Apparently you are using dialup or another low-speed connection. It sounds to me like you switch back to the/. windows while the other is loading. When the pop-under window starts, it calls window.focus for its creator, bringing the focus back to the window that you did not have in front.
Or perhaps you are talking about the stupid Win2000 problems where the Z-order of windows changes or is not followed? I hate that!
Re:Because of companies like Qwest's Business mode
on
When A Cable Dies
·
· Score: 1
D00d, your firewall sucks. I hacked my way in like 10 seconds. Plus your root password is to damned easy. Couldn't you think of anything more original than h0t4n4ls3x4me?
I wasn't quite old enough to get a TRS-80 when they were new. I acquired one from my father's friend, who was cleaning out his garage, in 1992. It was still clean--pure white, and had all manuals.
I learned to program in BASIC on it (actually I had been programming in Turbo Basic on my school's XT a year previously but wasn't very good at it).
In 1994, I gave it to my sister's friend's brother, because he wanted to learn about computers, and I had my flashy new 386SX-16. So I gave it to him.
I don't know which model it was, but it had two 5.25 inch floppy drives and a white monochrome screen. If you held down a certain key while booting, it would load BASIC from ROM. It had even came with a Radio Shack tape deck and Radio Shack blank tapes.
So, because MSFT sold a piece of SW they will not support, everything should be released under the GPL if it's "old". No, the point is that if Microsoft will stop supporting the product (which they of course have every right to do), owners of the unsupported software should have access to the source code in order to troubleshoot their own software.
You are saying there should be no privately owned information. This is absolutely false. The post above says that non-supported "old" products should have the source released for them, so that OWNERS of copies of the software can continue to use it. They have already paid for their use of the software. If the newer product doesn't offer improved features and functionality, why then should they pay for an upgrade?
What you fail to realize, is that MSFT is a business that spent billions of dollars on that product. They have also been paid WELL OVER the invested amount by users of the software. Those rightful owners of the software should expect support of the software directly or indirectly.
The kernel itself is still used today in Win2K and XP, and it is THEIR property. I would be extremely surprised if the kernel has not changed at least slightly between NT 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, and Whistler.
I would also like to opine that you sound like billg. Why not just log in?
Worse yet, practically every Microsoft product in that time period required MSIE to be installed, because commingled with those MSIE DLL functions were general-use functions that the other software took advantage of...
Precisely. Specifically, many controls changed when upgrading IE to 4, then to 5. Features were added, and if an app used those features, it obviously needed IE for them. Microsoft changed list controls, for instance, to accomodate the "one-click" explorer, allow gridlines in details view, other things like that. Sory, I don't have time to find it on MSDN, but _many_ common controls have features that are only included only in newer versions of IE.
MS could have simply distributed the new comctl32.dll in the latest service packs, but chose to include them only in IE, apparently so that those applications would require IE.
The fact is, it will reduce the number of users who simply want to use their MP3 players or make backup copies of their CDs for use in the car. The RIAA is trying to make it difficult to use MP3 players. The pirates, who do understand D/A A/D conversion, will continue making copies as they always have.
You are correct. Blocking caller id is not effective when calling a toll-free number. If they have ANI on their service, they can see the phone number of the caller. However, some areas (old switches/local networks) do not report that information in real time to the network, so it's not available at the time of the call. But the number _must_ be on the toll-free recipient's bill, in fact, at least one company offers near-real-time billing, where they can download their bill each day, and see who called them.
studios feel the need to extend shows beyond any kind of reasonable shelf life
I would like to point out that ST:TNG was ended very near its peak of popularity. Too bad they chose to milk it anyway, with a crappy series like ST:V.
We are not talking about servers, we are talking about DESKTOPS. They are turned off and on frequently. The boot messages are annoying and obscure actual errors.
An noone said to REMOVE THE MESSAGES. The discussion is about NOT DISPLAYING THE USELESS ONES during booting.
If you read the article, you weren't paying attention.
The problem is that you have to open source all of your source if you use any GPL'd code.
That is FALSE. If you write software that depends on a GPL'd software package, you simply have to use it as a library. If you modify the GPL'd software to make it work with your software, you must release THOSE changes. You do NOT have to release the source for your own software.
If I write a piece of software that requires that you use MSIE, I can distribute MSIE installer on the same CDROM as my proprietary app..... I can't do that with GPLed software.....
