Mozilla seems to have all of the functions of their client except the small bits (Tasks, Notes, Palm Sync) already, and it's stable, well-integrated and tested. It also runs on Windows, Linux and other platforms, allowing you to have the same client everywhere (less support load.)
It seems odd to cobble all these disparate KDE projects together instead of using Mozilla. But maybe this is because the KDE developers are more familiar with them. Still, I'm sure someone will make Mozilla work with Kollaborator server, or whatever it's called, soon enough.
Also, 10Mb at 3k per second -> 55 minutes. In actual fact, it's about 13Mb so it might take you an hour and a quarter. I don't know where you live, but that shouldn't cost you more than a pint of beer in local currency.
Recent versions cache and reuse the compose window, so it's much faster. I think this went in after 1.0 (although I'm not certain) so if you are using 1.0, upgrade to 1.1.
Each quarterly cycle has an alpha, a beta and a final release. We recently released 1.1final, and 1.2alpha is the first release in the next cycle.
If you are looking for "major improvements worthy of a version jump", you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.) Comparing 1.1final and 1.2alpha is not correct, because not all the 1.2 features are in yet.
I had Win2K swap trouble too, but new versions appear to be a lot better.
Mozilla's versioning is not like the Linux kernel. Each quarterly cycle has an alpha, a beta and a final release. We recently released 1.1final, and 1.2alpha is the first release in the next cycle.
If you are looking for feature jumps, you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.)
The Reference Library contains the entire DjVu decoder and much of the encoder, but it does not contain the sophisticated encoding strategies necessary for reaching the highest compression ratios. Among other things, the DjVu Reference Library contains the full DjVu decoder, the full IW44 wavelet encoder/decoder for continuous tone images, and the back-end of the JB2 bi-level image compression technique. It does not contain the code for separating document images into foreground and background layers, nor does it contain the code of the lossy JB2 scheme that achieves the highest compression ratios on bitonal images.
And...
Two patents apply to two very specific aspects of DjVu and DjVuLibre (described below). Those patents are owned by AT&T, but LizardTech has very broad rights to them and grants free and permanent licenses to them for the purpose of building GPL'ed software with the DjVu open source release.
So, DJVU could not appear in Mozilla/Netscape, because they wouldn't be granted a license to the patents. Mozilla is MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licensed.
Of course to be truly useful as a JPEG replacement it needs to be included in browsers. People don't like having to mess with plugins.
Well, it'll never be in Mozilla/Netscape if things stay the way they are - there are two patents which apply to it, and you can only have a license for them if you are writing software that's purely GPLed. Read their licensing page.
Gerv
Re:My community service for the day.
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood...
So you'd be the only person enlightened enough to know the truth?:-)
Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.
That's not what "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" means to me - the opposite, in fact, seems to be its plain meaning.
And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.
So people fighting for a cause will change their message completely in order to preserve their organisation's existence? If this is what happened, it would be a unique occurrence in the history of rebellious groups. Fanatical devotion to a cause is usually marked by a refusal to modify your message despite external pressure.
Regardless, your "They had a completely different aim, but changed it before any of the evidence was written down" thesis does seem somewhat hollow. Where are your sources for this conspiracy theory?
"Peaceful proto-hippy" is your description, not mine. There is a middle ground between that and "terrorist".
Mark 11 continues: And as he taught them, he said: "Is it not written: 'My house wil be called a house of prayer for all nations' (Isaiah 56:7)' But you have made it a den of robbers."
The behaviour of the merchants and money-lenders was terrible - they were treating God's house (Jesus' father's house) as a bazaar, and profiteering from people's love of God.
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
So when do we get to the part where you explain away the arbitrary and meaningless?
Quoting myself: "Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there."
My choice is not arbitrary (and therefore meaningless and useless) because I made it after being convinced by the evidence.
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
If you ever learn to read Latin (which I spent 4 years doing), then maybe you should start reading, if you can find them, some of the original Latin scrolls. No translations by dark-age kings. You will open you eyes to the tragedy that was the Hebrews.
