if (!task->tasklist->config.enable_grouping) &nbs p; return is_task_visible (task);
/* we can probably unroll the length test */ if (task->group && g_slist_length (task->group->vtasks) > task->tasklist->config.grouping_min) return FALSE; else if (task->task_group) return g_slist_length (task->vtasks) > task->tasklist->config.grouping_min; return is_task_visible (task); }
Here's the link: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-core/app lets/tasklist/tasklist_applet.c?rev=1.83&view=mark up (remove the spaces between "app" and "lets" + "mark" and "up")
Not only does the task list perform grouping, but it also uses a threshold to determine whether windows of the same application shall be grouped or not.
after GNOME added a discussion of this feature to CVS. It seems that at this time, it was already implemented. Excerpt:
Tasklist can group icons together when multiple instances of a program are running. A number in parentheses appears to next to the application. Clicking on the icon brings up a menu listing all of the running instances.
No, you don't. As long as a parent isn't harming their child, they have the innate right to raise him or her as they see fit.
Yes, but the definition of "to harm" is very elastic, and some societies use it as a justification for a vast array of "protection" measures versus the parents. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. For example, if I was a Protestant fundamentalist, I could justify just about any measure to make your kids, or anyone else's, believe in Jesus Christ, even if it means forcefully separating them from their parents. After all, if going to Hell isn't harm, what is?
Granted all the software is released under GPL and source code included, all it would take is for the kid to either A) Learn a little C++ (or whatever language this software is coded in) to make the software worthless or B) Start hunting for a patch that someone else was nice enough to build.
Not quite. Messing around in the sources is not an option, or would you give your kids root privileges if you wanted to force them to use a web filter? Disable booting from removable media, set a BIOS setup password to prevent them from reenabling it (Knoppix doesn't include a web filter;) ), and they'd have to open the computer and mess around with hard drives in order to change the settings. Visiting a friend whose parents don't restrict his Internet access in this way is much easier and probably less risky...
But they may always figure out how to use external HTTP proxies. You may in turn log their activities etc.; in the end, I guess these things are best employed for preventing accidental access to "problematic" websites. The odds that you can prevent your 12 year old from seeing any violence/pornography/etc. if he/she wants it are close to zero anyway.
Is there be a way to defeat these goggles by emitting light in a wavelength invisible to the human eye? And if there is, since creating a blind spot where you're sitting would immediately call attention to your evildoing antics (bwahahaha), would it be possible to use a beam, directed at the little window and the dude with the night goggles, effectively blinding them?
There ought to be a way to project an image onto his goggles. I'm thinking of sort of an 8 feet tall demon with glowing eyes, just standing there and staring at the guy with the goggles. Hopefully he doesn't have a heart attack.;)
My goodness, how does he type? Must be why we couldn't just accept the story he submitted. Probably had words mispelled and everything... we understand.
Don't you remember how skilled Edward is with his fingers? I bet he would have no problem typing at >800 characters per minute, if only they gave him a steel keyboard.
I'm not quite fond of AOL's patent on "evil points" either.
You mean AOL hold a patent on the evil bit? But then it's no wonder that virus and worm epidemies are that rampant, no worm author will set the evil bit if he knows AOL might sue him for patent infringement!
Patents for an idea makes sense, in part, when an inventor wanted to protect his or her ability to profit or control the result of their effort. Patents and intellectual property protections were designed to prevent people from using your idea or effort to their betterment at your expense.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Patents and Copyright were not introduced in order to protect the business interests of inventors or authors, this was only the means. The ends were to encourage more innovation, as outlined in Section 8 sentence 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power (...) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
These rights (patents, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets, which are only contractual) are now being gathered under the collective, misleading name of intellectual property, in an effort to bypass the original justification of these rights, formerly referred to as exclusivity rights, in order to turn the means into the ends.
