Ah, yes, I remember MV saying they had the ability to interface with a flash drive done half a year ago, and they were just working on getting its interface to a usable state. But as for the finished program, it only came out five days ago, which isn't that long.
There's no room inside a calculator to do that. Either way, it'd probably be easier to take apart the calculator and replace the internals with, say, a PDA.
I meant that Aero Basic didn't offer anti-aliasing in some places where it is highly needed. Whatever happened to designing alternative icons that looked good without anti-aliasing, anyway?
Nope, it definitely says Windows Vista RC1. I know it's not Beta 2, because the terrible fading mouseover animations are gone.
I also have a few other complaints: Aero Basic looks terrible without anti-aliasing. And Desktop is treated too much like an Explorer window: After I enabled "Show hidden files and folders" in Explorer, two desktop.ini files appeared on my desktop.
Um... Are we talking about Vista? Let me run you through the process to delete a file.
1. Right-click file. 2. Click "Delete" 3. Get a dialog box: "You'll need to provide administrator permission to delete this file." 4. Click 'Continue'. 5. Get an OS-modal dialog box: "Windows needs your permission to continue. If you started this action (Delete file), click Continue." 6. Click 'Continue'.
I do not call that "WAY better file operations dialogs".
Really? Because the IAU considered making Ceres a planet recently too. Who's absurd here?
When I said, "It isn't that absurd", I meant that it isn't that absurd for a planet to be downgraded to something else, as Ceres was.
I'm saying that the truth about the size, satellite and the orbit of Pluto has been known for decades, so why does the IAU feel a sudden change of heart?
Because they realized Pluto was one of many Kuiper Belt Objects. Well, the truth about the size, satellite and orbit of Ceres had been known for... um... a year when they discovered it was just one of many asteroids, so it's at least plausible.
I'm not saying that it was a good decision, merely that it isn't as absurd as you make it seem.
Oh, so if you find a bunch of objects that are like another object that gives cause to reclassification? Get real.
Replace "bunch of objects" with "asteroid belt" and "another object" with "Ceres". It isn't that absurd.
Again, just because you find many of an object doesn't mean that the series of objects should be reclassified. You know, the asteroid belt isn't too much different than the Kuiper belt. Infact, they were considering turning Ceres into a plant... Hmm... maybe earth and mars aren't planets either now! what do you think of that? I think that kind of thinking is petty and stupid. The IAU has had ample time to define a planet on their own terms.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here; could you please explain it more clearly?
Unless IE7 is able to recognize non-compliant sites and render then differently
Of course it can. That's what Quirks Mode, which most modern browsers have, is for. Render websites that have a certain DTD properly, in Strict Mode, and render other websites in Quirks Mode. That certain DTD varies, but you can be sure that no DTD means Quirks Mode and XHTML 1.0 Strict means Strict Mode.
of course begin standards compliant is going to hinder backwards compatibility
Not all browser bugs can actually be used in websites. For instance, I can't think of a possible abuse of IE being unable to display code marked as XHTML (This, by the way, is quite stupid - especially since text files are rendered as if they were HTML, yet XHTML files can't be rendered as HTML). I also can't see a way to abuse position:fixed not being supported, or:hover.
If you released your code into the public domain, you'd have very little luck even ridiculing for someone else passing it off as their own.
You've explicitly allowed them to do anything with it, including passing it off as their own.
Plagiarism is legal, too, yet journalists still get fired for doing it. Over here on Earth, we have a concept called "morality". If a company does something legal but immoral, it'll still be a PR disaster. I doubt customers are going to buy "Hey, it's perfectly fine for us to lie about what we wrote. I mean, it's legal; it's public domain! You can't hate us for that!"
It doesn't reflect on you at all, they can strip your name from the code, there is no obligation to credit you. They might not do this, but they can, and most will (human nature does lean this way as a rule).
Few people actually read the credits of a particular piece of software, anyway. It's well worth the extra publicity you get by releasing a project under public domain than to be removed from the credits of a particular piece of software written by people who don't like you.
I would take issue with people claiming my work as their own
So would I, but if I had enough evidence to successfully sue them for claiming my works as theirs, I could just as easily ridicule them for trying to pass off my work as theirs. And it'd be that much more of a PR disaster for them. That's a very low price to pay for freedom.
You automatically have copyright unless you specify otherwise.
Exactly why I'm specifying public domain.
public domain means you give them all up, public domain can be taken by a stranger and made proprietary, is that really what you want?
Yes. That's why I want public domain. I don't want some stranger to go, "Okay, this is open-source. Um... is it legal for me to do this? How about this? Will I get sued if I do this?" That goes against the spirit of Free Software.
Not entirely. The YouOS browser uses iframes, so it's still Firefox, not YouOS, that's powering it. So it's more like running an app inside Linux that the VMware VM told it to run. If it really was nested, the speed would decrease exponentially (especially for a WebOS; JavaScript isn't all that fast).
