The extremes of the pirate party are worth supporting, in the interest of a reasonable compromise. Even if I don't agree with 5-year copyright terms, I agree with them a lot more than I do unlimited copyright.
Flashblock removes the flash from the page, then adds it again after you click it. All of this happens while the page is loading, I think before the firing of the "onload" event- usually. it's a race condition, and it often leaves you with flash "loading, then unloading". It's not "flashblock doesn't load the flash until...", because flashblock is not responsible for loading the flash plugin- firefox is.
How to tell that this is happening:
1) Go to a large page which has a flash that plays sound as soon as it loads. The sound will start briefly, then stop when flashblock unloads the flash.
2) Use ubuntu karmic, which has a broken flash plugin that crashes almost every time it is loaded. Notice the "hey, this thing's crashed!" popups that appear even though the flash is "blocked"
OSS doesn't mean "nobody gets paid" it means "a product you are free to modify is superior to a product which is locked-down. Modifications which can be freely shared or incorporated back into the upstream are superior to modifications which are constantly repeated"
With "proprietary" software, the person who does the initial development is often the same as with OSS. But OSS can get those people and whoever else wants to scratch an itch.
It annoys the crap out of me that I can't, for example, write improvements to the software on my set-top box. People essentially turning away free labor because hardware manufacturers can't decide what it is they're selling.
Don't try to fix broken situations by coming up with laws which only make any sense in the broken situation. That is: If there weren't a lot of patent abuse, the law you propose would make no sense. So if the law were to achieve its goal, it would make no sense. So the law is either ineffective, or makes no sense. Worst-case scenario: people forget what the law was originally intended to do, and take it for granted that it must be morally right.
See previous well-known example in history: All "intellectual property" law.
Flashblock is horribly inadequate. I'd prefer a solution that didn't involve "yes, I've wasted your bandwidth and other resources loading this flash for you- OH CRAP WAIT, IT'S FLASH! I'll tell it to go away now..."
HTML+Javascript/is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point.
If you want something to be pixel-perfect, oh no, it may look a bit off. If you want something to be useful, HTML has been the way to go for at least a decade. This, like everything else ever, is not a "let's add this so people can do this" thing, but a "people are doing this, let's make it easier/more standardized by writing down what people are doing and recommending that future browsers be sure to support this"
And of course, like everything else ever, most people aren't going to code to the low-level, but will use higher-level libraries since they care more about functionality than "control".
As for "friggin' JavaScript"... what? When I have problems with writing javascript, it's because of IE6 or Firefox-specific bugs, what's your problem with it? Just don't want to share your source code?
I have not, and that's pretty much the point. I am aware that products such as this exist, but I know of none that are targeted at home users ("my mom"), rather than business users ("my business").
I'm probably missing something here, but I assume that major anti-virus companies would be able to benefit from the sale of such products. For example, being able to claim that their product is effective, being able to note that it will not slow down your PC (since it runs on separate hardware), etc.
Indeed. I don't know why security companies don't aggressively push this kind of product for home use- sounds like a win-win for them: sell the consumer an expensive physical box/and/ charge them for monthly firmware updates. Special bonus: An external box would actually/work/ (and with the aid of a USB connection, it could boot into its own environment to do scans) Just for fun, you could throw in a "real" firewall.
So then you'd provide:
- Network monitoring for statistical "suspicious packet" analysis
- Completely detached scanning which doesn't just nicely ask an infected system whether it's infected or not
- Hardware firewall
- A solution which potentially/works/, rather than one which is guaranteed not to
Yet everything I've ever seen pushed to home users has been a software-only package, or just a firewall. When will I be able to tell my mom to "go buy a Norton ActuallyWorX box and plug it between your computer and router"?
yeah, they'll never make a computer that can solve problems the way a human can until they get computers to become absolutely focused- if I tell it to run i++ a quadrillion times, I want to see an answer! I don't want to come back five minutes later and see that it's decided to play solitaire instead!
I remember a video on slashdot a while back with some big-name company demonstrating this very technology. And yes, it was "that good", though far away from a consumer-end product
If you agree that the actual facts of the case don't matter and it's fine to just make shit up, why not say he's blind and has never touched a console in his life?
Yes, the law itself shouldn't care, but let's not pretend some random falsehood for no reason, when the law is perfectly stupid on its own.