So first there were exclusivity rights, which were meant to serve the public, and whose benefits to the inventor/author (or rather, the patent or copyright owner) are merely incidental. Now justification and means are to be reversed. Intellectual property is meant to serve the rights holders, and benefits to society are merely incidental. More importantly, it does not even matter if society as a whole suffers from IP legislation. Logic patents and copyright are or are now intended to be perfect instruments of power for corporations. Large stashes of patents allow large software companies to lock out competition by smaller companies, and monopolize markets. Likewise, large music labels, which now are the copyright holders to almost all songs they release, are successfully lobbying for ever more severe copyright laws in an effort to shut down alternative promotion channels like P2P and independentinternet radio stations. The big labels are afraid that, while airwaves are scarce and can easily be controlled by payola, Internet traffic is basically unlimited in range. You cannot have 500 national radio stations since the frequency bands are limited, but you can easily operate 5000 Internet radio stations without any bandwidth collisions. Incidentally, while the RIAA claims to have suffered massive losses due to Internet "piracy", many independent labels have experienced benefits from increased promotion of their music via P2P and other channels such as (the former) mp3.com and independent internet radio.
I see the intellectual property movement as part of a general neoliberal self-referential justification of capitalism, where the original goal of improving living conditions for the population is increasingly irrelevant. Today's capitalism is intended to be implemented for capitalism's sake, not because it would make lives of men better as compared to marketplace economies with a stronger balance between public and private property. The manipulations of the Californian power market, or the privatization of water supplies into monopolists' hands in South America are just two examples of many.
Even if I use firefox I'd probably still run it as a different user in a similar manner. Netscape really wasn't significantly more secure than IE, just less popular.
Running it as a different user is not a bad idea, but I'd like to point out that there is no Netscape 4 code in Firefox, because what is now known as Mozilla was a complete rewrite from scratch.
There may still be a slow memory leak, but I've been browsing more sporadically since installing 0.9, so no long sessions of the browser being up for 10 hours, so I wouldn't notice a slow leak.
This unfortunately seems to be the case. I often open several dozens of tabs in multiple windows, sometimes over 100. Memory usage will typically reach 80-90MB. Now this is quite acceptable, but the problem is that Firefox doesn't seem to return this memory to the OS when you start closing windows, so eventually I may wind up (I tested this) with 83MB memory usage although only one tab remains. So I figure that there are still leaks, or memory management is incredibly inefficient. Another problem is that this memory gets swapped around a lot, instead of just idling away in your swapfile, so this will make the browser much less responsive.
You don't have to do the politically correct he/she thing when refering to groups that are composed entirely of one gender. Or were you just trying to go for the funny mod points?
We can control nuclear energy but we can't make a non-fossil fuel car??? How is this possible?
Of course we can, e.g. by making use of fuel cells and efficient electric engines. These cars have a lot of potential. Note that the comment about the toppling demand for electrical cars is misleading because the author is speaking about battery-powered cars. Fuel cell cars have a bright future, we "only" need the alternative energy sources to produce hydrogen rsp. methanol. Added benefits of (hydrogen) fuel cell cars are that they are very silent, can be made efficient even when the driver performs lots of quick accelerations and braking maneuvers (ideal for cities) and that they are zero-emission, so you they do not cause any smog problems in large cities.
Just wait until RMS declares himself the GNU God, and announces the beginning of the ever-lasting GNU World Order. You'll soon be desperate for a GNUse to put your head through, when you realize that the FSF is then the only GNUclear power, effectively controlling the World, both GNU and Old. This will be the time when the GNU rulers outlaw all traditional religion in favor of GPL worshipping.
What good would an IE-free version of Windows 98 be to any of us right now?
No good, but what about XP Reloaded (or SP2 for all I care)?
Suspending the sentence is only done if the appeal is considered likely to succeed, it is NOT done in all cases.
Then it's a deal with Bolkestein, obviously. Doesn't he look sympathetic? I'm glad my interests are represented by such an upright and honest man who cares about citizens and small businesses. If you find any irony, you may keep it.
Perle, Kissinger, Bolkestein, Linda Gates, Ackermann (German top-level banker famous for a rollicking court appearance)... <revolutionary-mode> Sounds like a good list of firsts-against-the-wall</revolutionary-mode> . Although - can you hold Linda Gates responsible for her husband's software?
Slashdot Mirror
> It seems that at this time, it was already implemented.
/* we can probably unroll the length test */
p lets/tasklist/tasklist_applet.c?rev=1.83&view=mark up
/. code display sucks so much.
