@Sutherlands said:
Dang, guess I haven't been here long enough.
That doesn't even make sense, you retard.
@Sutherlands said:
Dang, guess I haven't been here long enough.
That doesn't even make sense, you retard.
@Sutherlands said:
I am pleased that my troll was both informative and successful :)@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
@Sutherlands said:And of course my first response was reread "It does too, what are you talking about?"That doesn't even make sense, you retard.Dang, guess I haven't been here long enough.
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
Have I killed a few too many braincells last nightOh shit, fuck horsecocks buggery shit. Make that 'did I kill'. Let's just pretend I didn't post anything at all today, ok? Move along, nothing to see here.
@blakeyrat said:
Then don't do that.
Either don't maximize them, or don't set the non-maximized version to "take up nearly the whole screen". I mean, what do you want from us?
As I said, I'm pretty happy with my solution. Why the blithering fuck are you telling me I should do something else and then a few posts later ridiculing me for the stupidities in what you said? Have I killed a few too many braincells last night and lost the ability to read and write English?
I understand the difference between strong and weak typing - and explicitly declaring it in VBA where necessary* - but that wasn't really what I was asking. I was just trying to think of a scenario in which you might use "false"=true as a test for any reason other than as a short-cut exploiting a trick of the language. The main effect of the string/boolean behaviour in VBA is really just that "false" and FALSE are alternate ways of referring to the boolean.
@Jaime said:
So, exactly what is taken when ads are blocked?I begin to see what you're asking here. The content would be what is 'taken'. 'Obtained' might have been a better choice of word; 'taking' really means 'taking possession of', or something similar here, but it's complicated by the nature of the good/service we're dealing with. Obviously, a tv programme, say, is intangible, so we might talk about (fairly or unfairly) obtaining the moral right to watch it.
@Xyro said:
adblocking/dabflurpsing != stealingThat should be 'adblocking != stealing/dabflurpsing'. The moral definition of stealing is the only relevant one in a discussion of morality, and it's a very broad one. Morally, stealing is only definable as taking that which it is wrong - that is, immoral - for you to take. If adblocking is immoral, it's a form of stealing to obtain the related content. If it's not immoral, it can't be stealing in a moral sense. The criminal aspect is the totally irrelevant part in this debate.
@Xyro said:
And WhyTF are we on the fifth page of this ridiculous thread?I'm guessing it's my fault, mainly. :)
@Xyro said:
In some window managers like KDE's KWin, right-clicking the maximize button will maximize the window vertically, which is very handy. Likewise, middle-clicking maximizes it horizontally.
That sounds genuinely useful. If you go from (1) windowed, to (2) vertically maximised, to fully maximised, and then return to windowed, will it go back to state (1) or (2)? I suppose there's no reason why, instead of the window/maximise buttons replacing each other as you toggle the state, you couldn't retain the windowing button and be able to go back through previous window sizes and positions with repeated clicking.
@b-redeker said:
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
You should be using [if (isnull(foo)=true)] instead of [if foo= true] - or whatever check it is you actually want to do.I didn't want to do a check; I wanted to show that variants in VBA/VBscript will take a string and treat it as a boolean, which was I think what the OP expected JavaScript to do.
Sorry, on re-reading it seems I slightly misunderstood your original post. Anyway, it still served as a good starting point for my explication. Can you think of any good reason to do it that isn't just to prove the concept?
@blakeyrat said:
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:I want to have non-maximised windows that don't take up the full screen vertically,So... a normal window?
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
and that's not compatible with having ones that do.How do you figure? My copy of Windows doesn't have any problems with it.
You're telling me that your copy of Windows will remember the sizes of windows that you set at one time, even after you subsequently set them as something different? Don't be daft. It's not telepathic.
I have a use for non-maximised windows which don't take up nearly the whole screen. If I set non-maximised windows to take up nearly the whole screen, then I am no longer able to switch between having maximised windows and windowed ones, because the windowed ones will be almost exactly the same size as the maximised ones. If I could choose from a number of different stored sizes, it would be fine, but that functionality doesn't exist in any GUI that I know of.@blakeyrat said:
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:and that if you overshoot the scroll-bar at the side slightly, you click on a different window and lose focus.That's a slightly valid complaint, but is this really something that happens so often that it's a concern?
It was just an example, really. Your contention is basically that there are no benefits to maximising windows, but in fact there are, which is why the maximise functionality exists.
@dhromed said:
What's the relevance of the legal definition? Unless the (demonstrably dubious) statement that that which is legal is moral, and that which is illegal is immoral is held to be true, legality is entirely irrelevant. There's no suggestion that ad-blocking is a crime, but if you think legality alone makes something morally right, I despair.@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
the difference between the legal definition of a specific crime, and the moral crime that lies behind the law.Objection!
Relevance?
@blakeyrat said:
We actually use the windowing OS the way it's intended, instead of maximizing everything.Oh, great, so I'll lose nothing except the middle option from 'maximise'/'window'/'minimise'. If windows could remember a number of intermediate sizes, it would be fine to do as you suggest. I want to have non-maximised windows that don't take up the full screen vertically, and that's not compatible with having ones that do. Not to mention that there is no way to line them up neatly, so it's annoying in an OCD sort of way, and that if you overshoot the scroll-bar at the side slightly, you click on a different window and lose focus.Unless your wide screen is super low-res, you don't lose anything from switching to widescreen. On the contrary, you gain a nice little strip of pixels perfect for your IM friend list, or your Windows widgets, or whatever you want to use it for.