This is absolutely false. You can redistribute GPL software, with source available, either on the media, or by download. Regardless of whether the GPLed software has been modified by you. If you write software that requires GPL software to be installed, you can certainly include a copy of the GPL software. And charge for YOUR software. The requirements are:
You must include or provide access to the GPLed software source code
You must not charge money solely for the GPLed software source code. If you charge, it should only be for your cost in creating the media or for other software (such as your own) that is not GPLed.
Also, MSIE is NOT modifiable. At all. Writing Jscript for a page is not modifying the software. Nor is packaging IE using the IE Administration Kit. That is simply customizing options which are already built into IE.
Because the industry charges what it feels, based on the demographics, what it can charge. Brittney is being bought by 10-16 year old girls' parents. DVDs, on the other hand, are bought by old (and possibly young) geeks, who don't fit into that demo, and probably have (or simply spend) less money.
Speeding does NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused by bad drivers and reckless driving.
The speed at which a vehicle is moving makes little or no difference when they hit something. Ever feel the difference between being hit at 55MPH and 75MPH? No, and you'd be lucky to survive either one. But the fact is that good drivers, those who know and are in control of their vehicle, know where it is on the road, know where the other vehicles are and can sense other drivers' intentions, will not get in an accident.
Those drivers who are incompetent, uneducated, unskilled, inexperienced, and/or senile cause accidents.
They are, of course, the ones driving slow in the passing lane.
They are the ones cutting off other drivers and not realizing it.
The ones changing lanes without a turn signal, or turning it on when they are already halfway in the lane.
The ones slowing down to a snail's pace twenty feet from a turn, without a turn signal.
Slowing down and even stopping when getting on the highway instead of speeding up.
Stopping while on the highway to let those who stopped on the ramp enter the highway.
Following too closely.
Who don't stop completely at stop signs.
Don't yield at a Yield sign.
Stop in the middle of the road because they don't know which way to turn.
Turn left at intersections where there is clearly a "NO LEFT TURN" sign and no turn lane.
Not checking their blind spot. (An interesting note: My wife insisted that there was no such thing. I had to show her. She had been driving for 8 years.)
Sorry, speeding is NOT the cause of accidents. Of course, those bad drivers have accidents, and the faster they are moving when it happens, the more damage they do. But if you handled the bad driving and revoked licenses from those unfit to drive (because of eyesight, competence, reflexes, drug/alcohol addiction), you remove the danger. Will it ever happen? No.
I agree with you on the mandatory driver re-testing. Everyone should get REAL driver tests, and it should be done without their knowledge (through observation), "every once in a while".
Only 16 questions?! Well then, Pennsylvania obviously sucks. I mean, in Ohio they have 20 questions on the test--gotta weed out those bad drivers!
Seriously, though, the questions, like you say, are simple for idiots. The driving test in most areas doesn't go near the highway, they want to make sure you come to a complete stop at stop signs. Many drivers can't handle the highway, but are not even tested for it. The majority of drivers (that I see, at least) can't parallel park.
In addition, if you miss questions on the test, they don't correct you at all. They have _one_ version of the test and if they gave you the answers, anyone could pass. But you can pass with 4 answers wrong, and they don't even tell you what is incorrect!
While I was taking my driving test (6 years ago now), I saw someone run over three of the four traffic cones while doing the back-up test. They still got their license.
There are multiple lanes on the highway. Each lane is for passing the lane directly to the right of it. In many states, it is the law that you cannot drive in the leftmost lane without passing. It is STUPID drivers who didn't pay attention in the lousy driving schools, and glibly passed their exam that cause accidents. Also those that don't pay attention to the road (talking on the phone, playing with the radio or cruise control, etc). Also those that are simply assholes and do stupid things because they are pissed off at other drivers (like swerving in front of people while passing them, not using turn signals, etc).
Sorry, I didn't phrase that correctly. I meant that I felt Microsoft should be left alone. I no longer feel that way.
They steal or trick others into 'giving' them products or ideas that are valuable
The use their monopoly in a given field to create monopolies in other fields
They do this without concern for the effect on the consumer, though in most cases it harms the consumer
They use their marketing department to trick consumers into believing that MS is helping them, which they may be doing, but not with that intention. Their intention is to create a monopoly.
