Ho Ho Ho. Why would anyone want to turn Adblockers off? Personally I keep javascript on (why should I disable an extremely useful browser extension because some advertising scum abuse it?) but run the Adblocking at the highest level I can. I rarely see any adverts and it seems to me that the adblockers are winning the arms race - we can have our web 2.0 applications just fine without the dregs of humanity that are advertiser messing things up for us.
Give up and use Opera. Firefox is profoundly broken in combination with (a) memory leak being discussed and (b) memory leaks in plugins. The second seems to even include Flash, where some flash pages appear to be cache in active state and sit there using CPU cycles as well as memory.
I think we've no got to the state where Firefox can be seen as a nice try, but no cigar. Opera on the other hand just works - and increadibly it's quick and lean too.
I've no connection with Opera, just like many I've been through the "Dump IE, Use Firefox, Think Firefox is wonderful, Find Firefox's dreadful memory/cpu cycle leaks, Dump Firefox" cycle!
There are numerous things that we as a Society decide we'll pay for jointly, even if we don't individually use them. Education, the Health Service, State Pension, Roads, Tranport, Police, Fire Service, Museums, Art Galleries etc. etc. The BBC is no different, we as a society fund it the way we do, and with the charter it has, because it gives superb results and contributes to the culture of our society as a whole. No other model, especially not the unregulated free-enterprise American or Australian models produce anywhere near the same result. The choice is then having something which everyone pays for but may not choose to use, or not having it at all. Society as a whole is (considerably) culturally richer because of the BBC, so there really is no defensible argument against it.
Unless that is you think the worth of everything is measured by how much it costs and the richness of a culture determined by it's GDP.
Nicely argued. The problem with that argument is however that the current licence fee setup does produce superb results. The BBC's quality and breadth of output is frankly unimaginable under any other arrangement and well worth distorting a pure market to obtain. For instance what commercial concern would ever produce a radio program like Melvyn Bragg's 'In our Time'? Or practically the whole of the Radio 3 output? Or the depth of free and archive material on the BBC web site. Just because 95% of the poor (or anyone else) may not access all the opportunities that the BBC offers (and I'd argue that they provide enough pleb entertainment to offset that anyway) is no argument for it not being there and available if wanted in a similar way to the museum movement of the 19th Century.
Of course any organisation like the BBC will fight to retain and extend it's funding and scope. That's natural and not an issue so long as there's some form of control and/or regulation in place which pushes the opposite way. Of course it would be nice if the BBC could exist in it's current form without a licence fee, but that's simply not conceivable.
No. The problem is not the distances per se, it's the need for engines that don't need to carry all their fuel/reaction mass for the whole trip.
A ship accelerating at 1g half way to alpha centuri, then decelerating on the second half of the trip can get there in less than 10 years as perceived by the travellers. The problem is that no known engine system, with the possible exception of a Bussard Ramjet, could power the ship. In the age of sail sea voyages often lasted 5 years or more, just because we now think of travel times in hours doesn't mean that we couldn't handle more.
I've been using Delphi since version 1.0, and I just upgraded from D6 to D2006 (first upgrade I've taken in several years). I've a lot of code and expertese wrapped up in the product.
My initial thought was that language transfers never work (the ghost of Ashton-Tate haunts us yet:-). But it is just possible that Delphi could be turned around. Despite being in decline for many years now it does still have a loyal following and a vast established user and resource base with interest in everything OpenGL to hard-core Database work. With the 2005/2006 releases that work on.net it has at least overcome the next major technical hurdle. It's also still one of the fastest environments to develop code in.
Unfortunatly the same cannot be said for the rest of the portfolio. JBuilder is dead by comparison with Eclipse and C++Builder and C#Buillder have never got off the ground with an established user base.