By your typo, you just answered your own question:
Scenario: Copy is licensed Microsoft Server: Let's see... nope, this one's pirated. Computer with WGA: Well then. Computer with WGA: Hey $username, you don't have a legitimate license. Please go buy one.
In other words, false positives. Also, doesn't it phone home every day or something? You'd think you'd only need to check once.
I see the summary and article mention nanotubes but no nanodots, and I've never heard of nanodots before. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about them. What are they?
It used to be called MyIE2, not MyIE.
It also has the ability to use Gecko (the Firefox rendering engine), too. I'm surprised no one's brought that up yet.
Strangely enough, the last time I went to China, I didn't have any problem with stuff being blocked. Then again, the last time I went to China, I didn't know about Wikipedia.
Considering the number of Westerners that actually want to search for things like "freedom" and "democracy" (as opposed to, say, "porn"), I'd say very few will notice.
What are you talking about? The first result I get when searching "tiananmen square" in Yahoo.com is 'Wikipedia: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989' compared to yahoo.cn, which is '' (Tiananmen regional administration committee). Neither one appears censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, I remember MV saying they had the ability to interface with a flash drive done half a year ago, and they were just working on getting its interface to a usable state. But as for the finished program, it only came out five days ago, which isn't that long.
I'm guessing you're joking, but if you're not:
There's no room inside a calculator to do that. Either way, it'd probably be easier to take apart the calculator and replace the internals with, say, a PDA.
You duckspeaker; you unbellyfeel Newspeak! The word is "Minitrue".
I meant that Aero Basic didn't offer anti-aliasing in some places where it is highly needed. Whatever happened to designing alternative icons that looked good without anti-aliasing, anyway?
Nope, it definitely says Windows Vista RC1. I know it's not Beta 2, because the terrible fading mouseover animations are gone.
I also have a few other complaints: Aero Basic looks terrible without anti-aliasing. And Desktop is treated too much like an Explorer window: After I enabled "Show hidden files and folders" in Explorer, two desktop.ini files appeared on my desktop.
Um... Are we talking about Vista? Let me run you through the process to delete a file.
1. Right-click file.
2. Click "Delete"
3. Get a dialog box: "You'll need to provide administrator permission to delete this file."
4. Click 'Continue'.
5. Get an OS-modal dialog box: "Windows needs your permission to continue. If you started this action (Delete file), click Continue."
6. Click 'Continue'.
I do not call that "WAY better file operations dialogs".
That's what ' and / are for.
Because they realized Pluto was one of many Kuiper Belt Objects. Well, the truth about the size, satellite and orbit of Ceres had been known for... um... a year when they discovered it was just one of many asteroids, so it's at least plausible.
I'm not saying that it was a good decision, merely that it isn't as absurd as you make it seem.
Not all browser bugs can actually be used in websites. For instance, I can't think of a possible abuse of IE being unable to display code marked as XHTML (This, by the way, is quite stupid - especially since text files are rendered as if they were HTML, yet XHTML files can't be rendered as HTML). I also can't see a way to abuse position:fixed not being supported, or
So would I, but if I had enough evidence to successfully sue them for claiming my works as theirs, I could just as easily ridicule them for trying to pass off my work as theirs. And it'd be that much more of a PR disaster for them. That's a very low price to pay for freedom.
Exactly why I'm specifying public domain.
Yes. That's why I want public domain. I don't want some stranger to go, "Okay, this is open-source. Um... is it legal for me to do this? How about this? Will I get sued if I do this?" That goes against the spirit of Free Software.
Yeah. I was considering using it for one of my projects until I realized it didn't have Public Domain.
I don't want copyright law anywhere near my projects, ya hear me, Google?
Not entirely. The YouOS browser uses iframes, so it's still Firefox, not YouOS, that's powering it. So it's more like running an app inside Linux that the VMware VM told it to run. If it really was nested, the speed would decrease exponentially (especially for a WebOS; JavaScript isn't all that fast).
In other words, false positives. Also, doesn't it phone home every day or something? You'd think you'd only need to check once.
#9 is a search engine that finds 98% more porn.
I see the summary and article mention nanotubes but no nanodots, and I've never heard of nanodots before. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about them. What are they?
It used to be called MyIE2, not MyIE. It also has the ability to use Gecko (the Firefox rendering engine), too. I'm surprised no one's brought that up yet.
Strangely enough, the last time I went to China, I didn't have any problem with stuff being blocked. Then again, the last time I went to China, I didn't know about Wikipedia.
Considering the number of Westerners that actually want to search for things like "freedom" and "democracy" (as opposed to, say, "porn"), I'd say very few will notice.
What are you talking about? The first result I get when searching "tiananmen square" in Yahoo.com is 'Wikipedia: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989' compared to yahoo.cn, which is '' (Tiananmen regional administration committee). Neither one appears censored.