|
Vlad!
|
 |
« Reply #2840 on: October 20, 2011, 04:08:07 PM » |
|
I have made a huge (for me) discovery! In Firefox, History > Recently closed tabs will recover tabs lost when you close a window. This is true even if you have multiple tab groups open. I'm so used to being able to close the window and have Firefox remember my session when I launch it again that I occasionally would lose all my open tabs by closing a window when I have another window open.
I'm probably the last person to have figured this out, but it saved me a lot of angst today.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Aaron
|
|
« Reply #2841 on: October 20, 2011, 05:42:57 PM » |
|
i don't use firefox so I would be the last to know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2842 on: October 21, 2011, 10:39:10 AM » |
|
What do you use? I personally would have switched to Chrome long ago if Firefox didn't have a small handful of features I can't be bothered to figure out in Chrome.
(I do use Chrome on my netbook, because it's faster and less of a memory hog than Firefox is).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2843 on: November 06, 2011, 06:41:12 PM » |
|
I thought I had gotten over my tabloid obsession, but now I find myself very curious as to whether Justin Bieber is really the father of that baby. I'm guessing not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #2844 on: November 06, 2011, 07:11:45 PM » |
|
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here is Sherlock yelling at crap telly.  "of course he's not the boy's father! look at the turn-ups on his jeans!" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2845 on: November 07, 2011, 11:19:03 PM » |
|
I was just reading over something that I wrote a few months ago to refresh my memory, and I noticed that I wrote "to" instead of "too". Apparently I'm a moron. I....I didn't know. ( Relevant XKCD link) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2846 on: November 23, 2011, 08:52:48 AM » |
|
I think watching Johnny Cash's cover of Trent Reznor's "Hurt" should be a suitable reason for calling in sick to work.
"Hello, yes, I'm afraid I can't come in today. No, no, I'm OK...I'm just too maudlin to do anything right now."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2847 on: December 16, 2011, 02:01:53 PM » |
|
Many of my co-workers--intelligent software engineers and native English speakers--do not know the difference between 'discrete' and 'discreet'.
When I got an email asking "was each command run as a discreet event?", I was tempted to respond with "no, everything was out in the open". But I'm sure most of the people on the list would not even understand the joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2848 on: December 25, 2011, 12:06:05 AM » |
|
Looks like the Presidential primaries won't offer much suspense this time around. Barack Obama is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee, and Mitt Romney looks poised to run away with the Republican nomination. If Ron Paul can win Iowa things might get interesting, but it's hard to see the Republicans actually nominating him.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2849 on: December 28, 2011, 10:25:28 PM » |
|
Since I posted that, Rick Santorum has surged. I still think if Mitt Romney wins Iowa it is over. Not that that should decide anything, but that seems to be the way it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #2850 on: December 31, 2011, 12:48:35 AM » |
|
I rarely go to the Amazon front page or scroll down to see what they're pushing on me.
Kindle is at the top. do people really like reading books on a screen?
I recently used some gift money/cards to buy a Kindle and thought about this old post. (now the front page is pushing Kindle accessories, Ugg boots, men's running shoes, and diamond jewelry up to 79% off. is there a more boring-looking gem?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #2851 on: December 31, 2011, 04:29:36 PM » |
|
Since I posted that, Rick Santorum has surged. Yeah? Ugh! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2852 on: December 31, 2011, 06:15:07 PM » |
|
Be sure to post about how you like the Kindle. Which one did you get? I can't see myself enjoying the Kindle Fire, but one of the e-ink ones might be worthwhile. This is the time of year that I start to think about Kindles, since I'm traveling all over the southeastern united states with a manpurse courier bag full of dead-tree books.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #2853 on: January 01, 2012, 07:41:23 PM » |
|
I chose the model with the keyboard and 3G with the special offers and sponsored screensavers. (I don't have a smartphone, and a device with free 3G sounded like it could come in very handy, especially since it works globally.) so far I'm really enjoying the way it feels and looks and works. I initially found the way it flashes a negative image to clear the e-ink a bit strange, but I've read that people become accustomed to that soon enough. I also used the page-turning buttons incorrectly at first (I automatically tried to use the big left button to go back a page) but then realized that the way they work actually makes more sense and makes it easy to use in either hand. (the big button on both the right and left sides go forward a page.)