I can, in fact, read Latin - but I find your "analysis" of the origins of Christianity hard to take seriously, because the Bible was written in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek and Aramaeic (New Testament). Therefore, the "original scrolls" were not written in Latin at all.
There are people in the world today who try to live this way - attempting, in their own strength, to do only "good things". For one thing, they do it by whatever definition of good things seems appropriate to them - and this varies widely. One person's good act may be seen by another person as wrong; and who is to judge between them? Secondly, they always fail in their aim, even within their own definition. No-one is perfect.
That isn't right, because people (like me; I suck at it) play football for more reasons than to be the best. Fun, friendship, being part of a team, that sort of thing.
Gerv
Re:My community service for the day.
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation)
The Jews were _expecting_ a Messiah who would overthrow the Roman occupation, but Jesus did not have that as an aim. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", for example. And St. Paul wrote in Romans 13 that "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."
Gerv
Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Science and logic do not mix with religion.
I don't agree. I'm a scientist by training, and a Christian - and I'm not the only one. There are questions Science cannot answer, because they are outside its frame of reference:
- Why are we here? - What's the purpose of life? - What happens after you die?
Gerv
Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
Did you see those three guys trying to butt into every photo op also?
Yeah, that's right. Because there was only one camera in the stadium, and so they rudely stood right in front of it.
Did you see them stop and "pray" while their teamates were congratulating each other?
I saw the entire Brazilian team, coaches and all, praying in a massive circle.
Everyone's given a set of different talents. If your team is bottom of the lowest league, perhaps football isn't one of them:-)
Gerv
Re:"I belong to Jesus" / "Jesus Loves You"
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
The world is bad and many people are bad, religion does not change this.
You are correct. Religion does not change this - on the contrary, Christianity provides a rational explanation for it.
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
what makes your choice something that isn't arbitrary and meaningless?
Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there.
Since then, my faith that I am right has been strengthened by seeing God work in my life and the lives of others.
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
the concept of Jesus and illogical faith in other mythical beings has caused more wars and evil in the world than any other thing in history!
Militant atheism was behind both World Wars. Remember the Holocaust? Hitler's view was that Jews and homosexuals deserved to die, and that the Aryan race should prevail; how do you claim your view is more correct? Without a moral basis, you can't.
Lack of belief in God has caused far more suffering in this world than the antics of the power-hungry who use Christianity as a cover for their political battles (e.g. the Crusades.)
Gerv
Re:does that work both ways?
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
Using professional athletes as proof that belief in religion breeds success
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing that - not from my post, certainly. GigsVT claimed that people who believed in Jesus were weak-willed and weak-minded, and unable to reach their goals on their own without a crutch. I merely pointed out that when I look at the Brazilian team, I don't see weak-minded and weak-willed people.
Gerv
Re:Mess Gerv,get banned from Mozilla!
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
My replies made you k-line me from irc.mozilla.org which I have many friends to talk with?
That's not true. I have no idea how to k-line someone. My knowledge of IRC is rather basic. Even if I did know how to do it, I believe it requires being an op in the relevant channel, which I'm not (unless it was #mozwebtools.)
#mozilla has bots which auto-op people, but I'm not on the list of people who get auto-ops (sad, but true.)
Lastly, I've never had a soccer/religion discussion on IRC. Perhaps it was someone else using my nick. I have no idea. But it wasn't me.
Predictable? Portugal, Argentina and the champions France all get knocked out in the group stages, France without scoring a goal. South Korea beat Italy and Spain on the way to the semi-finals. Turkey come third. The USA even do well.
This is the least predictable World Cup for years.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe we're still waiting to get inline loads blocked within mail messages (i.e. for web bugs).
:-)
Your annoyance it totally righteous, given the massive effort you made to get this feature implemented. Right?
View | Message Body As | Simple HTML
Gerv
Mozilla seems to have all of the functions of their client except the small bits (Tasks, Notes, Palm Sync) already, and it's stable, well-integrated and tested. It also runs on Windows, Linux and other platforms, allowing you to have the same client everywhere (less support load.)
