Sorry, so many typos I'm going to repost:

Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave on 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited in association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views and those of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

Janet Reno and Clinton were both against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, with no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

That is all an AP search turned up. It did say she appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave of 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited is association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

Janet Reno and Clinton were against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, which no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

That is all an AP search turned up. It did say he appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

It was an analogy, bot really what is on the airplane.

I'd say in-flight video is mission critical, look at SwissAir 111. The company was so eager to cash in on midair gambling they overloaded the wiring with standalone power supplies rather than putting in a more sensible system. Crash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111#TSB_findings

Thanks so much for doing this.

The Mozilla plugin check tool can be used in any browser, and reports Flash on IE10 on Win8 is still "outdated": https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/
But the tool can be inaccurate for some browsers. At this time it does show Flash on Chrome as up-to-date. Chrome also bundles its own Flash. Firefox shows as OK too, after you update. If you try to update Flash in IE10 you get a notice that Flash is bundled, but it also says you can install it if you really want to.

And you do not need the JRE to run LibreOffice.

Borland's early Turbo compilers were amazing (fit on two floppies, and fast). They used a DOS-based windowing system called Turbo Vision. Your app ended up looking like the Turbo IDE, with windows, drop down menus, checkboxes, etc., instead of the Windows 3.1 API. Indeed you could draw color graphics and animate math functions, etc., though that may have been in some kind of full screen mode.

Borland went over to the Windows API soon after all that. It all went to heck for Borland C++ when they dropped the Turbo name in the mid 1990s. Just too buggy to run (version 5). But Borland's Delphi Pascal stayed strong, and I use a text editor written in Delphi to this day. There were lots of user-contributed components, for instance, to make internet protocols work! Microsoft wasn't the only company that missed the boat on TCP/IP. Borland, like MS, put much of its effort into desktop database libraries instead.

Symantec, I wonder what goes on there. Hope the engineering is better than the fairly ridiculous adventure I had with customer service. I was reporting a bug in the "Verified" seals for my paying client: the web wizard generates the wrong seals because the product matrix has not kept up with the threeway conversion of Verisign, Symantec and Norton. On the fourth customer service rep I finally had someone who knew what he was talking about. Refreshingly, he was blunt and did not end by asking me if I had any other issues, but just signed off! He sent me the code I needed, but I'm not sure he reported the bug.

Let's hope that means the server security and SSL cert teams are no-nonsense engineers, not bereft souls in a chaotic marketing enterprise.

mobile not ruling -> mobile now ruling

Chrome has it too, but hidden under Settings / Advanced / Privacy / Content Settings / Plugins / click-to-play
Not sure what the default is these days.

Opera is a great browser, but sites with media content can be so complex, I just start with Firefox and the Browser View extension (very simple), and open the page in successive browsers until it works, with IE as a last resort.

The problem with click-to-play schemes is that sometimes there is a smaller Flash controller you don't see or notice. I've been running Firefox with Flashblock for years and this is a common problem, so I imagine it will be hitting click-to-play as bugs. People who use Noscript instead probably haven't noticed the issue, because once you whitelist a page in Noscript, it reloads and the Flash and everything else runs. But with click-to-play, you may need to reload the page whitelisted so all the triggers can fire in whatever js/flash system they have cooked up to keep count of the count-count. Remember when the Count just liked to count, and wasn't such a vampire?

Opera used to be the fastest non-IE browser to open up, so was handy for getting a quick weather report before heading out, but I think that has gone the way of Firefox as a 5MB download. With mobile not ruling the web, maybe we'll get some of that back.

Whatever turned Firefox into 20MB download I assume it should be able to do a good HTML5 emulation of Flash! http://www.oldapps.com/firefox.php (And Flash is monumentally bigger than its old versions too.)

To be clear on jQuery effects, I'm talking about Javascript with no browser plugins, just those big redundant ad js files that often rival the total byte size of the images on a page. Flash is at least compact. (I develop with js instead of Flash, but I try to keep it reasonable.)

JQuery can eat up cycles too. A common replacement for Flash animation is the jQuery "Cycle" plugin. Well, jQuery sets 13ms timeouts by default for effects. If I have two or three of those things running in ads on a page, my laptop's fan kicks on. The parameter, jQuery.fx.interval, is not that well known, and a developer on a decent system would not notice the CPU overuse. The 13ms resolution is not really needed for simple slideshows.

Photoshop 4.0.1, (c) 1996, I run it everyday. Only later features I miss are unlimited undo and editable text. Text always becomes raster. No plugins, but I do re-save files before they go out, using command line imagemagick scripts! That fixes the one big sneaky annoyance of PS 4.0.1: it saves PNG's with a weird color profile.