What's needed is a smaller, hungy, lean and technological company to take on Delphi and aggressively develop it in a way it's not been done by Borland for many years - someone like JetBrains or Metrowerks. The hobbyist/small developer market needs to courted aggressively again - that's after all how Borland grew on the back of TurboPascal and it's just as valid now as it's ever been. After all, if Delphi has survived to the extent it has, despite Borland's total management incompetance for the last few years (ever since the Inprise fiasco) then with good management the product has every chance of thriving again.
Kiss of death would be a large company adding it to their portfolio. Sun, IBM, Novell, Oracle or the like where the product would be just one item of many and the development talent leached.
So we'll see. Personally I'll be reluctant to start any new code on my shiny new D2006 until we know where we're going. Wait and see with fingers crossed.
WindowsXP sp2. 1Gb RAM, 2.2Mhz CPU. I'll be using Firefox for a while, then it will hit a page it doesn't like and rendering slows to a crawl, and stays that way for that page and all other pages accessed thereafter. Memory usage shoots through the roof. Stopping and restarting Firefox makes no difference - a full system reboot is required.
I'm not exactly sure what causes it, I do have several plugins installed - but all standard 'editor picks' ones. I've a suspicion it's connected to Flash, but have never managed to isolate it. If you look through the web/news there's quite a few other reports of similar behaviour, going back to verion 0.9 at least.
It is Firefox though, not the OS (or at least Firefox interacting with the OS). When we get into the slow state all other programs continue to run normally and opening up IE and navigating to the websites I've visited with Firefox it has no problem. Ditto Opera.
I'm quite prepared to believe it's a plugin problem at some level, but the fact remains that if it is then Firefox's plugin model is broken.
Nope. I use Opera all the time since swapping from Firefox about 6 months ago and I have no practical page rendering issues whatsoever.
The plain truth is that Firefox is a pile of shite. Half of the Geek community doesn't want to admit it because of it's Open Source credentials, but the memory leak bugs in Firefox are an Archillies heel that goes right up to the neck. The leaks were there in version 0.9 and they're still they're in version 1.51, which just shows what a crap development model Open Source can be because everyone focuses on the 'cool f3tures' and not actually fixing essential bug and making the program usable.
I tried with Firefox, honestly I did. It's tabbed browsing feature was sooo much more usable after IE's hell of multiple windows. But once it became apparent that I'd have to reboot my PC half a dozen times a day when it slows to a crawl and bloats it's way through my 1Gb of RAM (and a restart of just Firefox doesn't help) it got consigned to the 'bloody useless' pile 5 minutes after loading Opera.
If you look at the article he actually says some of the CC licences are unacceptable and the he himself finds himself "constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely". That's not quite as meglamanically delusional as quoted as he obviously can still, to some degree, distinguish between speaking for himself and as self-appointed representative of society. However one is left with the strong impression he's well down the road to prancing around in a wig and declaring "L'etat, c'est moi".
LAMP and Web-based solutions are all well and good, but unfortunatly they're not (yet) the rich interactive environment that Access is. For simple apps yes, but for the kind of business application which I need to handle with multiple rules, validation, lookups etc. then you'd be looking at cutting-edge AJAX to replicate to a similar level of user experience, and the amount of effort required compared to creating Access forms simply isn't feasible.
And that's leaving aside reports. Access is very quick and powerful for creating these. It can be done with LAMP, but it's much slower and more kludgy.
There must be hundreds of thousands of small 'database' applications out there written in Access. Virtually everytime I get referred to a new client I find one, either written by a consultant developer such as myself, or more often kludged together by the office clerk who's had some 'Access Training' - in those cases I'm generally getting called in because the business recognises that the app needs to be sorted out and put on a professional footing because it's become business critical. Some can be replaced by a web app, but most need Access itself for the reasons above. On many occassions the user is only using the PC for the app and the standard office wp, spreadsheet and email functions, so could easily migrate to Linux if the app could be recoded in an Access clone.
As an independent developer/consultant what I really need is an Access clone, complete with the ability to act as a front end system to a back-end database - ideally Postgres - in the same way that Access/SQL Server does at the moment.
