I'm not saying your usage is erroneous. In some contexts it does make sense. This just isn't one of them. When you use language, you need to be sensitive to context, you can't just blinding plug in whatever definition suits you.
Unless you're in politics, of course...
Never ask any question here that essentially asks: "Am I shit because I use Windows?". You will always get plenty of "yes"'s here.
Fortunately, being a geek has nothing to do with what Slashdotters think of you.
Actually, the best way to fight piracy is to make a product pirates aren't interested in.
You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.
So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.
now you have steve watching every single thing you do on his computer, you will pay 130$ for service packs, and good luck getting parts or repair on that mac (which has a very high chance of failure within the first year)
Try using Apple HW instead of just bashing it. There are a lot of MB/MBP out there running MS crap because they are so reliable, and actually run software without machinations. Rating a new version of an OS as a service pack is ludicrous. Maybe you ought to actually use a permissions based OS before you run your keys the next time
My friend is way into horoscopes, and I point out to her a lot that horoscopes are actually, quite bogus. That they have some 80% accuracy rates because they don't get specific, and then people are forgetting some 80% of it anyways. So you're presented with a person, who is mostly recreating memories when thinking back about it, reinterpreting the facts to be more important, more significant and more potent than it was before.
Ah. Yeah, I understand you now. Sort of like the old wives’ tricks for telling whether you’re going to have a boy or a girl... people will swear by them, but in fact they’re bound to be correct 50% of the time, and people don’t remember the times they were wrong.
Terrible ideas. Just terrible.
Why?
In any event, hiding the dialogs when GIMP loses focus makes a hell of a lot more sense than dialogs that won’t minimize or hide at all. When I want to see the desktop, I want to see it without any stupid unhideable dialogs in the way.
They have made a single window mode available, that's what we're talking about.
I don’t want a single window mode. I want the things I mentioned. Unless I maximize the window, and then perhaps yes a single-window mode would be better than letting the floating palettes overlap the image window.
Last time I worked somewhere where my holdings were restricted, I couldn't touch the financials or anywhere there might be a conflict of interest, but if I was cleared to trade it, I could trade it whenever/however I wanted. Of course I didn't actually have to register my brokerage account with them either (just self-report holdings to keep from working on conflicts)...so once you have taken that step, it is probably easier to pile on the rules.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