It seems odd to cobble all these disparate KDE projects together instead of using Mozilla. But maybe this is because the KDE developers are more familiar with them. Still, I'm sure someone will make Mozilla work with Kollaborator server, or whatever it's called, soon enough.
Gerv
The mirrors list is your friend.
Also, 10Mb at 3k per second -> 55 minutes. In actual fact, it's about 13Mb so it might take you an hour and a quarter. I don't know where you live, but that shouldn't cost you more than a pint of beer in local currency.
Gerv
Recent versions cache and reuse the compose window, so it's much faster. I think this went in after 1.0 (although I'm not certain) so if you are using 1.0, upgrade to 1.1.
Gerv
The headline is misleading - this is Mozilla 1.2 Alpha. See the roadmap for full details on the numbering scheme and release schedule.
1.0.1 was also released recently. This is a bugfix release for those people using 1.0 who don't want to upgrade to 1.1final or 1.2alpha.
Gerv
Each quarterly cycle has an alpha, a beta and a final release. We recently released 1.1final, and 1.2alpha is the first release in the next cycle.
If you are looking for "major improvements worthy of a version jump", you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.) Comparing 1.1final and 1.2alpha is not correct, because not all the 1.2 features are in yet.
I had Win2K swap trouble too, but new versions appear to be a lot better.
Gerv
Mozilla's versioning is not like the Linux kernel. Each quarterly cycle has an alpha, a beta and a final release. We recently released 1.1final, and 1.2alpha is the first release in the next cycle.
If you are looking for feature jumps, you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.)
Gerv
From their website:
The Reference Library contains the entire DjVu decoder and much of the encoder, but it does not contain the sophisticated encoding strategies necessary for reaching the highest compression ratios. Among other things, the DjVu Reference Library contains the full DjVu decoder, the full IW44 wavelet encoder/decoder for continuous tone images, and the back-end of the JB2 bi-level image compression technique. It does not contain the code for separating document images into foreground and background layers, nor does it contain the code of the lossy JB2 scheme that achieves the highest compression ratios on bitonal images.
And...
Two patents apply to two very specific aspects of DjVu and DjVuLibre (described below). Those patents are owned by AT&T, but LizardTech has very broad rights to them and grants free and permanent licenses to them for the purpose of building GPL'ed software with the DjVu open source release.
So, DJVU could not appear in Mozilla/Netscape, because they wouldn't be granted a license to the patents. Mozilla is MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licensed.
Gerv
Of course to be truly useful as a JPEG replacement it needs to be included in browsers. People don't like having to mess with plugins.
Well, it'll never be in Mozilla/Netscape if things stay the way they are - there are two patents which apply to it, and you can only have a license for them if you are writing software that's purely GPLed. Read their licensing page.
Gerv
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" is universally misunderstood...
:-)
So you'd be the only person enlightened enough to know the truth?
Jesus is encouraging the people not to pay the Romans taxes.
That's not what "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" means to me - the opposite, in fact, seems to be its plain meaning.
And so it had to change it's central dogma from war and hatred to peace and love for pragmatic reasons.
So people fighting for a cause will change their message completely in order to preserve their organisation's existence? If this is what happened, it would be a unique occurrence in the history of rebellious groups. Fanatical devotion to a cause is usually marked by a refusal to modify your message despite external pressure.
Regardless, your "They had a completely different aim, but changed it before any of the evidence was written down" thesis does seem somewhat hollow. Where are your sources for this conspiracy theory?
Gerv
"Peaceful proto-hippy" is your description, not mine. There is a middle ground between that and "terrorist".
Mark 11 continues:
And as he taught them, he said: "Is it not written:
'My house wil be called a house of prayer for all nations' (Isaiah 56:7)'
But you have made it a den of robbers."
The behaviour of the merchants and money-lenders was terrible - they were treating God's house (Jesus' father's house) as a bazaar, and profiteering from people's love of God.
Gerv
So when do we get to the part where you explain away the arbitrary and meaningless?
Quoting myself:
"Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there."
My choice is not arbitrary (and therefore meaningless and useless) because I made it after being convinced by the evidence.