The market for such an application is immense. Access/SQL is a very common combination for vertical business apps. I have many clients running PCs where the only purpose of the box is to run the app.
For example I've been developing a formal clothing hire point-of-sale system for a client for a couple of years now, the system installs into shops (may be multiple branches) and handles the hire/sales within that shop. The system was originally developed just for the client's shops, but we're now starting to sell it to others. Currently to deploy the users require a server with a sql server licence, and workstation running Access. This tends to be expensive on software. If we could use a linux server running postgres, and an workstation pc running linux/access clone, then they'd be zero hesitation with many of our clients to deploy linux.
This isn't the only example. I've seen dozens of other systems I've either worked on or had proposed which use the same combination of software where an Access/db replacement would directly sell linux boxes.
Ah, you make the mistake of assuming that the English actually want to keep the Northern Irish in the union. In fact we're rarerly asked, and whenever the question is broached it generally seems that a substantial majority would be quite happy to tow the 6 counties off into the middle of the Atlantic and sink the lot of 'em. To the vast majority of English your Protestant Ulsterman is seen as being just as Irish as his Catholic counterpart.
No, it's an interesting question, even if what the poster was trying to imply - that God would have to have tinkered with the genetics - is manifestly incorrect.
It is, comes from 'lysis', which is just a medical term for cell rupture or disruption (i.e. cellular lysis). Sounds good when you get diagnosed, but it's just a description:-). I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, which although it's nearly 20 years since I worked in the field, does come in useful when talking to medics.
My Doctor was quite upfront that he couldn't identify the bug/strain without extensive tests, but that wasn't too important. More a question of rolling out the antibiotics to find one that worked and keeping an eye on it in case it suddenly deterioted further (in which case treatment would have been straight into hospital and hooked up to serious antibiotic irrigation).
Actually it doesn't sounds too unbelievable to me. If got Cellulitus in my leg a few years back - I'm a reasonably fit 40 year old male with no immune problem. I think the bug entered through an insect bit and what was truly alarming was the speed in which it spread. Went from a mild itch to my whole shin and ankle being a deep shade of red and equisitively painful within 24 hours. The spread slowed after that somewhat, but it took the Doctors two attempts at different antibiotics - i forget which - to stop it - first batch slowed it but didn't cure (obviously resistant), second batch took about 24 hours to kick in fully, but progress was impressive thereafter. Actually getting back to normal took a couple of months though as the bacteria had destroyed quite a bit of tissues and particularly capilliaries - which made for agony when putting my leg down after having it up as the fluids drained into the leg, leaked out the capilliaries and into what was left of the muscles.
It was quite believable to me that in a previous era I would have lost the leg and/or the infection could have been lethal within a week. Happens - as per the Orkneying saga - http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/sigu rd.htm
I'm afraid not. Nothing beats having an accurate structure from Px. I spent several years as a postdoc attempting to grow large crystals of a membrane protein (at the time one of the first three or four membrane proteins to be crystallized). As we really were interested in knowing the structure rather than how we got it as light relief from purifying the protein on a near industrial scale and seeding thousands of crystallization trials we tried every other structural analysis method we could get our hands on. Many of these gave us interesting and invaluable info, but in all cases they were of most interest after the crystal structure was solved and the results could be interpreted in the light of that.
With most Protein Chemistry having the Px structure is the Gold Standard, and you can't really say you understand a protein until you have it. Trouble is, that as the article says, getting crystals is hard, slow, and extrodinarily painstaking work
Because on numerous peoples machines Firefox periodically throws memory down a black hole and slows to a crawl. And yes, I am running version 1.5.
Basically Firefox is your usual Open Source crock. Superficially it looks good, much better in fact than what was perceived as the main opposition in IE, but underneath there's serious bugs that no-one can be bothered to fix 'cause doing so is less cool than adding the new hyperspatial n-cube cool-o-delux plugin.