Left unchecked, they may end up controlling
Desktop computers, including OEMs
The Web browser (nearly complete)
Web servers (through control of the web browser)
Online video and audio (through proprietary Media Player codecs which require Windows as the OS in both client and streaming server)
Internet access (if MSN is the only included software in Windows, many consumers may not even be aware of alternatives)
Office productivity software (complete, because of changes to file formats, alternative products cannot co-exist with MS Office, rendering them useless to the majority of businesses)
Having one company controlling any one or even all of those would not be bad in itself. But the fact is that Microsoft is not ethical. They will do anything to make themselves a profit, long term. They will spend, of course, to make that long term profit. But what this does is force people to pay Microsoft for what was once a commodity (the Web, for instance, and in the future, possibly web servers). What will we do when (not if, but when) Microsoft changes Internet Explorer so that any server must have Microsoft Internet Information Server? You think they give away IE for no good reason? Look at the price of IIS!
So, no, it is not that they want to control, it is that there is a need for someone to put in justice, because they won't keep their ethics in.
A note on Office: I work for a company with 150 users. We are looking for alternatives to the $345 per seat reaming we are about to take for Microsoft Office. StarOffice is closest, but the user interface is horrible (replacing the desktop and "start" button, making one application icon for all documents of all types, ignoring Windows settings for many things). The price would be right, even if it were double, but we cannot take a huge step backwards and retrain all of our users.
40 PAGES? In my copy (paperback, tiny print), it was 175 pages at the very least. I skipped the middle hundred pages. I didn't need it. She liked to write dialog more than Robert Heinlen (who I like)!
Anyway, Atlas Shrugged had some good philisophical points. My point of view on Microsoft right after reading it was 'leave em alone'. After a little more research (before I discovered/.) I realized it doesn't work that way unless _all_ people are ethical. Guess what, they're not.
In 1967, Hubbard issued the fair-game policy, which said that opponents "may be deprived of property or injured by any means, by any Scientologist. He may be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed utterly."
Interesting. A quote of a quote of a quote. How accurate can this possibly be?
In addition, from what I have read, there is no proof that Judge Swearinger's dog's drowning was related to the case he was currently on. Nor is there proof that his tires being slashed is related to the case he was currently on. Judges are involved in hundreds or thousands of cases, and almost certainly make enemies. There is nothing to tie these incidents together, and no proof that it was remotely related. There is also no reason to think that this wasn't done by an antagonist in order to get someone blamed.
In addition, even if it were true, ONE incident does not make something "standard technique".
Sure sounds like FUD to me.
The only other incident I can find, the Youngs, simply states:
...someone stole one of my dogs, beat it and dumped it several miles north of my home. The dog was found, blood dripping from its head and mouth, struggling to make it back home...
The illogic of this is astounding. A dog was missing, so 'someone stole it'. He was injured, possibly by a vehicle or another animal, so 'he was beaten.' This story involves quite a few assumptions. If they had had ANY kind of proof, they could have sued. The law is clear regarding cruelty to animals, is it not?
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you are using dialup or another low-speed connection. It sounds to me like you switch back to the /. windows while the other is loading. When the pop-under window starts, it calls window.focus for its creator, bringing the focus back to the window that you did not have in front.
Or perhaps you are talking about the stupid Win2000 problems where the Z-order of windows changes or is not followed? I hate that!
Why? Well, that has been discussed.
D00d, your firewall sucks. I hacked my way in like 10 seconds. Plus your root password is to damned easy. Couldn't you think of anything more original than h0t4n4ls3x4me?
I wasn't quite old enough to get a TRS-80 when they were new. I acquired one from my father's friend, who was cleaning out his garage, in 1992. It was still clean--pure white, and had all manuals.
I learned to program in BASIC on it (actually I had been programming in Turbo Basic on my school's XT a year previously but wasn't very good at it).
In 1994, I gave it to my sister's friend's brother, because he wanted to learn about computers, and I had my flashy new 386SX-16. So I gave it to him.
I don't know which model it was, but it had two 5.25 inch floppy drives and a white monochrome screen. If you held down a certain key while booting, it would load BASIC from ROM. It had even came with a Radio Shack tape deck and Radio Shack blank tapes.
So, because MSFT sold a piece of SW they will not support, everything should be released under the GPL if it's "old".
