If you can't remove it through the normal ways of removing operating systems (which yes are different from add/remove programs, but I'd have thought it was obvious I meant "the normal way to remove it"), then yes your OS is malware.
I've never used a version of windows that couldn't be removed through standard OS removal methods. In fact windows proved easier to remove without losing any data on the same partition than linux
Yep. The uninstaller seems to forget about the file that causes the toolbar. I have two(!) copies of that toolbar still stuck into Office, next time I boot into windows (timescale idea: it's going to tell me I need to put my clock back because daylight savings time has finished) they will still be there staring at me whenever I try to use word or whatever. Not only that but they won't remember where I've moved them to, and won't remember that they're disabled, so they're there making my toolbar take up 50% more space until I move them, then back again when I restart the app. This is from acrobat 4 which I uninstalled a while ago.
I am. I can turn my screen down to 320x240 and still have a reasonable browsing experience at well designed sites. Slashdot in lite mode, google, bash.org, all the best sites are simple enough that they work at that low resolution. And they were useable over 14.4kbps modem.
If it can't be uninstalled through the standard add/remove programs thing then it's malware. Plain and simple. The only reason not to let your users remove you is if you're deliberately doing something they don't want.
Speak for yourself. I use the maximum resolution whenever I can, at the moment 2304x864 (dual head). Images don't fit in as well as they did, leaving big margins, but that's understandable because you still see all the pixels and scaling them would make them pixellated. Yes a move to SVG for everything would be nice, but it's perfectly useable as-is. I can set up KDE fine from 2048x1536 down to 640x480, maybe change a few sizes but it's really not necessary, and 320x240 is useable (have to get rid of some of the panel and turn on auto-hiding and use small window decorations, but it's useable.) I avoid flashy sites, going for those which are mostly text but good text, which may be part of it, but really, those are the only good sites anyway.
Absolutely. There is no need for flash, plain and simple. The best sites are the simplest. Look at google, or slashdot (I always read in "light" version to avoid the flash ads), or the best page in the universe. It's the content that matters. I'll go so far as to say I've never seen a good site with flash. Never. The only use for flash is funny movies.
I just wouldn't buy it, because I know I don't need it. I've done without it for reasonable length periods. And I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground. I'm just saying I'll never get music with DRM.
It's pretty simple really though, you just have to convert it and then you've got your basic language, as long as you can handle stack-based programming it's a breeze. Ook is more to my liking.
Someone always says this, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. The fact is these "JIT compilers" don't behave in any way that's noticeably different than an interpreter. So what's wrong with calling them interpreters?
Absolutely, and *he* *would* *support* *your* *right* *to* *do* *that*. The only reason we use the GPL is because copyright law is fucked up so its the best way to ensure you can do as much as possible with the software you get.
I would propose that. That's what I do after all. I live normally and then code GPL projects and play music for the fun of it outside that. If you're an artist you will create anyway, you don't need the money. Why can't it work that way?
Every bit of code I've ever written is GPL. The only thing artistic I've ever done is a short film and a few crappy fanfics, but they're all CC attribution-sharealike. I get music from those free MP3 sites, there's some really good stuff there. Am I qualified to insist everyone should have no DRM?
What if the alternative is not being able to download legally at all? I don't know whether it's officially acknowledged or not, but it's a good bet that legit services like Napster's or Apple's are only allowed to distribute the content by the recording industry after agreeing to apply DRM technology to it.
Then I won't download it legally. Yes that's all they're allowed to do, and it is acknowledged by the record companies. So I don't get music from them. I get some from Magnatune, I get free CC stuff, and I download off filesharing networks. And that's the way it will be until the record company decides they don't need DRM.
Nonsense. Why the hell do you need one? If there's anything which should be made compulsory, it's a non-braindead OS. But I'm very glad I can use my free USB modem.
You shouldn't need it. NAT isn't secure, and any reasonable default setup will be safe anyway. I am *very* glad I don't have blocked ports with my connection, being able to ftp home has saved me on more than one occasion.
Damn right it was unethical. If someone has physical access you are owned, plain and simple. If it's her own computer there shouldn't be remote problems. All you did was make her more afraid of other people. You should be taken out and shot.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't remove it through the normal ways of removing operating systems (which yes are different from add/remove programs, but I'd have thought it was obvious I meant "the normal way to remove it"), then yes your OS is malware.