I wish I could have afforded the version of this model without special offers--I had read that the ads are not as bad as people had thought, but I'm finding their presence more annoying than I had expected. I did get an inexpensive cover from overstock.com and could keep it in there and not see the ads when the Kindle is just sitting on my desk (or just get in the habit of turning it off), but I prefer to hold it without a cover. a quick google search indicates that there are hacks for getting rid of the ads, so I'm going to look into those.
overall, I like it a lot and think you would find owning some model of e-ink e-reader to be worthwhile!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2854 on: January 20, 2012, 08:42:21 PM » |
|
I randomly observed yesterday that we are likely the last generation who will actually understand what the phrase "waiting by the phone" means on a literal level.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2855 on: January 27, 2012, 05:37:54 PM » |
|
Today I Learned [1] that it's "sound bites", not "sound bytes". I suspected this to be the case, but had never bothered to look into it. And by "look into it" I of course mean "do a search for it and read the Wikipedia article, which has no useful references and thus I must take on faith", which is the standard definition of "look into it" for my generation.
[1] Henceforth TIL, as already codified in Internet slang
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
enemy anemone
|
|
« Reply #2856 on: January 27, 2012, 05:45:04 PM » |
|
if the sound bite is looped, it should be "sound bight".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2857 on: February 02, 2012, 09:12:04 AM » |
|
Apparently the groundhog from Groundhog Day, on Groundhog Day (today is Groundhog Day) predicted six more weeks of winter.
Which, at least for this part of the country, is entirely inaccurate due to the use of the word more.
Also, groundhog.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
whim
Inphrequent Poster
Posts: 120
|
|
« Reply #2858 on: February 02, 2012, 08:27:20 PM » |
|
Entirely. Very nice weather today, though.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2859 on: February 12, 2012, 09:04:33 AM » |
|
Random question: If JFK had lived, would he have stayed married (considering his infidelities)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2860 on: February 12, 2012, 06:43:29 PM » |
|
Random question: If JFK had lived, would he have stayed married (considering his infidelities)?
He was Catholic, right? They believe that divorce is a pretty big deal. It's entirely possible that they would have remained married simply for publicity's sake, much like Hillary and Bill Clinton. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2861 on: March 03, 2012, 01:39:56 PM » |
|
I was thinking that Jackie might have left him. Isn't adultery usually considered grounds for divorce/annulment?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2862 on: March 03, 2012, 02:03:02 PM » |
|
I was thinking that Jackie might have left him. Isn't adultery usually considered grounds for divorce/annulment?
My understanding is that the Catholic church considers marriage binding, period. I'm not sure whether they make an exception for infidelity or not--Jesus did, but the teachings of the Catholic church are only vaguely related to what Jesus actually said much of the time. (The Catholic church sometimes try to get around this by deliberately mistranslating Matthew 19:9, rendering the "except for marital unfaithfulness" clause as "unless the marriage was never valid", which is where they get the doctrine of annulment, which is where a marriage is proclaimed to have never been valid, i.e., retroactively speaking there was no marriage.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2863 on: March 03, 2012, 06:18:22 PM » |
|
My impression is that in the Catholic Church you usually can get an annulment if you really want it. Ted Kennedy famously got his first marriage annulled because he had no intention of being faithful.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2864 on: March 03, 2012, 09:28:06 PM » |
|
I guess that's the difference between theory and practice (and the difference between now and the 1500s, when apparently even the king of England couldn't catch a break from the pontiff).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #2865 on: March 03, 2012, 11:17:45 PM » |
|
(The Catholic church sometimes try to get around this by deliberately mistranslating Matthew 19:9, rendering the "except for marital unfaithfulness" clause as "unless the marriage was never valid", which is where they get the doctrine of annulment, which is where a marriage is proclaimed to have never been valid, i.e., retroactively speaking there was no marriage.) Regardless of the translation of this particular text, the question of whether a marriage was valid in God's eyes seems like a potentially large loophole/complication when dealing with theological questions of divorce and remarriage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2866 on: March 14, 2012, 03:33:34 PM » |
|
The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time getting into the validity of a marriage. The Jewish law lays out what relatives one may not marry, but even then (as far as I recall) it doesn't actually spell out what to do if you accidentally violate this or violate it and then have a change of heart.
The book of Ezra gives some hint; the Jewish people were guilty of intermarrying with pagans. Ezra 9 and 10 cover this situation, and, in Ezra 10:10-11 it says "Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, 'You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt. Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.'". There is no mention of divorce; rather, in 10:3 it says "Let us...send away these women". So the idea of declaring a marriage to be null because it should never have happened (it violated the law given in Deuteronomy 7:3 regarding intermarriage) is at least not completely absent from the Bible.
Paul's approach, however, was entirely different. I Cor 7:12-13 says "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him." For the situation of marrying outside the church (something that should not be, as with intermarriage above), Paul considers it divorce and says it should not be done. In other words, I don't see any root in New Testament theology, either in the writings of Paul or the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19 regarding divorce and remarriage, to support the Catholic concept of annulment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
