Even though I don't use it for development, I've got several of my clients using Chrome to take advantage of the Javascript engine. My applications use a lot of Javascript for the interfaces, and Chrome speeds up the rendering of large data sets compared to IE or Firefox.
For printing, the only solution to keep you sane is to export reports as PDF and let them print through their reader. That's specifically what PDF is for (consistency in displaying and printing). Depending on the report, they may also appreciate a CSV version that they can do their own filtering and sorting on.
But you don't need a book to learn the keyboard shortcuts of your operating system.
Like I pointed out, it was just an example. I'm sure that Windows 7 includes several new tools and utilities that one wouldn't run across with normal usage, but would still be helpful to know about.
Not only are they probably explained in the user interface
Not that I'm aware of, I don't know where I would see a tooltip to indicate that I can press Windows-E to open Explorer, or Windows-R to open the Run dialog, or Windows-M to minimize/restore all applications.
they're also listed in the manual that came with the OS and placed in the support section on the developer's website
Like most other users, I assume, I only check the manual or support website when I'm having a problem. I don't normally peruse those to look for useful tips I don't already know about if I'm not having any other problems using the software.
Not only that, but books like this are good for pointing out useful things that otherwise would be hard to find out about just from using it. The Windows-key shortcuts are a good example, I don't know how many years I was using XP before I found out about various shortcuts that could save me several seconds of using the mouse.
I see your point, but regardless of the source or relevance, it's never a bad practice to debunk faulty logic or unsubstantiated claims when you see them. It's good for people to view claims with a certain level of cynicism and requiring evidence.
When it collapses, it will be at least as bright as the full moon, and maybe as bright as the sun. For six weeks. So the really lucky folks (for whom Betelgeuse is only visible at night) will get 24 hour days, everybody else will get at least some time with two suns in the sky. The extra hour of light from daylight savings time won't burn the crops, but this might.
If this is really as bright as the sun (and no one is really sure; this is about the biggest star that's ever been recorded)...then all the other doom scenarios become small beer.....
Hmm all this talk of 6 weeks of constant daylight and two suns in the sky from Betelgeuse which happens to be not far away at all from where google sky, wiki etc blacked out an area said to contain nibiru
photons are photons and as bright as the sun would include as hot as the sun.
Maybe it won't be as bad for people who are in the winter hemisphere. Or not. Geez. No part of the planet would be unaffected.
Those were from page 1 of the forum thread. Not exactly a bastion of critical thinking.
This wasn't his point, but the author of the article described the android fragmentation perfectly.
Actually, that was specifically his point. From the preceding paragraph:
Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t real challenges in making sure that Android devices are compatible with each other, or that there aren’t very real concerns that keep app developers awake at night. There definitely are, and I spend a great deal of time indeed thinking about them and addressing them. The trick is to define them clearly.
..then he goes on to offer a definition for "Android Compatibility", and a few examples of problem areas (which you quoted). He then goes on to describe steps they have taken to mitigate the problems. The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem, and that's what he's doing.
The marijuana possession law is null-and-void, when you obey the Law.
I'm not aware of "The Supreme Law", or if that's a legal term you're referring to, but when I got arrested for marijuana violations I did not get charged by Congress, I got charged by the State of Arizona for violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Federal law never came into play.
The Supreme Law never gave Congress the power to ban a plant.
Congress was also not specifically granted the power to outlaw controlled substances like heroin, or the trafficking of such. Things change. Our laws are not created in a vacuum.
I can own as many firearms as I want, so long as I don't assault anybody without justifiable cause.
Notinallcases. My point is just that mere possession can in fact be a crime under certain circumstances. Alcohol is a great example, it's never legal for a person under 21 to be in possession of an open container of alcohol. I believe that the laws concerning child porn are equally black and white, it's never OK to possess it. Personally, I don't find an ethical nor legal objection to that particular law.
The law tends to disagree with you there. Both in terms of drugs and child pornography. Or alcohol if you're under 21, or burglary tools, or a firearm if you're a convicted felon, etc etc etc.
Of course development has slowed - it has achieved the goal most users/developers have wanted for it: To be a stable, fairly secure platform that allows a decent plugin model, and works consistently between platforms.
The Firefox project began as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project by Dave Hyatt, Joe Hewitt and Blake Ross. They believed the commercial requirements of Netscape's sponsorship and developer-driven feature creep compromised the utility of the Mozilla browser. To combat what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a stand-alone browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla Suite.
Intended to combat feature creep. It was designed to be a lightweight standalone browser. See any mention in there about a decent extension model (plugins aren't the same as extensions BTW; Flash is a plugin, Adblock is an extension)?
