People would respond to a gas tank valve because it THREATENS THEIR LIFE. In addition, it is more likely they would know about the threat, through the news or their dealer.
However, they likely would never hear about nor understand the technicalities behind a Mozilla vulnerability like this. "What's a JPEG? Dammit, I'm going back to IE."
The Microsoft lackeys how this isn't a real website this can't be real, just like the last time.
People aren't "Microsoft lackeys" just because they criticize Slashdot for portraying this as a global stat when it's a local site log of a tech geek website. Slashdot did this last time with the w3schools statistics as well. They don't prove anything except that the geeks who visit those sites changed browsers.
Would you accept a Microsoft statistic stating IE is the dominant browser because the site logs of MSN say so? Get real.
Does ANYBODY around here understand the concept of a representative sample set?
Once again, I must complain about fonts
on
GNOME 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
Again and again, I'm told Linux's fonts are better than Windows. Again and again, when I look at screenshots I see clear and obvious rendering errors that make the whole thing look horribly ugly. I only assume that people purposely ignore these flaws because they don't want to admit them.
For instance, look at the "Xtns" menu in http://support.cougaar.org/gnome28/3.png. The X is wider than the other character. Compare to the characters in the "File" menu, which are for some reason extremely thin!
Over and over, I'm told Linux font rendering is great, and over and over, all I have to do is look at how numerical characters are rendered, or pretty much any capital letter with diagonals and/or curves in it. They always look thicker than the other letters beside them.
All the "different readerships" we've seen were all tech readerships. How can you infer anything from the private site logs of some tech websites? People are so quick to jump to there being a real trend that they'll latch onto anything. Looking at it objectively, it's silly.
Show me the stats for Yahoo, eBay, DrudgeReport, or Google and we'll talk.
And yet, Slashdot reported it as such. They even linked to the w3schools chart that Slashdot already posted about last time, which was also reported as a global stat when it was actually a local stat for w3schools. So this is the second time Slashdot has taken some tech website's local stats and reported it as a global stat.
"Tech news," indeed. What happened to reporting hard facts around here?
For the record, if Slashdot really wanted to energize the geek crowd, they'd make their site logs public too. Yet, they don't. Could it be because in the IRC interview, Taco revealed that IE made up the majority of Slashdot's browser statistics?
What it does show is Slashdot posting--for the second time--web stats for a single tech-oriented website as "proof" that Firefox is magically on a global upward trend all over the Internet. "Firefox Browser On An Upward Trend" says the headline. Never mind that it's "Firefox Browser On An Upward Trend In Engadget Site Logs."
Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, and other enemies wouldn't be able to pull this kind of shit with their statistics. Slashdot has done it twice with Firefox. My company's site logs don't reflect any change at all in IE's or Firefox's usage statistics, and I already see other people corraborating that with their site logs.
I figured someone would try to go political on this. Bush is running on the same unemployment rate Clinton was. As for job losses since 2001--yeah, that sounds right considering there was a dot-com burst going into 2001. It's no surprise at all that there are less IT jobs now than there were at the end of the dot-com bubble.
It's just too easy of an excuse to blame Bush. I blame the dot-com investors.
Funny, I think the same thing when one of my non-ultra-left-wing comments mysteriously gets modded "Overrated." There is unfairness on both sides.
As for Bush job losses, he's running on the same unemployment rate Clinton ran on. Surprise, IT jobs were lost since 2001 after the dot-com burst. I knew someone, eventually, would bring up Bush in this discussion, but I would be pinning my blame on the ridiculous dot-com investors in the late 90s and 2000 that caused the fizzle-out going into 2001.
I never got the rationale behind USE flags. It seems most OSS software, instead of providing a simple run-time option, forces you to recompile the entire package for some random feature. Why can't I just click a checkbox?
You imply that a binary distro would have massive amounts of packages to compensate for all the user configurations, but in reality they just compile the binaries to include all possible features, so that no matter which configuration setup you want on your box, the packages will play nicely.
Honestly, is there some sort of filesize difference that requires you to compile out unused features?
I don't know, all I do is just READ Slashdot, and even I recognize a dupe. You know, because I actually read the website. That's all it takes.
It's clear the editors don't. Posters in the discussion threads remember articles that were posted and are the ones who cry "DUPE." We're also the ones who actually read the links and point out the innaccuracies in the headline or article summary. It's because we actually read the website. It doesn't take rocket science to do this job. Taco and company need to start taking an active interest in the site beyond mulling through the submission queue once in a while in order to collect their OSTG paychecks.