She has obviously not looked for work for more than three months. It took me a year to find my first "real" job, which I did through pure luck (the right three people being in the same room at the same time). From what I hear, this is how it usually works: people get most jobs through networking, not through random labels being affixed at the bottom of a sheet of paper. While two good jobs since then have been through putting a resume out there and waiting, the way you start in anything is through people you know- and yes, sometimes that means working at Payless until you can get a job at their corporate office.
Oh no! If we have well-educated people doing "menial" jobs, the stereotype of people with menial jobs being ignorant will evaporate! How will society cope with well-educated people being the norm?!
it wasn't the marketing that made it a geek toy, it was the price tag and the utter uselessness of it. ("Look, we made it stand up on its own, using gyros!" "why?" "Buy one!")
Apparently someone disputes that point, as Emacs itself constantly claims to be self-documenting, no need to learn it- it'll teach you itself, etc.
My main desire for a new text editor is "I don't like the way Vim works internally", in terms of how it is organized, which makes writing scripts/plugins for it a pain. And while I like moded-editing, I have nothing against using modifier-keys to perform other commands. (While I don't mind entering "Normal Mode" to do things like moving blocks of text around, it seems silly to do so to move to the beginning/end of a word, so from what I've heard of Emacs on that front, I always think I'd like it) Emacs, on the other hand, I so far haven't liked the way it shows itself "externally"- the actual user interface (in general, not just GUI) seems wrong to me.
The "it starts in a useless mode and requires you to type a filename before you start!" is a very minor one- I assume I could make an.emacsrc or something like that to make it start sanely (as I do for Vim- I told it "if you're in an empty file, start in insert mode", until I got broken out of my "just start typing" habit by working with vi for a while)
But inconsistencies like "C-h ?" bringing up a split-window which seems to be controlled entirely differently from the "main" window, and very often seems to put me in a "weird" situation (type "C-h ?" for help, then "b" for a list of keybindings.. I'd like to scroll through it, but my cursor appears to have jumped out of the help window, though the listing itself remains. I type "C-h ?" again to get back to the/main/ help listing, see nothing useful, so type "q", as it says to in order to close the help window. This jumps my cursor back out of the help window, then I try hitting "q" again, which closes whatever it was I was in (it seemed to be a basic help listing of some sort) and opens up a scratch window- still leaving the "C-h ?" help window open, presumably forever.
At least in vim I know that:q is likely to get me out of any display, anywhere in the editor. (there is only one command I can think of off-hand where this is quite annoyingly not-the-case, but it's certainly not something as fundamental as a help screen). "C-h r" seems to bring up something more similar to vim's help screen, but that just begs the question of why the other one isn't like that. There's probably a reason, but it certainly doesn't say what that reason is in the help display.
I'm still an idealist who is pretty sure he just wants vim (not just "vi mode for emacs"- vim is more than just "having a moded editor"), written in the style of emacs.
Or better yet, vim, written in the style of emacs, in ruby. Because, lisp, seriously?:) (okay, I know someone whose editor runs scripts written in something as stupid-in-terms-of-language as vim scripts shouldn't mock lisp, but the stupidity of vim scripts is pretty much the main reason I don't like vim, so I feel I've already set the score at: 0-[vim scripts]------[lisp]--[what I actually want]-10)
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
It doesn't matter if I can technically save from it, it says right at the top that it's not for that. And it's not an empty buffer, which is what any sane text editor would present you with when starting without a filename. (otherwise, it's not a text editor, it's just "something else".)
And just for fun, I've now twice followed the instructions for "visit a new file", and on both occasions I've wound up opening an existing file.
Emacs seems to default to including plugins for games, debuggers I don't currently use, Version Control Systems which I don't use (common enough that I don't mind, but I don't know why it's chosen to put the one I/do/ use in a submenu, while leaving the one I/don't/ use in a main menu- shouldn't they both be in the same place?), but it doesn't seem to include a plugin or such which would add a sensible, meaningful, and real, "New File" button. (The "new file" button and the "open file" button appear to do the exact same thing. WTF?)
Just as vim claims to be well-documented, but actually isn't at all, the same applies to emacs: If I can't grep for it without already knowing what it's called, the documentation may as well not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
The extremes of the pirate party are worth supporting, in the interest of a reasonable compromise.
Even if I don't agree with 5-year copyright terms, I agree with them a lot more than I do unlimited copyright.