The 'we are part of nature' argument is a good one. However the degree to which we are self-aware and intelligent does make us quantifiably different from all other animal and the same rules don't apply to us in the same way as they do to the rest of 'nature'
That's interesting. Personally I find drag and drop significantly easier with a trackerball, particularly the Marble Mouse, because holding down the button with the thumb while moving a finger seems less strain to me than hoilding down a button with the forefinger. Indeed I seem to apply less pressure because I'm not moving the device at the same time.
It's completely beyond me why anyone with the option not too should continue to use a mouse in the first place. Trackerballs are far superior as there's no arm movement involved and with most designs the left click is done using the thumb, which has stronger muscles than the index finger. Plus trackerballs are more flexible than mice for FPS's:-)
I try to mix designs between computers on my desktop. Both the Logitech and Microsoft trackerballs are nice. I like the Logitech Marble Mouse (http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/detail s/GB/EN,CRID=2150,CONTENTID=5145) but it doesn't have a scroll wheel, which can be an issue in some cases. Unlike some trackerballs it's quite small, and I find it's quite feasible to carry one around for my laptop.
For anyone whose having twinges or RSI and is still using a mouse I'd highly recommend trying a trackerball for a few days. They can take a few hours to get used to, but stick with it. I never get any problems at my own computers even after multiple days of 12+ hour sessions, but if I'm forced to use a mouse for an 8 hour day on a clients computer then my joints really know about it afterwards.
To be pedantic, the ancient Egyptians and current day Egyptians are not the same people. The nearest living relatives to the ancient Egyptions are probably the Copts, but most modern day Egytions are Arabs
Well, at least DAZ is giving it away up-front. Came across this the other day - http://www.daylongraphics.com/products/leveller/op ensrc.htm - the company appears to be offering to make the 'next' version of their product open source if people will donate $200,000 to the company 'Open Source' fund beforehand.
Please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this, but it seems totally outragous.
Slashdot Mirror
Ho Ho Ho. Why would anyone want to turn Adblockers off? Personally I keep javascript on (why should I disable an extremely useful browser extension because some advertising scum abuse it?) but run the Adblocking at the highest level I can. I rarely see any adverts and it seems to me that the adblockers are winning the arms race - we can have our web 2.0 applications just fine without the dregs of humanity that are advertiser messing things up for us.
Give up and use Opera. Firefox is profoundly broken in combination with (a) memory leak being discussed and (b) memory leaks in plugins. The second seems to even include Flash, where some flash pages appear to be cache in active state and sit there using CPU cycles as well as memory.
I think we've no got to the state where Firefox can be seen as a nice try, but no cigar. Opera on the other hand just works - and increadibly it's quick and lean too.
I've no connection with Opera, just like many I've been through the "Dump IE, Use Firefox, Think Firefox is wonderful, Find Firefox's dreadful memory/cpu cycle leaks, Dump Firefox" cycle!
I think you'll find that there's no reliable citation for the first of those quotes.
There are numerous things that we as a Society decide we'll pay for jointly, even if we don't individually use them. Education, the Health Service, State Pension, Roads, Tranport, Police, Fire Service, Museums, Art Galleries etc. etc. The BBC is no different, we as a society fund it the way we do, and with the charter it has, because it gives superb results and contributes to the culture of our society as a whole. No other model, especially not the unregulated free-enterprise American or Australian models produce anywhere near the same result. The choice is then having something which everyone pays for but may not choose to use, or not having it at all. Society as a whole is (considerably) culturally richer because of the BBC, so there really is no defensible argument against it.
Unless that is you think the worth of everything is measured by how much it costs and the richness of a culture determined by it's GDP.
Nicely argued. The problem with that argument is however that the current licence fee setup does produce superb results. The BBC's quality and breadth of output is frankly unimaginable under any other arrangement and well worth distorting a pure market to obtain. For instance what commercial concern would ever produce a radio program like Melvyn Bragg's 'In our Time'? Or practically the whole of the Radio 3 output? Or the depth of free and archive material on the BBC web site. Just because 95% of the poor (or anyone else) may not access all the opportunities that the BBC offers (and I'd argue that they provide enough pleb entertainment to offset that anyway) is no argument for it not being there and available if wanted in a similar way to the museum movement of the 19th Century.