No, the point is that if Microsoft will stop supporting the product (which they of course have every right to do), owners of the unsupported software should have access to the source code in order to troubleshoot their own software.
You are saying there should be no privately owned information.
This is absolutely false. The post above says that non-supported "old" products should have the source released for them, so that OWNERS of copies of the software can continue to use it. They have already paid for their use of the software. If the newer product doesn't offer improved features and functionality, why then should they pay for an upgrade?
What you fail to realize, is that MSFT is a business that spent billions of dollars on that product.
They have also been paid WELL OVER the invested amount by users of the software. Those rightful owners of the software should expect support of the software directly or indirectly.
The kernel itself is still used today in Win2K and XP, and it is THEIR property.
I would be extremely surprised if the kernel has not changed at least slightly between NT 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, and Whistler.
I would also like to opine that you sound like billg. Why not just log in?
I wasn't aware of the distinction, having always used data blanks on my PC. I was also being rather cynical. :) Thanks for the informative post.
MS could have simply distributed the new comctl32.dll in the latest service packs, but chose to include them only in IE, apparently so that those applications would require IE.
The fact is, it will reduce the number of users who simply want to use their MP3 players or make backup copies of their CDs for use in the car. The RIAA is trying to make it difficult to use MP3 players. The pirates, who do understand D/A A/D conversion, will continue making copies as they always have.
IMDB? I think you mean CDDB...unless there are features of IMDB I'm unaware of.
You are correct. Blocking caller id is not effective when calling a toll-free number. If they have ANI on their service, they can see the phone number of the caller. However, some areas (old switches/local networks) do not report that information in real time to the network, so it's not available at the time of the call. But the number _must_ be on the toll-free recipient's bill, in fact, at least one company offers near-real-time billing, where they can download their bill each day, and see who called them.
We are not talking about servers, we are talking about DESKTOPS. They are turned off and on frequently. The boot messages are annoying and obscure actual errors.
An noone said to REMOVE THE MESSAGES. The discussion is about NOT DISPLAYING THE USELESS ONES during booting.
If you read the article, you weren't paying attention.
Look here, Redhat user, those are not kernel messages.
"the thingy" BAH!
Um, yes. Just about every week a salesperson contacts me for just that reason.
Of course, the reason they can reach me is that my PBx works great, and I don't dial up to the internet, I have a full T1...
Also, MSIE is NOT modifiable. At all. Writing Jscript for a page is not modifying the software. Nor is packaging IE using the IE Administration Kit. That is simply customizing options which are already built into IE.
Because the industry charges what it feels, based on the demographics, what it can charge. Brittney is being bought by 10-16 year old girls' parents. DVDs, on the other hand, are bought by old (and possibly young) geeks, who don't fit into that demo, and probably have (or simply spend) less money.
Speeding does NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused by bad drivers and reckless driving.
The speed at which a vehicle is moving makes little or no difference when they hit something. Ever feel the difference between being hit at 55MPH and 75MPH? No, and you'd be lucky to survive either one. But the fact is that good drivers, those who know and are in control of their vehicle, know where it is on the road, know where the other vehicles are and can sense other drivers' intentions, will not get in an accident.
Those drivers who are incompetent, uneducated, unskilled, inexperienced, and/or senile cause accidents.
They are, of course, the ones driving slow in the passing lane.
They are the ones cutting off other drivers and not realizing it.
The ones changing lanes without a turn signal, or turning it on when they are already halfway in the lane.
The ones slowing down to a snail's pace twenty feet from a turn, without a turn signal.
Slowing down and even stopping when getting on the highway instead of speeding up.
Stopping while on the highway to let those who stopped on the ramp enter the highway.
Following too closely.
Who don't stop completely at stop signs.
Don't yield at a Yield sign.
Stop in the middle of the road because they don't know which way to turn.
Turn left at intersections where there is clearly a "NO LEFT TURN" sign and no turn lane.
Not checking their blind spot. (An interesting note: My wife insisted that there was no such thing. I had to show her. She had been driving for 8 years.)
Sorry, speeding is NOT the cause of accidents. Of course, those bad drivers have accidents, and the faster they are moving when it happens, the more damage they do. But if you handled the bad driving and revoked licenses from those unfit to drive (because of eyesight, competence, reflexes, drug/alcohol addiction), you remove the danger. Will it ever happen? No.