Confirmation of this can be found in gnome-core/applets/tasklist/tasklist_applet.c, version 1.83 (Jan 24 2001):
static gboolean
is_task_really_visible (TasklistTask *task)
{
g_return_val_if_fail (task != NULL, FALSE);
if (!task->tasklist->config.enable_grouping)
&nbs p; return is_task_visible (task);
if (task->group && g_slist_length (task->group->vtasks) > task->tasklist->config.grouping_min)
return FALSE;
else if (task->task_group)
return g_slist_length (task->vtasks) > task->tasklist->config.grouping_min;
return is_task_visible (task);
}
Here's the link:
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-core/ap
(remove the spaces between "app" and "lets" + "mark" and "up")
Not only does the task list perform grouping, but it also uses a threshold to determine whether windows of the same application shall be grouped or not.
PS: Sorry that
Tasklist can group icons together when multiple instances of a program are running. A number in parentheses appears to next to the application. Clicking on the icon brings up a menu listing all of the running instances.
No, you don't. As long as a parent isn't harming their child, they have the innate right to raise him or her as they see fit.
Yes, but the definition of "to harm" is very elastic, and some societies use it as a justification for a vast array of "protection" measures versus the parents. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. For example, if I was a Protestant fundamentalist, I could justify just about any measure to make your kids, or anyone else's, believe in Jesus Christ, even if it means forcefully separating them from their parents. After all, if going to Hell isn't harm, what is?
My wife (OMG, ./er who is married)
Pardon, what's a Dotslasher?
Who said you need images to view porn?
Granted all the software is released under GPL and source code included, all it would take is for the kid to either A) Learn a little C++ (or whatever language this software is coded in) to make the software worthless or B) Start hunting for a patch that someone else was nice enough to build.
Not quite. Messing around in the sources is not an option, or would you give your kids root privileges if you wanted to force them to use a web filter? Disable booting from removable media, set a BIOS setup password to prevent them from reenabling it (Knoppix doesn't include a web filter ;) ), and they'd have to open the computer and mess around with hard drives in order to change the settings. Visiting a friend whose parents don't restrict his Internet access in this way is much easier and probably less risky...
But they may always figure out how to use external HTTP proxies. You may in turn log their activities etc.; in the end, I guess these things are best employed for preventing accidental access to "problematic" websites. The odds that you can prevent your 12 year old from seeing any violence/pornography/etc. if he/she wants it are close to zero anyway.
That's probably because of encryption software that MS put in there (copy-protection and stuff).
Is there be a way to defeat these goggles by emitting light in a wavelength invisible to the human eye? And if there is, since creating a blind spot where you're sitting would immediately call attention to your evildoing antics (bwahahaha), would it be possible to use a beam, directed at the little window and the dude with the night goggles, effectively blinding them?
There ought to be a way to project an image onto his goggles. I'm thinking of sort of an 8 feet tall demon with glowing eyes, just standing there and staring at the guy with the goggles. Hopefully he doesn't have a heart attack. ;)
Why, of course, they want to sell this system to women.
My goodness, how does he type? Must be why we couldn't just accept the story he submitted. Probably had words mispelled and everything... we understand.
Don't you remember how skilled Edward is with his fingers? I bet he would have no problem typing at >800 characters per minute, if only they gave him a steel keyboard.
I'm not quite fond of AOL's patent on "evil points" either.
You mean AOL hold a patent on the evil bit? But then it's no wonder that virus and worm epidemies are that rampant, no worm author will set the evil bit if he knows AOL might sue him for patent infringement!
Patents for an idea makes sense, in part, when an inventor wanted to protect his or her ability to profit or control the result of their effort. Patents and intellectual property protections were designed to prevent people from using your idea or effort to their betterment at your expense.
You're putting the cart before the horse. Patents and Copyright were not introduced in order to protect the business interests of inventors or authors, this was only the means. The ends were to encourage more innovation, as outlined in Section 8 sentence 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power (...) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
These rights (patents, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets, which are only contractual) are now being gathered under the collective, misleading name of intellectual property, in an effort to bypass the original justification of these rights, formerly referred to as exclusivity rights, in order to turn the means into the ends.
