop splitting hairs. All I'm saying is that there are things Outlook does very well. Handling an email back end is not one of them.
Reconciliation is down the hall, room 2A. This is abuse.
Holy crap I need to qualify that, coz it sounds so damn wrong. I was referring to only a narrow scope of "open mindedness", those parts of human activity these days that are degenerate, but get passed off as "freedom". Sexual depravity, such as advertising material that sexualises 10 year old girls is an example. Pick up an issue of Dolly Magazine for an example of what I'm referring to.
I agree with the sentiment that freedom of intellectual exploration is definitely a positive, but I disagree that intellectual freedom requires the absence of social or behavioural restraint.
I like arguing an opposing point with someone who can express him/herself with erudition. I'd like to hear more about your views, care to get in touch with me? There are a bunch of ways to contact me on my web site www.mrnaz.com.
There are good and bad aspects to society, I think the so called "open mindedness" of today is a negative development vis a vis previous generations.
There *is* an email only program. It's called Outlook Express. Your analogy would be better if you used a person who needed a text editor but was using word, and then arguing that Word is a bloated text editor. Word is for people who need more than plain text. Outlook is for people who need more than email. Oh, and you are a bone head.
Either you're being deliberately misleading or you're plain stupid. Given your other comments elsewhere, I'm guessing the latter. The conversation went like this:
QuantumG: Copyright doesn't work like that.
You: Oh? Why not?
QuantumG: Bad summary.
You: Copyright does work like that.
QuantumG: Like what? What are you talking about? If you want to have a conversation, state your freakin' opinion already.
Me: (To QuantumG) Umm... dude, reread your two posts before that one. They're about as choc full of content as kdawson's head.
My comment to QuantumG was referring to his first two posts, the second of which did not even contain a full sentence. I shouldn't have bothered jumping in, because the argument between the two of you had all the skillful intellectual swordplay that I would expect to see between two kids with plastic spades in a sandpit.
I don't know why you feel the need to jump in and defend him, but I think the only conclusion I can come to here is that you are just plain retarded. Not that that's a bad thing, there are great institutions to provide the kind of care and support that special people like you need. Don't feel bad, downs syndrome isn't the handicap it used to be.
Hey bone head, how many times does it need to be said that OUTLOOK IS NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. Anyone using Outlook as a mail program is using it wrong. To use a wheeled example, that's like using an 18 wheeler truck to take the kids to school and complaining that its too big for your garage. Outlook has its problems, but there are many large corporate environments that use Outlook as an integral part of their organisational infrastructure. If you haven't seen any then it's because you've never worked in any large enterprise environment. Now that's not an invitation to reel off the places you've worked, I don't care. I'm just saying none of the places you've worked have a proper MS Exchange Server infrastructure There's no comparable product on the market, so comparing Outlook to *anything* is an apples to oranges comparison.
And before you get all hot an indignant, I'm not saying Outlook is without it's problems, just that it's NOT A MAIL PROGRAM, coz you and all the other bone headed basement geeks seem to think that that's all it is. Outlook Express is just a mail program, Outlook is an integrated organisational management infrastructure, and just because you don't use/need it doesn't mean nobody does.
Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. I repeat: Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM. It has it's problems, big ones, but it does many things very damn well. Yes, its mail functions are not as good as other mail programs, but Outlook is NOT A MAIL PROGRAM.
Spot quiz: What is Microsoft Outlook NOT?
One part per billion of some, and one per trillion for others. TFA may have more details, but I won't waste your time with trivialities such as article reading.
Furthermore, constant, low grade exposure of bacteria to antibiotics places selection pressure on those that are resistant. I have a problem with the creation of an environment where antibiotic resistant bacteria are encouraged.
I'd also want to know the rationale behind sex hormones in the water. I've also been interested in the nature of the so-called sexual liberation of the 90s, and how that influences the political power balance between government and the governed. Sex has been, in my view, an integral part of the circuses half of the bread and circuses act for quite some time. Encouraging a mindless consumerist culture is easier when you bind it with sex, as you add a natural urge to the equation making the lifestyle of flagrant instant gratification and blissful ignorance even more seductive to the masses. Anyone from 100 years ago would consider our society unbearably sexually depraved, and it's only going further down that road. Mothers now dress pre-pubescent daughters in designer clothes that are designed to be sexually provocative. I find nothing more disgusting than an 8 year old in hotpants and a boob tube. Mothers: Women's liberation != Looking like the village slut.
Wait, I'm giving advice to mothers on the women's movement? Clearly I've totally lost track of what site I'm on.
You have obviously never used outlook for anything other than email. Outlook, for want of a better term because there is no other software tool that does what it does, is a fully integrated personal information manager.
It does (among many thing as well as email) task management, schedule management, meeting tracking and coordination and integrates with exchange server to perform all these tasks in an organisation-wide coordinated manner. There is nothing else like it, except perhaps Lotus notes. It's a very good product. But ooh, it's M$ so I just lost my geek street cred by saying so.
Umm... dude, reread your two posts before that one. They're about as choc full of content as kdawson's head.
While Outlook has its numerous flaws, it is far more than an email client, and for what it is supposed to do, it is very, very good.
And susceptible to a whole host of other problems. Imagine what would happen to an optically based computer circuit that was exposed to goatse radiation!
That's a shame, because the FreeBSD developers were pinning their hopes on you and you alone.