Gerv
If you ever learn to read Latin (which I spent 4 years doing), then maybe you should start reading, if you can find them, some of the original Latin scrolls. No translations by dark-age kings. You will open you eyes to the tragedy that was the Hebrews.
I can, in fact, read Latin - but I find your "analysis" of the origins of Christianity hard to take seriously, because the Bible was written in Hebrew (Old Testament), Greek and Aramaeic (New Testament). Therefore, the "original scrolls" were not written in Latin at all.
Gerv
Do you really think humans are capable of that?
There are people in the world today who try to live this way - attempting, in their own strength, to do only "good things". For one thing, they do it by whatever definition of good things seems appropriate to them - and this varies widely. One person's good act may be seen by another person as wrong; and who is to judge between them? Secondly, they always fail in their aim, even within their own definition. No-one is perfect.
Gerv
That isn't right, because people (like me; I suck at it) play football for more reasons than to be the best. Fun, friendship, being part of a team, that sort of thing.
Gerv
Anyway the main point (which you can take or leave) is that Jesus lived in a historical context and had tangible material goals (i.e. the overthrow of the Roman occupation)
The Jews were _expecting_ a Messiah who would overthrow the Roman occupation, but Jesus did not have that as an aim. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", for example. And St. Paul wrote in Romans 13 that "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established."
Gerv
Science and logic do not mix with religion.
I don't agree. I'm a scientist by training, and a Christian - and I'm not the only one. There are questions Science cannot answer, because they are outside its frame of reference:
- Why are we here?
- What's the purpose of life?
- What happens after you die?
Gerv
Did you see those three guys trying to butt into every photo op also?
Yeah, that's right. Because there was only one camera in the stadium, and so they rudely stood right in front of it.
Did you see them stop and "pray" while their teamates were congratulating each other?
I saw the entire Brazilian team, coaches and all, praying in a massive circle.
Gerv
so what do the people at the bottom say?
:-)
Everyone's given a set of different talents. If your team is bottom of the lowest league, perhaps football isn't one of them
Gerv
The world is bad and many people are bad, religion does not change this.
You are correct. Religion does not change this - on the contrary, Christianity provides a rational explanation for it.
Gerv
what makes your choice something that isn't arbitrary and meaningless?
Because I studied all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible, read what it had to say, evaluated its claims against other possibilities and explanations, and concluded that Jesus rose from the dead. That makes him God, and all else follows from there.
Since then, my faith that I am right has been strengthened by seeing God work in my life and the lives of others.
Gerv
the concept of Jesus and illogical faith in other mythical beings has caused more wars and evil in the world than any other thing in history!
Militant atheism was behind both World Wars. Remember the Holocaust? Hitler's view was that Jews and homosexuals deserved to die, and that the Aryan race should prevail; how do you claim your view is more correct? Without a moral basis, you can't.
Lack of belief in God has caused far more suffering in this world than the antics of the power-hungry who use Christianity as a cover for their political battles (e.g. the Crusades.)
Gerv
Using professional athletes as proof that belief in religion breeds success
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was doing that - not from my post, certainly. GigsVT claimed that people who believed in Jesus were weak-willed and weak-minded, and unable to reach their goals on their own without a crutch. I merely pointed out that when I look at the Brazilian team, I don't see weak-minded and weak-willed people.
Gerv
My replies made you k-line me from irc.mozilla.org which I have many friends to talk with?
That's not true. I have no idea how to k-line someone. My knowledge of IRC is rather basic. Even if I did know how to do it, I believe it requires being an op in the relevant channel, which I'm not (unless it was #mozwebtools.)
#mozilla has bots which auto-op people, but I'm not on the list of people who get auto-ops (sad, but true.)
Lastly, I've never had a soccer/religion discussion on IRC. Perhaps it was someone else using my nick. I have no idea. But it wasn't me.
Gerv
How predictable this tournament was.
Predictable? Portugal, Argentina and the champions France all get knocked out in the group stages, France without scoring a goal. South Korea beat Italy and Spain on the way to the semi-finals. Turkey come third. The USA even do well.
This is the least predictable World Cup for years.
Gerv