News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Services
Slashdot Log In
ASK [/.]: Launching Firefox (2.0) with No Toolbars + URL?
I am going to be making a change here at work so that I no longer use a mail client, but use our web mail system. It may not be ideal compared to running Thunderbird, but I need to learn the web app enough to train users on more advanced features. The only way to do that is to live with the web app every day. My main annoyance with running most web apps (AJAX, Flash, what have you...) is that the browser always has the navigation toolbar, and the bookmarks toolbar at the top which makes any of these things feel less like an app and more like a web page. This is especially fruitless when you're not supposed to use the navigation bar to move around the app.
So what I'd like to do is launch Firefox pointed specifically at the web mail app's URL where it will open in a window with only the bottom status bar showing and nothing else. Ideally, even the menu should be gone. I've seen people do this with pop-up ads, and I imagine that's done on the web server side. But is there any other way to do it? I looked through the firefox command line options and nothing seems to touch on this. I suppose even a local HTML file that is opened by the browser would be good enough, but where do I even start with that? I imagine that would be fairly simple. Any suggestions?
Here is the offending submission:
The one comment thus far seems to take me to task for not researching the fact that Georgia invaded itself, triggering the Russian intervention.
Two glaring WTFs emerge:
- If this is really all about preventing genocide, then why are the Russians not interested in having UN peacekeepers come in and stabilize things?
- WTF Abkhazia, and naval actions against Georgia?
Furthermore, WTF does Russia expect to gain by putting nastygrams in my Journal, and mod-bombing me?
Or would the Russians declare this an elaborate head-fake by an enemy designed to make them look stupid?
Hopefully the civilized world continues to pressure Russia, and non-thuggish regimes continue to flourish worldwide, to the point that those Soviet leftovers realize no one fears them.
Possibly the anonymous cowards have flagged me for further attention, and can at least proffer a link of two explaining how Russian aggression seems justified. And their smouldering trousers.
[Poll] Revisiting Star Wars Geek Credentialling
Is George Friedman a Right-Wing Noam Chomsky?
As Russia regained its balance from the chaos of the 1990s, it began to see the American and European presence in a less benign light. It was not clear to the Russians that the United States was trying to stabilize the region. Rather, it appeared to the Russians that the United States was trying to take advantage of Russian weakness to impose a new politico-military reality in which Russia was to be surrounded with nations controlled by the United States and its military system, NATO. In spite of the promise made by Bill Clinton that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states were admitted. The promise was not addressed. NATO was expanded because it could and Russia could do nothing about it.
From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. When the Orange Revolution came to Ukraine, the American and European impression was that this was a spontaneous democratic rising. The Russian perception was that it was a well-financed CIA operation to foment an anti-Russian and pro-American uprising in Ukraine. When the United States quickly began discussing the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, the Russians came to the conclusion that the United States intended to surround and crush the Russian Federation. In their view, if NATO expanded into Ukraine, the Western military alliance would place Russia in a strategically untenable position. Russia would be indefensible. The American response was that it had no intention of threatening Russia. The Russian question was returned: Then why are you trying to take control of Ukraine? What other purpose would you have? The United States dismissed these Russian concerns as absurd. The Russians, not regarding them as absurd at all, began planning on the assumption of a hostile United States.
Even when I somewhat agree with a writer, anyone serving their analysis like a mathematical proof is suspect. Reality is not that simple. For example, why not at least put for a show of NATO cooperation beyond their existing liason?
new source of biofuel, can be grown in rotation with wheat.
normally wheat farmers go 'wheat' fallow 'wheat' there aren't many commercial crops that can survive in the sometimes cold, dry environment wheat thrives in. but apparently, camelina, a plant from europe not only creates a crop for rotation with wheat, it increases wheat yields 15%! and yes this plant loves cold, needs no irrigation, little or no pesticides, etc, and because it replaces a 'fallow' season in sustainable wheat farming it doesn't compete with food like other biofuels.
oh yeah, and the oil is more cold resistant, than standard plant oils and is why the plant thrives in northern climates (like wheat growing regions in Europe and North America)
as a plus the mash remains(after making biodiesel) are high in omega 3's making it an ideal feedstock for animals.
