Indeed. Symantec hired Chuck Norris to compile Norton. He glared at the code and it compiled itself out of fear.
Chuck Norris can also overflow any buffer.
I was pretty sure someone was going to mention this before me. I just started playing with e17 this Monday. I got a shock when I realized it worked this way. Looks great too!
I think much of the problem is that they, like myself, were looking forward to a Macbook Pro with tablet capabilities. Instead, we got a huge iPod Touch. Very disappointing.
No my response to him is to find an alternative program that DOES meet his needs. Mozilla is doing just fine for me and many other people. I did not pay any of that money and I do not own stock in Mozilla, so I do not presume that I have the right to dictate to them how to spend that money. If it turns out that they are doing something unethical that I find unacceptable, my only recourse is to stop using the browser. Why does that poster feel that they have the right to tell Mozilla what to do? As I said, he/she can find another browser, submit patches to fix the problems, or deal with it same as the rest of us. Maybe the poster would find it helpful, or at least personally satisfying to file a bug report.
Helpful Hint of the Day: There are other browsers. Use one.
Seriously, if it's not working for YOU, use something else. It works for everyone else here, so it must be something with you.
Also, it's open source. Please submit your patches directly to Mozilla or ask them for a refund in the amount of your purchase price. Either way this is not the place for it.
It's not just your wife. About half of the people in the student computer lab where I used to work did that. Another common thing that did not make sense was to type in www.google.com then search for www.hotmail.com (or whatever) then click on the link. It never occurred to them to just enter that in the first place.
Because more sites currently use Flash than HTML5, admins are more likely to install Flash Player than HTML5 Playe^W^W Chrome Frame for their users.
When I brought this up, I was thinking of someone's work computer. At that point, if there is a legitimate business need for Chrome Frame, they will install it. It might take an order from Corporate, but they will install it. If there is no business need, then they have no obligation to make sure you can watch Youtube on your work PC.
A lot of computers don't come with root. This is common when the computer is not a PC but a mobile device, a set-top device, etc. Several of these specialized devices use the equivalent of the Software Restriction Policy or AppLocker that Windows provides, and the only entity with legitimate admin privileges on, say, a Wii console is Nintendo. Even some devices running free software use such policies; Richard Stallman has referred to this practice as tivoization after its use in TiVo DVRs.
I admit I was thinking only of a PC, but in these cases, you are dependent on the maker of the system to provide a software update to handle HTML 5, Chrome Frame, etc. anyway. You would not be able to install anything at all that they don't want you to have. In this case, it is up to the consumers to raise hell with Nintendo or anyone else to add support. Or you can replace the software on the system, such as running Linux on your PS3.
FWIW, I do agree with you. This stuff should be installed on a per-user basis in their home folder/profile. Just because I install AdblockPlus or TwitterFox doesn't mean that everyone on this computer will want to use them.
Can a Limited User install Chrome Frame, or does it require running the installer as a member of the Administrators group?
You have some good points, but this one threw me off. Why does this matter? If you are a Limited User, the computer is not yours to do with as you wish anyway. Ask the admin to install it for you, but they have the right to say no. If it's your computer, why wouldn't you have admin rights (su. sudo, Run As Administrator, etc.) even if you normally run under a normal or limited user account?
No, I just did a search for something I wasn't sure existed. I chose the very first result for my example. If I was trying to purchase zoo inventory software, I would go through the list of results, look on zoo software websites, check user forums, etc. I take responsibility for researching my purchases. And I tend to be biased towards purchasing from small businesses like yours because they usually offer more personalized customer service in my experience. I purchase based on reputation rather than popularity, so if a company wants my money, they should spend on customer service and creating quality products instead of advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
use your class granted feats (style, conversation) to exploit her weaknesses
Forgot what site you're on, huh?
Google Porn, because tonight I'm Feeling Lucky!
(Obviously she doesn't access the Internet)
Reading that made my arms itch like a junkie without a fix.
We had one here and the results and the results are devastating.
Good example! :)
Are you related to the Chinese food delivery guy in The 5th Element?
...and lastly, test subjects.
And there's the problem right there.
Indeed. Symantec hired Chuck Norris to compile Norton. He glared at the code and it compiled itself out of fear. Chuck Norris can also overflow any buffer.
