Family Guy's use of cut-away humor is the same tired old "Let's insert a random fantasy!" crap that's been going on in every prime-time |/FOX\| comedy, and to a large extent many comedies on other networks, since at least Ally McBeal. (Why was Arrested Development cancelled? the cut-away humor was done in flashback/callback form, rather than fantasy)
Funny things can happen in cut-away humor, but the cut-away itself is lame.
Some of the best jokes in the show were only there because of the censors forcing re-writes. What do we get the moment they have some wiggle-room? Bender's Big Score. I may hate censorship, but these writers don't seem to work well without it.
The term "market" only applies to situations where people are willing to exchange one thing for another thing, so of course "every other market" has people willing to produce and exchange to receive, that's just the definition.
If Microsoft is abusing their monopoly by including the features of their competitors (Mozilla, RealPlayer) by default, how could they possibly be abusing their monopoly by NOT including the features of their competitors (Mozilla, RealPlayer, Apple)?
While this new "standard" format is open, it's also something with almost zero support, especially across legacy browsers. This means Flash is here to stay, even/with/ new javascript capabilities.
"Fascists were not doing anything wrong regarding their platform on train schedules in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong with respect to that now. Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their train scheduling platform is entirely unrelated to the things which for which they are normally despised, is _NOT_ evil or even slightly unpleasant."
There, I fixed that to make it remotely relevant to what I said.
The browser/was/ basic functionality at the time. Microsoft saw this, and decided to integrate it. When you are using IE as a help browser, the end user just sees it as a help browser, and doesn't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext. A help browser is basic functionality. Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI, and has been at least since the invention of the mouse, if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.
People got mad because Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to break one's computer. They made a web browser, allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell, then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing, meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run. Who cares, right? It's free anyway, and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could, doesn't get in anyone's way.
Then an evil company which decided it didn't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said "How dare they! They've made their product more convenient than we possibly could! That's not fair!"
Well, maybe it's not fair, but it's not "unfair competition". Microsoft has done plenty of "unfair competition"- like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it isn't installed, or that they're required to install Windows on every PC they ship, or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship. - But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.
I'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place (Nobody's buying our piece of shit? Inconceivable! It must be because of an evil monopoly!), but a lot of people don't see the obviousness of "not selling your competitor's product for them" not being the same as "forcing your competitor out of business".
Detecting a change and making a notification come up if one is found is not "drm". Trying to prevent people from injecting something behind the back of the notification system/would/ be, but it's ridiculous to say it's technically impossible to provide a simple notification which, yes, can be bypassed using admin rights, but that would mean Microsoft (or whatever company) going out of their way to hide what they're doing. Not quite as easy to defend.
This is a social problem wich has exposed a technical flaw: there is no notification when the state changes in a way which was not directly caused by the end-user. Sounds like a problem to me.
I don't think I've _ever_ seen a nazi reference (aside from some things from PETA) which claimed "and that makes them as bad as the nazis!"
It's always: "Person/Organization does X. It is generally considered a bad thing for that to happen. For example, it's often pointed out as one of the bad things the Nazis did, and nobody ever stands up to say "that wasn't a bad thing when the Nazis did X"."
It's pretty much just a way of saying "look at it this way: if a well-known evil was doing something similar, you'd consider it evil, wouldn't you?" Because the context of what else someone has done shouldn't come into play when determining whether or not ONE action they've done is bad.
I expect that when those 1000 machines start firefox, firefox notifies them of changes and provides an option to revert them, prompting for authorization where necessary.
If you break the glass, which you will do. Either you will break the bulb accidentally, or eventually it will burn out and you will trash it, where somewhere along the line it will be broken, or you will be oh-so-environmentally conscious and recycle it, where it will be broken on purpose as part of the recycling process.
When it breaks, some particles go into the air, etc. Multiply that by the number of lightbulbs being thrown out every day, even when divided by the number of lightbulbs you didn't need to buy because fluorescent lights last longer, and you've got a significant amount.
Eventually, they wind up in ground water. That's a fact of modern life: chemicals (especially heavy ones, like mercury) seep down into the ground and get into the water. Then you drink it.
So, yes: "If you break the glass and drink the contents..."
This allows an extension to be installed:
- Without notification
- Without the option to "uninstall"
- (apparently, from the article) With the ability to install more things to your PC (which I thought Extensions were forbidden to do, and only Plugins [eg: Flash] could do)
This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately. I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected: An external program has installed an extension in a manner which bypasses Firefox's normal security features. It is recommended that you click "uninstall" below, unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing" But there's no framework in Firefox (that I am aware of) for such an authorized/unauthorized check to be established. (It would mean defaulting everything except this Microsoft extension to "trusted")
Sounds like a move by Microsoft to say "see! Open source isn't safe! Look what we could do!" once Firefox releases a fix that says "Warning: Unauthorized extension signed by 'Microsoft Corp' detected!"