Let me know when the lack of knowledge beforehand of a Microsoft Office patch could "cause injury."
Give the emotive analogies a rest. People, not *everything* in the IT industry applies to some sort of car analogy! Yours doesn't even make sense in this context. Since when is there a risk of physical injury if Microsoft doesn't tell you an IE patch will be released in three days?
Microsoft isn't issuing patches to Premium Customers first. They're just letting them know when a patch is coming out and what's in it. You get an early warning. Your analogy assumes Microsoft isn't issuing patches to regular users simultaneously, which isn't true. But, this is Slashdot, therefore such is implied in the article summary for maximum bash-Microsoft effect in the discussion threads.
Mozilla's a great project, but I'm still using the lighter, faster browser with half the download size. Tabbed browsing? Opera did that first. Mouse gestures? Opera did that first. All of the major features people ooh and aww over in Firebird existed in Opera first and were copied. And my Opera takes up WAY less memory and is way more responsive. And I don't need to know XUL to customize my toolbars *exactly* how I want.:) I've got every single button in tiny size running down the left side of my screen, with tabs and the addressbar running along the bottom. My transfers window is in a sidebar on the right side of my screen.
What's weird is that this issue seems almost random. What happens is that table of links on the left side of the page overlaps into the content in the middle. I see it most often on the front page when listing stories.
It's been a complaint for a long time now, yet still no change. It's either Firefox's rendering or it's Slashdot's poor HTML coding (and for all its standards-compliance bitching, we know how standards-compliant this site is, *cough*).
Why would you blame Microsoft for software flaws? You can write an application that works non-administrator just fine. Microsoft even has MSDN guidelines for doing so that illustrate such things as the correct registry entries to use in order to do it.
This is not Microsoft's fault. This is the fault of lazy app writers.
The Dems are ASKING him not to run and ASKING voters not to sign petitions for Nader so that he does not make it on the ballot.
No, they're not. They're suing Nader across the nation in an attempt to keep him off the ballots, claiming his signatures are invalid. Already, their claims have been tossed out in Florida and Nader will be on the ballot:
Naturally, they claim a Bush conspiracy, but it's just sour grapes that *gasp* someone other than a Democrat and Republican might be taking votes away from the big guys on the playground. What about free speech? What about the idea of anybody being able to run for President?
This is only indirectly related to this article, so I'm aware this is off-topic. I just wanted to say it's heartening to see an amazing number of Linux articles on the front page today. After the rate of 4-5 Microsoft articles a day that Slashdot was running for a while after SP2's release, it's a breath of fresh air to finally start seeing news about the OSS/Linux world again! Please, keep it up.
Just because I stole your bike, doesn't mean that you are allowed to burn down my house, both things are a crime and the first doesn't justify the second.
I've seen this two times now in this discussion. Burning someone's house down is a world of difference from rm-ing someone's home directory when they enter a pirated serial number. Such emotive analogies are silly and don't apply.
This is more like a self-igniting bike. If you steal the bike, it will melt in your garage and take some of your stuff with it. So don't steal the bike! The act is entirely dependent on the software pirate.
As a side note, it's amusing to me that people obsessively argue that software piracy is not theft, yet suddenly when a software author strikes back at piracy, we're seeing analogies that involve theft.
I can guess how the majority of this discussion will go, so I just have one question. Why do people always try to apply the ideas of OSS to commercial software? It's like people get so used to being able to download anything they want for free that they for some reason take that set of principles and apply it to software they weren't given permission to download without paying for. That's completely the opposite of the free spirit of OSS, which is that someone is purposely giving away their effort of their own volition, and you can contribute back to it for the good of the community. Pirating doesn't contribute anything except lost sales for the people who make a living and feed their families. It's not free advertising, it's not try-before-you-buy (that's what demos are for), it is nothing more than people not wanting to pay for something. Same thing with MP3 piracy, movie piracy, etc.
Yeah, opening a website or having a nag popup will really stop the spread of piracy; just see how effective *that's* been in the past. Hell, someone will just code a nag crack to remove even that! Lame.
What's really immature is pirating the software to begin with. But hey, someone protecting their software from theft means they're the bad guy, right?
Slashdot Mirror
YACA (Yet Another Car Analogy).
People would respond to a gas tank valve because it THREATENS THEIR LIFE. In addition, it is more likely they would know about the threat, through the news or their dealer.
However, they likely would never hear about nor understand the technicalities behind a Mozilla vulnerability like this. "What's a JPEG? Dammit, I'm going back to IE."