Of course any organisation like the BBC will fight to retain and extend it's funding and scope. That's natural and not an issue so long as there's some form of control and/or regulation in place which pushes the opposite way. Of course it would be nice if the BBC could exist in it's current form without a licence fee, but that's simply not conceivable.
No. The problem is not the distances per se, it's the need for engines that don't need to carry all their fuel/reaction mass for the whole trip.
A ship accelerating at 1g half way to alpha centuri, then decelerating on the second half of the trip can get there in less than 10 years as perceived by the travellers. The problem is that no known engine system, with the possible exception of a Bussard Ramjet, could power the ship. In the age of sail sea voyages often lasted 5 years or more, just because we now think of travel times in hours doesn't mean that we couldn't handle more.
It's just an engineering problem.
I've been using Delphi since version 1.0, and I just upgraded from D6 to D2006 (first upgrade I've taken in several years). I've a lot of code and expertese wrapped up in the product.
:-). But it is just possible that Delphi could be turned around. Despite being in decline for many years now it does still have a loyal following and a vast established user and resource base with interest in everything OpenGL to hard-core Database work. With the 2005/2006 releases that work on .net it has at least overcome the next major technical hurdle. It's also still one of the fastest environments to develop code in.
My initial thought was that language transfers never work (the ghost of Ashton-Tate haunts us yet
Unfortunatly the same cannot be said for the rest of the portfolio. JBuilder is dead by comparison with Eclipse and C++Builder and C#Buillder have never got off the ground with an established user base.
What's needed is a smaller, hungy, lean and technological company to take on Delphi and aggressively develop it in a way it's not been done by Borland for many years - someone like JetBrains or Metrowerks. The hobbyist/small developer market needs to courted aggressively again - that's after all how Borland grew on the back of TurboPascal and it's just as valid now as it's ever been. After all, if Delphi has survived to the extent it has, despite Borland's total management incompetance for the last few years (ever since the Inprise fiasco) then with good management the product has every chance of thriving again.
Kiss of death would be a large company adding it to their portfolio. Sun, IBM, Novell, Oracle or the like where the product would be just one item of many and the development talent leached.
So we'll see. Personally I'll be reluctant to start any new code on my shiny new D2006 until we know where we're going. Wait and see with fingers crossed.
WindowsXP sp2. 1Gb RAM, 2.2Mhz CPU. I'll be using Firefox for a while, then it will hit a page it doesn't like and rendering slows to a crawl, and stays that way for that page and all other pages accessed thereafter. Memory usage shoots through the roof. Stopping and restarting Firefox makes no difference - a full system reboot is required.
I'm not exactly sure what causes it, I do have several plugins installed - but all standard 'editor picks' ones. I've a suspicion it's connected to Flash, but have never managed to isolate it. If you look through the web/news there's quite a few other reports of similar behaviour, going back to verion 0.9 at least.
It is Firefox though, not the OS (or at least Firefox interacting with the OS). When we get into the slow state all other programs continue to run normally and opening up IE and navigating to the websites I've visited with Firefox it has no problem. Ditto Opera.
I'm quite prepared to believe it's a plugin problem at some level, but the fact remains that if it is then Firefox's plugin model is broken.
Nope. I use Opera all the time since swapping from Firefox about 6 months ago and I have no practical page rendering issues whatsoever.
The plain truth is that Firefox is a pile of shite. Half of the Geek community doesn't want to admit it because of it's Open Source credentials, but the memory leak bugs in Firefox are an Archillies heel that goes right up to the neck. The leaks were there in version 0.9 and they're still they're in version 1.51, which just shows what a crap development model Open Source can be because everyone focuses on the 'cool f3tures' and not actually fixing essential bug and making the program usable.