Flashblock removes the flash from the page, then adds it again after you click it. All of this happens while the page is loading, I think before the firing of the "onload" event- usually. it's a race condition, and it often leaves you with flash "loading, then unloading". It's not "flashblock doesn't load the flash until...", because flashblock is not responsible for loading the flash plugin- firefox is.
How to tell that this is happening:
1) Go to a large page which has a flash that plays sound as soon as it loads. The sound will start briefly, then stop when flashblock unloads the flash.
2) Use ubuntu karmic, which has a broken flash plugin that crashes almost every time it is loaded. Notice the "hey, this thing's crashed!" popups that appear even though the flash is "blocked"
OSS doesn't mean "nobody gets paid" it means "a product you are free to modify is superior to a product which is locked-down. Modifications which can be freely shared or incorporated back into the upstream are superior to modifications which are constantly repeated"
With "proprietary" software, the person who does the initial development is often the same as with OSS. But OSS can get those people and whoever else wants to scratch an itch.
It annoys the crap out of me that I can't, for example, write improvements to the software on my set-top box. People essentially turning away free labor because hardware manufacturers can't decide what it is they're selling.
Don't try to fix broken situations by coming up with laws which only make any sense in the broken situation. That is: If there weren't a lot of patent abuse, the law you propose would make no sense. So if the law were to achieve its goal, it would make no sense. So the law is either ineffective, or makes no sense. Worst-case scenario: people forget what the law was originally intended to do, and take it for granted that it must be morally right.
See previous well-known example in history: All "intellectual property" law.
input type=checkbox, makes a checkbox.
What more do you want?
Flashblock is horribly inadequate. I'd prefer a solution that didn't involve "yes, I've wasted your bandwidth and other resources loading this flash for you- OH CRAP WAIT, IT'S FLASH! I'll tell it to go away now..."
HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point.
If you want something to be pixel-perfect, oh no, it may look a bit off.
If you want something to be useful, HTML has been the way to go for at least a decade.
This, like everything else ever, is not a "let's add this so people can do this" thing, but a "people are doing this, let's make it easier/more standardized by writing down what people are doing and recommending that future browsers be sure to support this"
And of course, like everything else ever, most people aren't going to code to the low-level, but will use higher-level libraries since they care more about functionality than "control".
As for "friggin' JavaScript"... what? When I have problems with writing javascript, it's because of IE6 or Firefox-specific bugs, what's your problem with it? Just don't want to share your source code?
I have not, and that's pretty much the point. I am aware that products such as this exist, but I know of none that are targeted at home users ("my mom"), rather than business users ("my business").
I'm probably missing something here, but I assume that major anti-virus companies would be able to benefit from the sale of such products. For example, being able to claim that their product is effective, being able to note that it will not slow down your PC (since it runs on separate hardware), etc.
Indeed. I don't know why security companies don't aggressively push this kind of product for home use- sounds like a win-win for them: sell the consumer an expensive physical box /and/ charge them for monthly firmware updates. Special bonus: An external box would actually /work/ (and with the aid of a USB connection, it could boot into its own environment to do scans) Just for fun, you could throw in a "real" firewall.
So then you'd provide: /works/, rather than one which is guaranteed not to
- Network monitoring for statistical "suspicious packet" analysis
- Completely detached scanning which doesn't just nicely ask an infected system whether it's infected or not
- Hardware firewall
- A solution which potentially
Yet everything I've ever seen pushed to home users has been a software-only package, or just a firewall. When will I be able to tell my mom to "go buy a Norton ActuallyWorX box and plug it between your computer and router"?
yeah, they'll never make a computer that can solve problems the way a human can until they get computers to become absolutely focused- if I tell it to run i++ a quadrillion times, I want to see an answer! I don't want to come back five minutes later and see that it's decided to play solitaire instead!
Real Translation: "We don't have enough traffic to make money with our website. Oh, I know the perfect solution!"
I remember a video on slashdot a while back with some big-name company demonstrating this very technology. And yes, it was "that good", though far away from a consumer-end product
seriously ubuntu, wtf? Everything worked last month, now nothing works?
the LHC could still be awesome.
If you agree that the actual facts of the case don't matter and it's fine to just make shit up, why not say he's blind and has never touched a console in his life?
Yes, the law itself shouldn't care, but let's not pretend some random falsehood for no reason, when the law is perfectly stupid on its own.
it works for cyclops...