The Microsoft lackeys how this isn't a real website this can't be real, just like the last time.
People aren't "Microsoft lackeys" just because they criticize Slashdot for portraying this as a global stat when it's a local site log of a tech geek website. Slashdot did this last time with the w3schools statistics as well. They don't prove anything except that the geeks who visit those sites changed browsers.
Would you accept a Microsoft statistic stating IE is the dominant browser because the site logs of MSN say so? Get real.
Does ANYBODY around here understand the concept of a representative sample set?
Again and again, I'm told Linux's fonts are better than Windows. Again and again, when I look at screenshots I see clear and obvious rendering errors that make the whole thing look horribly ugly. I only assume that people purposely ignore these flaws because they don't want to admit them.
For instance, look at the "Xtns" menu in http://support.cougaar.org/gnome28/3.png. The X is wider than the other character. Compare to the characters in the "File" menu, which are for some reason extremely thin!
Over and over, I'm told Linux font rendering is great, and over and over, all I have to do is look at how numerical characters are rendered, or pretty much any capital letter with diagonals and/or curves in it. They always look thicker than the other letters beside them.
All the "different readerships" we've seen were all tech readerships. How can you infer anything from the private site logs of some tech websites? People are so quick to jump to there being a real trend that they'll latch onto anything. Looking at it objectively, it's silly.
Show me the stats for Yahoo, eBay, DrudgeReport, or Google and we'll talk.
And yet, Slashdot reported it as such. They even linked to the w3schools chart that Slashdot already posted about last time, which was also reported as a global stat when it was actually a local stat for w3schools. So this is the second time Slashdot has taken some tech website's local stats and reported it as a global stat.
"Tech news," indeed. What happened to reporting hard facts around here?
For the record, if Slashdot really wanted to energize the geek crowd, they'd make their site logs public too. Yet, they don't. Could it be because in the IRC interview, Taco revealed that IE made up the majority of Slashdot's browser statistics?
...when it was up, IE was the dominant browser, in the 90-95 percentile range. Looking at the chart, IE6's market share was actually RISING.
What it does show is Slashdot posting--for the second time--web stats for a single tech-oriented website as "proof" that Firefox is magically on a global upward trend all over the Internet. "Firefox Browser On An Upward Trend" says the headline. Never mind that it's "Firefox Browser On An Upward Trend In Engadget Site Logs."
Microsoft, SCO, the RIAA, and other enemies wouldn't be able to pull this kind of shit with their statistics. Slashdot has done it twice with Firefox. My company's site logs don't reflect any change at all in IE's or Firefox's usage statistics, and I already see other people corraborating that with their site logs.
I figured someone would try to go political on this. Bush is running on the same unemployment rate Clinton was. As for job losses since 2001--yeah, that sounds right considering there was a dot-com burst going into 2001. It's no surprise at all that there are less IT jobs now than there were at the end of the dot-com bubble.
It's just too easy of an excuse to blame Bush. I blame the dot-com investors.
Funny, I think the same thing when one of my non-ultra-left-wing comments mysteriously gets modded "Overrated." There is unfairness on both sides.
As for Bush job losses, he's running on the same unemployment rate Clinton ran on. Surprise, IT jobs were lost since 2001 after the dot-com burst. I knew someone, eventually, would bring up Bush in this discussion, but I would be pinning my blame on the ridiculous dot-com investors in the late 90s and 2000 that caused the fizzle-out going into 2001.
I never got the rationale behind USE flags. It seems most OSS software, instead of providing a simple run-time option, forces you to recompile the entire package for some random feature. Why can't I just click a checkbox?
You imply that a binary distro would have massive amounts of packages to compensate for all the user configurations, but in reality they just compile the binaries to include all possible features, so that no matter which configuration setup you want on your box, the packages will play nicely.
Honestly, is there some sort of filesize difference that requires you to compile out unused features?
I don't know, all I do is just READ Slashdot, and even I recognize a dupe. You know, because I actually read the website. That's all it takes.
It's clear the editors don't. Posters in the discussion threads remember articles that were posted and are the ones who cry "DUPE." We're also the ones who actually read the links and point out the innaccuracies in the headline or article summary. It's because we actually read the website. It doesn't take rocket science to do this job. Taco and company need to start taking an active interest in the site beyond mulling through the submission queue once in a while in order to collect their OSTG paychecks.
Let me know when the lack of knowledge beforehand of a Microsoft Office patch could "cause injury."