I tried with Firefox, honestly I did. It's tabbed browsing feature was sooo much more usable after IE's hell of multiple windows. But once it became apparent that I'd have to reboot my PC half a dozen times a day when it slows to a crawl and bloats it's way through my 1Gb of RAM (and a restart of just Firefox doesn't help) it got consigned to the 'bloody useless' pile 5 minutes after loading Opera.
If you look at the article he actually says some of the CC licences are unacceptable and the he himself finds himself "constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely". That's not quite as meglamanically delusional as quoted as he obviously can still, to some degree, distinguish between speaking for himself and as self-appointed representative of society. However one is left with the strong impression he's well down the road to prancing around in a wig and declaring "L'etat, c'est moi".
LAMP and Web-based solutions are all well and good, but unfortunatly they're not (yet) the rich interactive environment that Access is. For simple apps yes, but for the kind of business application which I need to handle with multiple rules, validation, lookups etc. then you'd be looking at cutting-edge AJAX to replicate to a similar level of user experience, and the amount of effort required compared to creating Access forms simply isn't feasible.
And that's leaving aside reports. Access is very quick and powerful for creating these. It can be done with LAMP, but it's much slower and more kludgy.
There must be hundreds of thousands of small 'database' applications out there written in Access. Virtually everytime I get referred to a new client I find one, either written by a consultant developer such as myself, or more often kludged together by the office clerk who's had some 'Access Training' - in those cases I'm generally getting called in because the business recognises that the app needs to be sorted out and put on a professional footing because it's become business critical. Some can be replaced by a web app, but most need Access itself for the reasons above. On many occassions the user is only using the PC for the app and the standard office wp, spreadsheet and email functions, so could easily migrate to Linux if the app could be recoded in an Access clone.
As an independent developer/consultant what I really need is an Access clone, complete with the ability to act as a front end system to a back-end database - ideally Postgres - in the same way that Access/SQL Server does at the moment.
The market for such an application is immense. Access/SQL is a very common combination for vertical business apps. I have many clients running PCs where the only purpose of the box is to run the app.
For example I've been developing a formal clothing hire point-of-sale system for a client for a couple of years now, the system installs into shops (may be multiple branches) and handles the hire/sales within that shop. The system was originally developed just for the client's shops, but we're now starting to sell it to others. Currently to deploy the users require a server with a sql server licence, and workstation running Access. This tends to be expensive on software. If we could use a linux server running postgres, and an workstation pc running linux/access clone, then they'd be zero hesitation with many of our clients to deploy linux.
This isn't the only example. I've seen dozens of other systems I've either worked on or had proposed which use the same combination of software where an Access/db replacement would directly sell linux boxes.
Ah, you make the mistake of assuming that the English actually want to keep the Northern Irish in the union. In fact we're rarerly asked, and whenever the question is broached it generally seems that a substantial majority would be quite happy to tow the 6 counties off into the middle of the Atlantic and sink the lot of 'em. To the vast majority of English your Protestant Ulsterman is seen as being just as Irish as his Catholic counterpart.
No, it's an interesting question, even if what the poster was trying to imply - that God would have to have tinkered with the genetics - is manifestly incorrect.
It is, comes from 'lysis', which is just a medical term for cell rupture or disruption (i.e. cellular lysis). Sounds good when you get diagnosed, but it's just a description :-). I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, which although it's nearly 20 years since I worked in the field, does come in useful when talking to medics.
My Doctor was quite upfront that he couldn't identify the bug/strain without extensive tests, but that wasn't too important. More a question of rolling out the antibiotics to find one that worked and keeping an eye on it in case it suddenly deterioted further (in which case treatment would have been straight into hospital and hooked up to serious antibiotic irrigation).