So first there were exclusivity rights, which were meant to serve the public, and whose benefits to the inventor/author (or rather, the patent or copyright owner) are merely incidental. Now justification and means are to be reversed. Intellectual property is meant to serve the rights holders, and benefits to society are merely incidental. More importantly, it does not even matter if society as a whole suffers from IP legislation. Logic patents and copyright are or are now intended to be perfect instruments of power for corporations. Large stashes of patents allow large software companies to lock out competition by smaller companies, and monopolize markets. Likewise, large music labels, which now are the copyright holders to almost all songs they release, are successfully lobbying for ever more severe copyright laws in an effort to shut down alternative promotion channels like P2P and independent internet radio stations. The big labels are afraid that, while airwaves are scarce and can easily be controlled by payola, Internet traffic is basically unlimited in range. You cannot have 500 national radio stations since the frequency bands are limited, but you can easily operate 5000 Internet radio stations without any bandwidth collisions. Incidentally, while the RIAA claims to have suffered massive losses due to Internet "piracy", many independent labels have experienced benefits from increased promotion of their music via P2P and other channels such as (the former) mp3.com and independent internet radio.
I see the intellectual property movement as part of a general neoliberal self-referential justification of capitalism, where the original goal of improving living conditions for the population is increasingly irrelevant. Today's capitalism is intended to be implemented for capitalism's sake, not because it would make lives of men better as compared to marketplace economies with a stronger balance between public and private property. The manipulations of the Californian power market, or the privatization of water supplies into monopolists' hands in South America are just two examples of many.
Wouldn't it be easier to actually find out what the 10 sane ones are?
I don't want to belittle their achievements, but the parking gap looks only slightly smaller than the Chicxulub Crater.
Even if I use firefox I'd probably still run it as a different user in a similar manner. Netscape really wasn't significantly more secure than IE, just less popular.
Running it as a different user is not a bad idea, but I'd like to point out that there is no Netscape 4 code in Firefox, because what is now known as Mozilla was a complete rewrite from scratch.
There may still be a slow memory leak, but I've been browsing more sporadically since installing 0.9, so no long sessions of the browser being up for 10 hours, so I wouldn't notice a slow leak.
This unfortunately seems to be the case. I often open several dozens of tabs in multiple windows, sometimes over 100. Memory usage will typically reach 80-90MB. Now this is quite acceptable, but the problem is that Firefox doesn't seem to return this memory to the OS when you start closing windows, so eventually I may wind up (I tested this) with 83MB memory usage although only one tab remains. So I figure that there are still leaks, or memory management is incredibly inefficient. Another problem is that this memory gets swapped around a lot, instead of just idling away in your swapfile, so this will make the browser much less responsive.
There are other browser for Windows other than Opera, Mozilla(netscape), Firefox, while exluding MSIE?
You don't mean LYNX do you?
Konqueror?
You don't have to do the politically correct he/she thing when refering to groups that are composed entirely of one gender. Or were you just trying to go for the funny mod points?
You're right - there are no woman commissars.
You still have to use DOS to upgrade your motherboard/GPU BIOSes.
I had to discover that Asrock's flash utility doesn't work with FreeDOS. :-( Asus worked fine, though.
Perhaps if this is too hard for you to grasp, you need to be culled from the herd as a benefit to everyone else.
Exactly - we can't just sit around and leave all these serious thought crimes unpunished.
We can control nuclear energy but we can't make a non-fossil fuel car??? How is this possible?
Of course we can, e.g. by making use of fuel cells and efficient electric engines. These cars have a lot of potential. Note that the comment about the toppling demand for electrical cars is misleading because the author is speaking about battery-powered cars. Fuel cell cars have a bright future, we "only" need the alternative energy sources to produce hydrogen rsp. methanol. Added benefits of (hydrogen) fuel cell cars are that they are very silent, can be made efficient even when the driver performs lots of quick accelerations and braking maneuvers (ideal for cities) and that they are zero-emission, so you they do not cause any smog problems in large cities.
Good point, but if liquids were as compressible as a gas, then hydraulics woudn't work so well!
Liquids can be compressed just fine. Simply throw them into a neutron star or black hole.
PS: TIC
What good would an IE-free version of Windows 98 be to any of us right now?
No good, but what about XP Reloaded (or SP2 for all I care)?
Suspending the sentence is only done if the appeal is considered likely to succeed, it is NOT done in all cases.
Then it's a deal with Bolkestein, obviously. Doesn't he look sympathetic? I'm glad my interests are represented by such an upright and honest man who cares about citizens and small businesses. If you find any irony, you may keep it.
Perle, Kissinger, Bolkestein, Linda Gates, Ackermann (German top-level banker famous for a rollicking court appearance)... <revolutionary-mode> Sounds like a good list of firsts-against-the-wall</revolutionary-mode> . Although - can you hold Linda Gates responsible for her husband's software?