Is that they did a lot of bad things. Are you only allowed to say "this person is doing this bad thing" if: (pick one)
- Nazis didn't do it
- Some person more well-known than the Nazis, who was not themselves a Nazi, did it
- The person you're talking about has ALSO killed six-million jews
Just because the Nazi's killed a bunch of people doesn't suddenly excuse everything they did leading up to killing a bunch of people, or make it okay.
More like getting you and everyone who attends your church (worldwide) kicked out of McDonalds for repeatedly telling people what you ordered, while everyone else is talking amongst themselves saying "OMG! Can you believe he just ordered a human fetus without pickles?!"
Whether or not they actually ordered a human fetus without pickles is beyond the scope of this comment.
Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now. Yeah, Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive, but including basic functionality with their O.S. without including needless redundancy is _NOT_ evil, or even slightly unpleasant.
yeah, with HTML5, encryption is easy. You just surround any content you want encrypted with <secure>credit card number goes here</secure> and the magic of HTML does the rest!
I'd still like to know why frames are considered bad. Take your average web page, which is most likely to be a blog or a video of two girls dressed as robots shoving bananas into each-other's ears (while naked [not in conflict with the previous parts of this sentence, I assure you]). In both cases, the layout, most of navigation, etc, does not change from page to page. People build huge and complex templating systems, entire frameworks, around the idea of making those things be added automatically on the back-end. A lot of that could be saved if:
were valid. I think frames had the right idea, and shouldn't have been outcast without anything taking its place.
it sure as hell could ease development, at least for casual users. Developing in the same environment you run in, followed by porting it to whatever you/really/ want to run it on, has always been my preferred method*
*when the environments are closely compatible, which this seems will be the case.
I think you'll find that if you had the ancient systems required to read them, knew the formats involved, etc, 40-year-old tapes are still going to be tough to read from. The fast pace of "progress" making things obsolete before they even wear out, only serves to hide the fact that old things/do/ wear out, even if old things wear out more slowly than new things.
Slashdot Mirror
Family Guy's use of cut-away humor is the same tired old "Let's insert a random fantasy!" crap that's been going on in every prime-time |/FOX\| comedy, and to a large extent many comedies on other networks, since at least Ally McBeal. (Why was Arrested Development cancelled? the cut-away humor was done in flashback/callback form, rather than fantasy)
Funny things can happen in cut-away humor, but the cut-away itself is lame.
Some of the best jokes in the show were only there because of the censors forcing re-writes. What do we get the moment they have some wiggle-room? Bender's Big Score. I may hate censorship, but these writers don't seem to work well without it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to see a "burn install CD with current configuration" button, or similar.
The term "market" only applies to situations where people are willing to exchange one thing for another thing, so of course "every other market" has people willing to produce and exchange to receive, that's just the definition.
OOo is not a good starting place. They already have chrome + gears, which is more than enough to use google docs by itself.
If Microsoft is abusing their monopoly by including the features of their competitors (Mozilla, RealPlayer) by default, how could they possibly be abusing their monopoly by NOT including the features of their competitors (Mozilla, RealPlayer, Apple)?
While this new "standard" format is open, it's also something with almost zero support, especially across legacy browsers. /with/ new javascript capabilities.
This means Flash is here to stay, even
"Fascists were not doing anything wrong regarding their platform on train schedules in the 30's and they are not doing anything wrong with respect to that now. Yes Fascism sucks and is completely totalitarian, but their train scheduling platform is entirely unrelated to the things which for which they are normally despised, is _NOT_ evil or even slightly unpleasant."
There, I fixed that to make it remotely relevant to what I said.
The browser /was/ basic functionality at the time. Microsoft saw this, and decided to integrate it. When you are using IE as a help browser, the end user just sees it as a help browser, and doesn't care if the back-end is a bunch of hypertext. A help browser is basic functionality. Hypertext is a basic part of any GUI, and has been at least since the invention of the mouse, if you recall the patent flames about hyperlinks.
People got mad because Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to break one's computer. They made a web browser, allowed it to be used as part of the regular shell, then removed the redundancy and confusion which would have been caused by having two of the same thing, meaning the whole lot was required for the system to run. Who cares, right? It's free anyway, and you can still use other web browsers the same way you always could, doesn't get in anyone's way.
Then an evil company which decided it didn't want someone else edging in on their monopoly said "How dare they! They've made their product more convenient than we possibly could! That's not fair!"
Well, maybe it's not fair, but it's not "unfair competition". Microsoft has done plenty of "unfair competition"- like writing into contracts that hardware manufacturers need to charge for Windows even if it isn't installed, or that they're required to install Windows on every PC they ship, or they get no Windows to install on any PC they ship.
- But including a crappy web-browser / file browser was NOT anti-competitive.
I'd bring up how RealNetworks tried to force Microsoft to include their product with windows when nobody bought it in the first place (Nobody's buying our piece of shit? Inconceivable! It must be because of an evil monopoly!), but a lot of people don't see the obviousness of "not selling your competitor's product for them" not being the same as "forcing your competitor out of business".