Actually it doesn't sounds too unbelievable to me. If got Cellulitus in my leg a few years back - I'm a reasonably fit 40 year old male with no immune problem. I think the bug entered through an insect bit and what was truly alarming was the speed in which it spread. Went from a mild itch to my whole shin and ankle being a deep shade of red and equisitively painful within 24 hours. The spread slowed after that somewhat, but it took the Doctors two attempts at different antibiotics - i forget which - to stop it - first batch slowed it but didn't cure (obviously resistant), second batch took about 24 hours to kick in fully, but progress was impressive thereafter. Actually getting back to normal took a couple of months though as the bacteria had destroyed quite a bit of tissues and particularly capilliaries - which made for agony when putting my leg down after having it up as the fluids drained into the leg, leaked out the capilliaries and into what was left of the muscles.
u rd.htm
It was quite believable to me that in a previous era I would have lost the leg and/or the infection could have been lethal within a week. Happens - as per the Orkneying saga - http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/vikingorkney/sig
I'm afraid not. Nothing beats having an accurate structure from Px. I spent several years as a postdoc attempting to grow large crystals of a membrane protein (at the time one of the first three or four membrane proteins to be crystallized). As we really were interested in knowing the structure rather than how we got it as light relief from purifying the protein on a near industrial scale and seeding thousands of crystallization trials we tried every other structural analysis method we could get our hands on. Many of these gave us interesting and invaluable info, but in all cases they were of most interest after the crystal structure was solved and the results could be interpreted in the light of that.
With most Protein Chemistry having the Px structure is the Gold Standard, and you can't really say you understand a protein until you have it. Trouble is, that as the article says, getting crystals is hard, slow, and extrodinarily painstaking work
I agree, this is clearly junk science. It's impossible for a wave to be affected by an object which is smaller than half it's wavelength.
Because on numerous peoples machines Firefox periodically throws memory down a black hole and slows to a crawl. And yes, I am running version 1.5.
Basically Firefox is your usual Open Source crock. Superficially it looks good, much better in fact than what was perceived as the main opposition in IE, but underneath there's serious bugs that no-one can be bothered to fix 'cause doing so is less cool than adding the new hyperspatial n-cube cool-o-delux plugin.
The 'we are part of nature' argument is a good one. However the degree to which we are self-aware and intelligent does make us quantifiably different from all other animal and the same rules don't apply to us in the same way as they do to the rest of 'nature'
er no, 650,000 years is just how far they got back in the ice core
That's interesting. Personally I find drag and drop significantly easier with a trackerball, particularly the Marble Mouse, because holding down the button with the thumb while moving a finger seems less strain to me than hoilding down a button with the forefinger. Indeed I seem to apply less pressure because I'm not moving the device at the same time.
It's completely beyond me why anyone with the option not too should continue to use a mouse in the first place. Trackerballs are far superior as there's no arm movement involved and with most designs the left click is done using the thumb, which has stronger muscles than the index finger. Plus trackerballs are more flexible than mice for FPS's :-)
l s/GB/EN,CRID=2150,CONTENTID=5145) but it doesn't have a scroll wheel, which can be an issue in some cases. Unlike some trackerballs it's quite small, and I find it's quite feasible to carry one around for my laptop.
I try to mix designs between computers on my desktop. Both the Logitech and Microsoft trackerballs are nice. I like the Logitech Marble Mouse (http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/detai
For anyone whose having twinges or RSI and is still using a mouse I'd highly recommend trying a trackerball for a few days. They can take a few hours to get used to, but stick with it. I never get any problems at my own computers even after multiple days of 12+ hour sessions, but if I'm forced to use a mouse for an 8 hour day on a clients computer then my joints really know about it afterwards.
To be pedantic, the ancient Egyptians and current day Egyptians are not the same people. The nearest living relatives to the ancient Egyptions are probably the Copts, but most modern day Egytions are Arabs
Well, at least DAZ is giving it away up-front. Came across this the other day - http://www.daylongraphics.com/products/leveller/op ensrc.htm - the company appears to be offering to make the 'next' version of their product open source if people will donate $200,000 to the company 'Open Source' fund beforehand.
Please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this, but it seems totally outragous.