I agree with you on the mandatory driver re-testing. Everyone should get REAL driver tests, and it should be done without their knowledge (through observation), "every once in a while".
Only 16 questions?! Well then, Pennsylvania obviously sucks. I mean, in Ohio they have 20 questions on the test--gotta weed out those bad drivers!
Seriously, though, the questions, like you say, are simple for idiots. The driving test in most areas doesn't go near the highway, they want to make sure you come to a complete stop at stop signs. Many drivers can't handle the highway, but are not even tested for it. The majority of drivers (that I see, at least) can't parallel park.
In addition, if you miss questions on the test, they don't correct you at all. They have _one_ version of the test and if they gave you the answers, anyone could pass. But you can pass with 4 answers wrong, and they don't even tell you what is incorrect!
While I was taking my driving test (6 years ago now), I saw someone run over three of the four traffic cones while doing the back-up test. They still got their license.
There are multiple lanes on the highway. Each lane is for passing the lane directly to the right of it. In many states, it is the law that you cannot drive in the leftmost lane without passing. It is STUPID drivers who didn't pay attention in the lousy driving schools, and glibly passed their exam that cause accidents. Also those that don't pay attention to the road (talking on the phone, playing with the radio or cruise control, etc). Also those that are simply assholes and do stupid things because they are pissed off at other drivers (like swerving in front of people while passing them, not using turn signals, etc).
- They steal or trick others into 'giving' them products or ideas that are valuable
- The use their monopoly in a given field to create monopolies in other fields
- They do this without concern for the effect on the consumer, though in most cases it harms the consumer
- They use their marketing department to trick consumers into believing that MS is helping them, which they may be doing, but not with that intention. Their intention is to create a monopoly.
Left unchecked, they may end up controlling- Desktop computers, including OEMs
- The Web browser (nearly complete)
- Web servers (through control of the web browser)
- Online video and audio (through proprietary Media Player codecs which require Windows as the OS in both client and streaming server)
- Internet access (if MSN is the only included software in Windows, many consumers may not even be aware of alternatives)
- Office productivity software (complete, because of changes to file formats, alternative products cannot co-exist with MS Office, rendering them useless to the majority of businesses)
Having one company controlling any one or even all of those would not be bad in itself. But the fact is that Microsoft is not ethical. They will do anything to make themselves a profit, long term. They will spend, of course, to make that long term profit. But what this does is force people to pay Microsoft for what was once a commodity (the Web, for instance, and in the future, possibly web servers). What will we do when (not if, but when) Microsoft changes Internet Explorer so that any server must have Microsoft Internet Information Server? You think they give away IE for no good reason? Look at the price of IIS!So, no, it is not that they want to control, it is that there is a need for someone to put in justice, because they won't keep their ethics in.
A note on Office: I work for a company with 150 users. We are looking for alternatives to the $345 per seat reaming we are about to take for Microsoft Office. StarOffice is closest, but the user interface is horrible (replacing the desktop and "start" button, making one application icon for all documents of all types, ignoring Windows settings for many things). The price would be right, even if it were double, but we cannot take a huge step backwards and retrain all of our users.
40 PAGES? In my copy (paperback, tiny print), it was 175 pages at the very least. I skipped the middle hundred pages. I didn't need it. She liked to write dialog more than Robert Heinlen (who I like)!
/.) I realized it doesn't work that way unless _all_ people are ethical. Guess what, they're not.
Anyway, Atlas Shrugged had some good philisophical points. My point of view on Microsoft right after reading it was 'leave em alone'. After a little more research (before I discovered
In addition, from what I have read, there is no proof that Judge Swearinger's dog's drowning was related to the case he was currently on. Nor is there proof that his tires being slashed is related to the case he was currently on. Judges are involved in hundreds or thousands of cases, and almost certainly make enemies. There is nothing to tie these incidents together, and no proof that it was remotely related. There is also no reason to think that this wasn't done by an antagonist in order to get someone blamed.
In addition, even if it were true, ONE incident does not make something "standard technique".
Sure sounds like FUD to me.
The only other incident I can find, the Youngs, simply states:The illogic of this is astounding. A dog was missing, so 'someone stole it'. He was injured, possibly by a vehicle or another animal, so 'he was beaten.' This story involves quite a few assumptions. If they had had ANY kind of proof, they could have sued. The law is clear regarding cruelty to animals, is it not?