She has obviously not looked for work for more than three months. It took me a year to find my first "real" job, which I did through pure luck (the right three people being in the same room at the same time). From what I hear, this is how it usually works: people get most jobs through networking, not through random labels being affixed at the bottom of a sheet of paper. While two good jobs since then have been through putting a resume out there and waiting, the way you start in anything is through people you know- and yes, sometimes that means working at Payless until you can get a job at their corporate office.
Oh no! If we have well-educated people doing "menial" jobs, the stereotype of people with menial jobs being ignorant will evaporate! How will society cope with well-educated people being the norm?!
it wasn't the marketing that made it a geek toy, it was the price tag and the utter uselessness of it. ("Look, we made it stand up on its own, using gyros!" "why?" "Buy one!")
Well, that's what they said, isn't it? "These will change the way cities are designed"
I didn't notice too many people translating this properly to: "these are broken."
They are completely humongous, and for all the space that they take up, provide absolutely no benefit. I'd rather have electric roller skates.
I didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road.
I suspect it's more to do with storage, bandwidth, and processing power finally hitting the sweet-spot.
Why has it taken so long for this to exist?
Apparently someone disputes that point, as Emacs itself constantly claims to be self-documenting, no need to learn it- it'll teach you itself, etc.
My main desire for a new text editor is "I don't like the way Vim works internally", in terms of how it is organized, which makes writing scripts/plugins for it a pain. And while I like moded-editing, I have nothing against using modifier-keys to perform other commands. (While I don't mind entering "Normal Mode" to do things like moving blocks of text around, it seems silly to do so to move to the beginning/end of a word, so from what I've heard of Emacs on that front, I always think I'd like it)
Emacs, on the other hand, I so far haven't liked the way it shows itself "externally"- the actual user interface (in general, not just GUI) seems wrong to me.
The "it starts in a useless mode and requires you to type a filename before you start!" is a very minor one- I assume I could make an .emacsrc or something like that to make it start sanely (as I do for Vim- I told it "if you're in an empty file, start in insert mode", until I got broken out of my "just start typing" habit by working with vi for a while)
But inconsistencies like "C-h ?" bringing up a split-window which seems to be controlled entirely differently from the "main" window, and very often seems to put me in a "weird" situation (type "C-h ?" for help, then "b" for a list of keybindings.. I'd like to scroll through it, but my cursor appears to have jumped out of the help window, though the listing itself remains. I type "C-h ?" again to get back to the /main/ help listing, see nothing useful, so type "q", as it says to in order to close the help window. This jumps my cursor back out of the help window, then I try hitting "q" again, which closes whatever it was I was in (it seemed to be a basic help listing of some sort) and opens up a scratch window- still leaving the "C-h ?" help window open, presumably forever.
At least in vim I know that :q is likely to get me out of any display, anywhere in the editor. (there is only one command I can think of off-hand where this is quite annoyingly not-the-case, but it's certainly not something as fundamental as a help screen). "C-h r" seems to bring up something more similar to vim's help screen, but that just begs the question of why the other one isn't like that. There's probably a reason, but it certainly doesn't say what that reason is in the help display.
I'm still an idealist who is pretty sure he just wants vim (not just "vi mode for emacs"- vim is more than just "having a moded editor"), written in the style of emacs.
Or better yet, vim, written in the style of emacs, in ruby. Because, lisp, seriously? :) (okay, I know someone whose editor runs scripts written in something as stupid-in-terms-of-language as vim scripts shouldn't mock lisp, but the stupidity of vim scripts is pretty much the main reason I don't like vim, so I feel I've already set the score at: 0-[vim scripts]------[lisp]--[what I actually want]-10)
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
It doesn't matter if I can technically save from it, it says right at the top that it's not for that. And it's not an empty buffer, which is what any sane text editor would present you with when starting without a filename. (otherwise, it's not a text editor, it's just "something else".)
And just for fun, I've now twice followed the instructions for "visit a new file", and on both occasions I've wound up opening an existing file.
Emacs seems to default to including plugins for games, debuggers I don't currently use, Version Control Systems which I don't use (common enough that I don't mind, but I don't know why it's chosen to put the one I /do/ use in a submenu, while leaving the one I /don't/ use in a main menu- shouldn't they both be in the same place?), but it doesn't seem to include a plugin or such which would add a sensible, meaningful, and real, "New File" button. (The "new file" button and the "open file" button appear to do the exact same thing. WTF?)
Just as vim claims to be well-documented, but actually isn't at all, the same applies to emacs:
If I can't grep for it without already knowing what it's called, the documentation may as well not exist.