Detecting a change and making a notification come up if one is found is not "drm". Trying to prevent people from injecting something behind the back of the notification system /would/ be, but it's ridiculous to say it's technically impossible to provide a simple notification which, yes, can be bypassed using admin rights, but that would mean Microsoft (or whatever company) going out of their way to hide what they're doing. Not quite as easy to defend.
This is a social problem wich has exposed a technical flaw: there is no notification when the state changes in a way which was not directly caused by the end-user. Sounds like a problem to me.
I don't think I've _ever_ seen a nazi reference (aside from some things from PETA) which claimed "and that makes them as bad as the nazis!"
It's always: "Person/Organization does X. It is generally considered a bad thing for that to happen. For example, it's often pointed out as one of the bad things the Nazis did, and nobody ever stands up to say "that wasn't a bad thing when the Nazis did X"."
It's pretty much just a way of saying "look at it this way: if a well-known evil was doing something similar, you'd consider it evil, wouldn't you?" Because the context of what else someone has done shouldn't come into play when determining whether or not ONE action they've done is bad.
I expect that when those 1000 machines start firefox, firefox notifies them of changes and provides an option to revert them, prompting for authorization where necessary.
If you break the glass, which you will do. Either you will break the bulb accidentally, or eventually it will burn out and you will trash it, where somewhere along the line it will be broken, or you will be oh-so-environmentally conscious and recycle it, where it will be broken on purpose as part of the recycling process.
When it breaks, some particles go into the air, etc. Multiply that by the number of lightbulbs being thrown out every day, even when divided by the number of lightbulbs you didn't need to buy because fluorescent lights last longer, and you've got a significant amount.
Eventually, they wind up in ground water. That's a fact of modern life: chemicals (especially heavy ones, like mercury) seep down into the ground and get into the water. Then you drink it.
So, yes: "If you break the glass and drink the contents..."
And yes, we expect you, personally, to do both.
I don't have any respect for "world's most expensive X" which turns out to be "average or very cheap X with diamonds glued to it"
This allows an extension to be installed:
- Without notification
- Without the option to "uninstall"
- (apparently, from the article) With the ability to install more things to your PC (which I thought Extensions were forbidden to do, and only Plugins [eg: Flash] could do)
This is clearly a bug in Firefox, and a fix should be released immediately.
I'd think that firstly Firefox should default to considering the extension "unauthorized" and put up a big scary warning like "Unauthorized extension detected: An external program has installed an extension in a manner which bypasses Firefox's normal security features. It is recommended that you click "uninstall" below, unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing"
But there's no framework in Firefox (that I am aware of) for such an authorized/unauthorized check to be established. (It would mean defaulting everything except this Microsoft extension to "trusted")
Sounds like a move by Microsoft to say "see! Open source isn't safe! Look what we could do!" once Firefox releases a fix that says "Warning: Unauthorized extension signed by 'Microsoft Corp' detected!"
Is that they did a lot of bad things. Are you only allowed to say "this person is doing this bad thing" if:
(pick one)
- Nazis didn't do it
- Some person more well-known than the Nazis, who was not themselves a Nazi, did it
- The person you're talking about has ALSO killed six-million jews
Just because the Nazi's killed a bunch of people doesn't suddenly excuse everything they did leading up to killing a bunch of people, or make it okay.
More like getting you and everyone who attends your church (worldwide) kicked out of McDonalds for repeatedly telling people what you ordered, while everyone else is talking amongst themselves saying "OMG! Can you believe he just ordered a human fetus without pickles?!"
Whether or not they actually ordered a human fetus without pickles is beyond the scope of this comment.
Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong bundling IE in the 90's and they're not doing anything wrong now. Yeah, Microsoft sucks and is anti-competitive, but including basic functionality with their O.S. without including needless redundancy is _NOT_ evil, or even slightly unpleasant.
googled "HL:GoTY Edition ripoff", not seeing it. Link?
yeah, with HTML5, encryption is easy. You just surround any content you want encrypted with <secure>credit card number goes here</secure> and the magic of HTML does the rest!
I'd still like to know why frames are considered bad. Take your average web page, which is most likely to be a blog or a video of two girls dressed as robots shoving bananas into each-other's ears (while naked [not in conflict with the previous parts of this sentence, I assure you]). In both cases, the layout, most of navigation, etc, does not change from page to page. People build huge and complex templating systems, entire frameworks, around the idea of making those things be added automatically on the back-end. A lot of that could be saved if:
were valid. I think frames had the right idea, and shouldn't have been outcast without anything taking its place.
why would anyone use perl now? Has the perl6 revolution come without anyone noticing?
it sure as hell could ease development, at least for casual users. Developing in the same environment you run in, followed by porting it to whatever you /really/ want to run it on, has always been my preferred method*
*when the environments are closely compatible, which this seems will be the case.
I noticed that trend as I was typing it...
I think you'll find that if you had the ancient systems required to read them, knew the formats involved, etc, 40-year-old tapes are still going to be tough to read from. The fast pace of "progress" making things obsolete before they even wear out, only serves to hide the fact that old things /do/ wear out, even if old things wear out more slowly than new things.