Give the emotive analogies a rest. People, not *everything* in the IT industry applies to some sort of car analogy! Yours doesn't even make sense in this context. Since when is there a risk of physical injury if Microsoft doesn't tell you an IE patch will be released in three days?
Microsoft isn't issuing patches to Premium Customers first. They're just letting them know when a patch is coming out and what's in it. You get an early warning. Your analogy assumes Microsoft isn't issuing patches to regular users simultaneously, which isn't true. But, this is Slashdot, therefore such is implied in the article summary for maximum bash-Microsoft effect in the discussion threads.
Just like Slashdot subscriptions.
Except Taco and company rarely listen to subscriber complaints, so it turns out Microsoft treats its subscribers better than Slashdot does.
Mozilla's a great project, but I'm still using the lighter, faster browser with half the download size. Tabbed browsing? Opera did that first. Mouse gestures? Opera did that first. All of the major features people ooh and aww over in Firebird existed in Opera first and were copied. And my Opera takes up WAY less memory and is way more responsive. And I don't need to know XUL to customize my toolbars *exactly* how I want. :) I've got every single button in tiny size running down the left side of my screen, with tabs and the addressbar running along the bottom. My transfers window is in a sidebar on the right side of my screen.
What's weird is that this issue seems almost random. What happens is that table of links on the left side of the page overlaps into the content in the middle. I see it most often on the front page when listing stories.
It's been a complaint for a long time now, yet still no change. It's either Firefox's rendering or it's Slashdot's poor HTML coding (and for all its standards-compliance bitching, we know how standards-compliant this site is, *cough*).
That's what you get for running IIS! Oh, wait...
"Ok I'm 15 and I've been using Firefox for like an year now.." - 80% of Slashdot
Why would you blame Microsoft for software flaws? You can write an application that works non-administrator just fine. Microsoft even has MSDN guidelines for doing so that illustrate such things as the correct registry entries to use in order to do it.
This is not Microsoft's fault. This is the fault of lazy app writers.
The Dems are ASKING him not to run and ASKING voters not to sign petitions for Nader so that he does not make it on the ballot.
9 -13-2004::18:47|reuters.html
No, they're not. They're suing Nader across the nation in an attempt to keep him off the ballots, claiming his signatures are invalid. Already, their claims have been tossed out in Florida and Nader will be on the ballot:
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/413583|top|0
Naturally, they claim a Bush conspiracy, but it's just sour grapes that *gasp* someone other than a Democrat and Republican might be taking votes away from the big guys on the playground. What about free speech? What about the idea of anybody being able to run for President?
This is only indirectly related to this article, so I'm aware this is off-topic. I just wanted to say it's heartening to see an amazing number of Linux articles on the front page today. After the rate of 4-5 Microsoft articles a day that Slashdot was running for a while after SP2's release, it's a breath of fresh air to finally start seeing news about the OSS/Linux world again! Please, keep it up.
Just because I stole your bike, doesn't mean that you are allowed to burn down my house, both things are a crime and the first doesn't justify the second.
I've seen this two times now in this discussion. Burning someone's house down is a world of difference from rm-ing someone's home directory when they enter a pirated serial number. Such emotive analogies are silly and don't apply.
This is more like a self-igniting bike. If you steal the bike, it will melt in your garage and take some of your stuff with it. So don't steal the bike! The act is entirely dependent on the software pirate.
As a side note, it's amusing to me that people obsessively argue that software piracy is not theft, yet suddenly when a software author strikes back at piracy, we're seeing analogies that involve theft.
Bad analogy. It's more like he's letting you know that if someone steals the CDs, they will ignite into flames...so don't steal them.
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is here. Why should anyone care if they're not pirating software? Oh, wait...
I can guess how the majority of this discussion will go, so I just have one question. Why do people always try to apply the ideas of OSS to commercial software? It's like people get so used to being able to download anything they want for free that they for some reason take that set of principles and apply it to software they weren't given permission to download without paying for. That's completely the opposite of the free spirit of OSS, which is that someone is purposely giving away their effort of their own volition, and you can contribute back to it for the good of the community. Pirating doesn't contribute anything except lost sales for the people who make a living and feed their families. It's not free advertising, it's not try-before-you-buy (that's what demos are for), it is nothing more than people not wanting to pay for something. Same thing with MP3 piracy, movie piracy, etc.
Yeah, opening a website or having a nag popup will really stop the spread of piracy; just see how effective *that's* been in the past. Hell, someone will just code a nag crack to remove even that! Lame.
What's really immature is pirating the software to begin with. But hey, someone protecting their software from theft means they're the bad guy, right?