I've noticed that when a comment deserves a funny mod, it almost always deserves an insightful mod as well. We need a +2, Insightful && Funny.
I was pretty sure someone was going to mention this before me. I just started playing with e17 this Monday. I got a shock when I realized it worked this way. Looks great too!
I think much of the problem is that they, like myself, were looking forward to a Macbook Pro with tablet capabilities. Instead, we got a huge iPod Touch. Very disappointing.
Yeah, because it won't be the Miley Cyrus and $American_Football_Team ones for sure!
The suspense is killing me... I hope you didn't include the reason in a Flash video.
No my response to him is to find an alternative program that DOES meet his needs. Mozilla is doing just fine for me and many other people. I did not pay any of that money and I do not own stock in Mozilla, so I do not presume that I have the right to dictate to them how to spend that money. If it turns out that they are doing something unethical that I find unacceptable, my only recourse is to stop using the browser. Why does that poster feel that they have the right to tell Mozilla what to do? As I said, he/she can find another browser, submit patches to fix the problems, or deal with it same as the rest of us. Maybe the poster would find it helpful, or at least personally satisfying to file a bug report.
Helpful Hint of the Day: There are other browsers. Use one.
Seriously, if it's not working for YOU, use something else. It works for everyone else here, so it must be something with you.
Also, it's open source. Please submit your patches directly to Mozilla or ask them for a refund in the amount of your purchase price. Either way this is not the place for it.
I am running 3.5.7 on Ubuntu Karmic 64bit. The fonts were ugly for me too... on the PNG side. They were nicer on the SVG side for me.
It's not just your wife. About half of the people in the student computer lab where I used to work did that. Another common thing that did not make sense was to type in www.google.com then search for www.hotmail.com (or whatever) then click on the link. It never occurred to them to just enter that in the first place.
Because more sites currently use Flash than HTML5, admins are more likely to install Flash Player than HTML5 Playe^W^W Chrome Frame for their users.
When I brought this up, I was thinking of someone's work computer. At that point, if there is a legitimate business need for Chrome Frame, they will install it. It might take an order from Corporate, but they will install it. If there is no business need, then they have no obligation to make sure you can watch Youtube on your work PC.
A lot of computers don't come with root. This is common when the computer is not a PC but a mobile device, a set-top device, etc. Several of these specialized devices use the equivalent of the Software Restriction Policy or AppLocker that Windows provides, and the only entity with legitimate admin privileges on, say, a Wii console is Nintendo. Even some devices running free software use such policies; Richard Stallman has referred to this practice as tivoization after its use in TiVo DVRs.
I admit I was thinking only of a PC, but in these cases, you are dependent on the maker of the system to provide a software update to handle HTML 5, Chrome Frame, etc. anyway. You would not be able to install anything at all that they don't want you to have. In this case, it is up to the consumers to raise hell with Nintendo or anyone else to add support. Or you can replace the software on the system, such as running Linux on your PS3.
FWIW, I do agree with you. This stuff should be installed on a per-user basis in their home folder/profile. Just because I install AdblockPlus or TwitterFox doesn't mean that everyone on this computer will want to use them.
Can a Limited User install Chrome Frame, or does it require running the installer as a member of the Administrators group?
You have some good points, but this one threw me off. Why does this matter? If you are a Limited User, the computer is not yours to do with as you wish anyway. Ask the admin to install it for you, but they have the right to say no. If it's your computer, why wouldn't you have admin rights (su. sudo, Run As Administrator, etc.) even if you normally run under a normal or limited user account?
huwogrrlz?
I guess they really want to tighten up their grasp at other companies money.
The more they do that, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.
A "hot dog", huh? Sure...
Roadhouse
That's the extra blank page that prints out after a document once in a while.
This makes it very easy for them to charge $large_chunk_of_money for "data recovery services" in the event you forget your password.
No, I just did a search for something I wasn't sure existed. I chose the very first result for my example. If I was trying to purchase zoo inventory software, I would go through the list of results, look on zoo software websites, check user forums, etc. I take responsibility for researching my purchases. And I tend to be biased towards purchasing from small businesses like yours because they usually offer more personalized customer service in my experience. I purchase based on reputation rather than popularity, so if a company wants my money, they should spend on customer service and creating quality products instead of advertising.