No, ie6 gave the user no choice. Devs had to develop specific (i.e. not standard) otherwise their pages would look bad. At least Chrome renders standard code pages OK.
Again, any CSS standard page runs fine on Chrome, not on IE6 (even with the standard at the time). This is the difference. Now, again, Chrome offers some API that are not standard, and sites may or may not use them. Youtube does.
Nope, don't think so. IE6 was an arrogant and conceited browser implementation from Microsoft that totally disregarded any standard and overlooked whatever critic. Chrome has some extra internals that might be used by a web site [detecting Chrome] but it respects the CSS standards, meaning you can still make a page using only the standard CSS that will load nicely in Chrome. In IE6 that was not possible.
This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!
Not exactly. Leica does not show a "video" from the sensor. They use a separate viewfinder called a rangefinder, where you don't look through the lens, but through a viewfinder which is offset to the left and corrected thanks to a system of parallax compensation. Not saying it's a drawback (Leica owners are very touchy on this matter!), but it's different compared to Sony and coming Nikon (while mirrorless).
Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals. The mirror comes from the negative film on rolls era (basically the 20th century), there was no digital sensor in the camera and the mirror showing the scene "as it will be on film" [but not exactly with the same colors etc...] was a winner at the time ; and it took ages for pro photographers to trust a mirrorless camera. Since quite some time now, the mirrorless cameras viewfinder shows the scene *exactly* as the picture is to be, clear and nice, as the image comes from the sensor, and a lot of progress was made in the screens department.
Nikon was also late to provide FF sensors cameras in the early 2000s, long after Canon (the reason was an inaccurate technical consideration). When they did, the result was spectacular.
Sony does this pretty nicely. But when Nikon does something, it's always a professional build, plus the current optics etc... I think it's worth the wait.
FF is 24x36 mm. Given how Apple shrinks everything, I doubt they packed a FF sensor in an iPhone (plus, that would require a way larger lens, distant from the sensor, which would make it vividly visible!)
Sony proved that it's more cost effective to be hacked a few times than hire numerous competent people to make strong systems [ didn't say they did it on purpose though, do not attribute to malice that which is equally explained by incompetence ].
Well you see, if our friends start their nuclear games, human race (and others) disappear. That's selection and it's not natural. But that's still evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Someone with top level DNS control route twitter.com to 127.0.0.1.
Yes, I've always dreamed to run my own twitter server!
Users to blacklist Huawei.
Which is exactly what IE6 did...
No, ie6 gave the user no choice. Devs had to develop specific (i.e. not standard) otherwise their pages would look bad. At least Chrome renders standard code pages OK.
Either you didn't understand my post. Or need some sleep maybe ... ;-)
Moon is ... way closer!
Again, any CSS standard page runs fine on Chrome, not on IE6 (even with the standard at the time). This is the difference. Now, again, Chrome offers some API that are not standard, and sites may or may not use them. Youtube does.
Nope, don't think so. IE6 was an arrogant and conceited browser implementation from Microsoft that totally disregarded any standard and overlooked whatever critic. Chrome has some extra internals that might be used by a web site [detecting Chrome] but it respects the CSS standards, meaning you can still make a page using only the standard CSS that will load nicely in Chrome. In IE6 that was not possible.
This one about Mars having water, another one telling roughly the same about the moon. It's a draw. Not sure now if I'd prefer to go to the moon or mars!
Not exactly. Leica does not show a "video" from the sensor. They use a separate viewfinder called a rangefinder, where you don't look through the lens, but through a viewfinder which is offset to the left and corrected thanks to a system of parallax compensation. Not saying it's a drawback (Leica owners are very touchy on this matter!), but it's different compared to Sony and coming Nikon (while mirrorless).
Would be way more expensive.
Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals. The mirror comes from the negative film on rolls era (basically the 20th century), there was no digital sensor in the camera and the mirror showing the scene "as it will be on film" [but not exactly with the same colors etc...] was a winner at the time ; and it took ages for pro photographers to trust a mirrorless camera. Since quite some time now, the mirrorless cameras viewfinder shows the scene *exactly* as the picture is to be, clear and nice, as the image comes from the sensor, and a lot of progress was made in the screens department.
Nikon was also late to provide FF sensors cameras in the early 2000s, long after Canon (the reason was an inaccurate technical consideration). When they did, the result was spectacular.
Sony does this pretty nicely. But when Nikon does something, it's always a professional build, plus the current optics etc... I think it's worth the wait.
FF is 24x36 mm. Given how Apple shrinks everything, I doubt they packed a FF sensor in an iPhone (plus, that would require a way larger lens, distant from the sensor, which would make it vividly visible!)
Don't care about thin, but I care about light. Carrying that heavy thing a couple hours a day is a pain ( weight due to batteries )
Because even the smarter humans were not able to reproduce a fly brain.
I think they just found out that "cybersecurity insurance" is a joke
The problem is the insurance contract terms you sign, and the signer is the same guy who's in charge of IT security.
Sony proved that it's more cost effective to be hacked a few times than hire numerous competent people to make strong systems [ didn't say they did it on purpose though, do not attribute to malice that which is equally explained by incompetence ].
What "power users" want is a portable desktop, not a sexy, sleek status machine.
What laptop vendors want is sell as much as possible, and power users << regular users.
Things always go in threes.
And yet 100k neurons connections handled by one of our current computers would be thinking slower than a fly.
Well you see, if our friends start their nuclear games, human race (and others) disappear. That's selection and it's not natural. But that's still evolution.
Next MB to be Gigabyte.
(among humans at least)