I've never used a version of windows that couldn't be removed through standard OS removal methods. In fact windows proved easier to remove without losing any data on the same partition than linux
Actually Save A Copy is very useful and I'm pretty sure it's made its way into newer versions of Office. Certainly it should do.
Windows lets you uninstall it through standardish methods, at least 98 which is all I have used.
Except that this isn't a web toolbar but one in office, but don't let not having rtfa or even the summary interfere with reusing an old joke.
Yep. The uninstaller seems to forget about the file that causes the toolbar. I have two(!) copies of that toolbar still stuck into Office, next time I boot into windows (timescale idea: it's going to tell me I need to put my clock back because daylight savings time has finished) they will still be there staring at me whenever I try to use word or whatever. Not only that but they won't remember where I've moved them to, and won't remember that they're disabled, so they're there making my toolbar take up 50% more space until I move them, then back again when I restart the app. This is from acrobat 4 which I uninstalled a while ago.
I am. I can turn my screen down to 320x240 and still have a reasonable browsing experience at well designed sites. Slashdot in lite mode, google, bash.org, all the best sites are simple enough that they work at that low resolution. And they were useable over 14.4kbps modem.
If it can't be uninstalled through the standard add/remove programs thing then it's malware. Plain and simple. The only reason not to let your users remove you is if you're deliberately doing something they don't want.
Speak for yourself. I use the maximum resolution whenever I can, at the moment 2304x864 (dual head). Images don't fit in as well as they did, leaving big margins, but that's understandable because you still see all the pixels and scaling them would make them pixellated. Yes a move to SVG for everything would be nice, but it's perfectly useable as-is. I can set up KDE fine from 2048x1536 down to 640x480, maybe change a few sizes but it's really not necessary, and 320x240 is useable (have to get rid of some of the panel and turn on auto-hiding and use small window decorations, but it's useable.) I avoid flashy sites, going for those which are mostly text but good text, which may be part of it, but really, those are the only good sites anyway.
Absolutely. There is no need for flash, plain and simple. The best sites are the simplest. Look at google, or slashdot (I always read in "light" version to avoid the flash ads), or the best page in the universe. It's the content that matters. I'll go so far as to say I've never seen a good site with flash. Never. The only use for flash is funny movies.
I just wouldn't buy it, because I know I don't need it. I've done without it for reasonable length periods. And I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground. I'm just saying I'll never get music with DRM.
It's pretty simple really though, you just have to convert it and then you've got your basic language, as long as you can handle stack-based programming it's a breeze. Ook is more to my liking.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/1 0/16/139230&tid=156&tid=103&tid=133, the site has the results. IME the judging was a bit off, with the rather nice code-embedded-in-a-comment one scoring really low. But some of it's interesting.
Someone always says this, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. The fact is these "JIT compilers" don't behave in any way that's noticeably different than an interpreter. So what's wrong with calling them interpreters?
Yeah, that's why my Java programs start up faster than my Mono programs. Oh, wait.
Absolutely, and *he* *would* *support* *your* *right* *to* *do* *that*. The only reason we use the GPL is because copyright law is fucked up so its the best way to ensure you can do as much as possible with the software you get.
I would propose that. That's what I do after all. I live normally and then code GPL projects and play music for the fun of it outside that. If you're an artist you will create anyway, you don't need the money. Why can't it work that way?
Every bit of code I've ever written is GPL. The only thing artistic I've ever done is a short film and a few crappy fanfics, but they're all CC attribution-sharealike. I get music from those free MP3 sites, there's some really good stuff there. Am I qualified to insist everyone should have no DRM?
Then I won't download it legally. Yes that's all they're allowed to do, and it is acknowledged by the record companies. So I don't get music from them. I get some from Magnatune, I get free CC stuff, and I download off filesharing networks. And that's the way it will be until the record company decides they don't need DRM.
Nonsense. Why the hell do you need one? If there's anything which should be made compulsory, it's a non-braindead OS. But I'm very glad I can use my free USB modem.
You shouldn't need it. NAT isn't secure, and any reasonable default setup will be safe anyway. I am *very* glad I don't have blocked ports with my connection, being able to ftp home has saved me on more than one occasion.
RTFA. Not "25% of PCs in the UK". It's 25% of the world's compromised PCs are in the UK.
Can you use the PSP to draw penises at your friends? What's the use of it then?
Damn right it was unethical. If someone has physical access you are owned, plain and simple. If it's her own computer there shouldn't be remote problems. All you did was make her more afraid of other people. You should be taken out and shot.
No it isn't, that looks like an obvious forgery and won't be accepted.