From Computer World in Sept. 2002, the week Phoenix 0.1 was released:
The Mozilla development project, Mozilla.org, this week released Phoenix 0.1, a speedier version of its open-source Web browser. The Phoenix browser is designed to improve upon Mozilla 1.1, released in August, with additional features such as a new design, customizable tool bar and improved bookmark manager...
The Phoenix browser, which uses a large amount of the Mozilla code, is "a lean and fast browser" that loads in about half the time of Mozilla 1.1, Mozilla.org said.
Again, emphasis is on performance. The line in that article talking about the plugin management for version 0.2 is referring to classical plugins, not Firefox extensions. Extensions were not added to Firefox until version 2.0. Extensions were never an original design goal. I don't have a source for this, but I actually remember downloading Phoenix 0.1. It was distributed as a single zip file without an installer, you just unzipped it and ran the executable. What people were impressed with for that release were the disk size of the files, the startup speed, and the memory footprint. All performance metrics.
It's fine if you want to defend Firefox, but there's no reason to try to rewrite history by saying the design goals for Firefox were different than what they actually were. It's a fact that the current version of Firefox does not live up to many of the ideals that the designers of Phoenix started with. It's also a fact that the current version includes several useful things that were not part of the original goals. Again, there's no reason to rewrite history. People like to defend Firefox because of its extensions, but the fact is that extensions were never part of the plan, speed and performance were the goals. The extension model was added because the core browser lacked many features that could not be included and still meet the performance goals. So, now we have an extension model and worse performance. That's the way it goes.
And yes, I remember this happening. I remember downloading and using Phoenix, I remember the name change to Firebird and then to Firefox, and the initial release in 2004, 2 years after Phoenix started. The release of Firefox 1.0 was a major event in the tech world, they even ran full-page ads for it in the New York Times funded by donations (you got your name listed in the ad, I was there). I remember using the 1.x line, I remember when the extension system was announced for 2.0 and how much it excited everyone, 2 years after the release of 1.0. I remember continually seeing the performance of the browser decline. That hasn't really stopped, even the IE9 preview is now faster at Javascript than Firefox 3.7. So the conclusion holds, the original design goals of Firefox have been neglected or ignored in part, and some of them have
I'm an Opera fan myself, but I would not rank IE last in resource usage, certainly not below Firefox. IE deserves a lot of scorn, but I think that one of Microsoft's goals with IE is to use resources as efficiently as possible (considering their huge customer base), and I think they've accomplished that goal. I would be pretty shocked to see any real-world benchmarks where Firefox beats IE in terms of memory use. Granted, IE is going to execute Javascript an order of magnitude slower than anything else, but it's going to do it while using less memory. Although, if Mozilla doesn't get its act together then it's going to soon find itself lagging behind IE9 in Javascript performance. That would be embarrassing. Of the top 5 browsers, Firefox is currently ranked 4th in Javascript performance. The IE9 preview already beats Firefox 3.7, but the IE9 preview isn't an actual browser yet.
Like I said, IE deserves a lot of scorn for the bugs and differences between everything else, but I think it's safe to say that resource usage might be IE's strongest point (fighting for first place with an easy-to-use UI).
That being said, Opera still rocks everything else.
Nobody is saying that Firefox... (Score:2) by deesine (722173) Alter Relationship on Tuesday May 18, @12:24PM (#32256680)
is the only way to protect against this, or that Noscript is the only way to protect against this.
This is what was said:
Of course the nice thing is yet again Noscript comes to the rescue, as with Noscript on my highest ID # is 1 in 256, which is only because of using FF over IE. So yet again FF scores a win for me by having the indispensable Noscript. FF plug-ins FTW!
The emphasized part is clearly false. It has nothing to do with browser choice. In fact, one could even argue that IE with Javascript disabled is the single most non-personally-identifiable setup.
What percentage of people use a browser that doesn't enable the user to turn off Javascript?
Probably very low, and that's my point. You don't need Noscript to be protected against things like this. You only need to understand what Javascript is. It's disingenuous to say that Noscript is the way to protect against this, because it implies that you are only protected if you're using Firefox. I can whitelist sites in Opera, and that works just fine.
In the context of this discussion, that's all it's being used for. The EFF says that disabling Javascript is one way to mitigate this type of tracking (another recommendation, BTW, is to use a "non-rare" browser, such as IE). One can disable Javascript in Firefox without using Noscript, Noscript is not required to defend against this. In Opera, for example, my results are noticeably smaller when I disable Javascript and information about my installed plugins and fonts are missing from the test.
People like the OP use the term "enable Noscript" as a substitute for "disable Javascript", and then go on to praise Noscript for its Javascript-disabling qualities ("Noscript comes to the rescue"). In the interest of education that's misleading, defending from this type of tracking has nothing to do with using Noscript, it's about disabling Javascript. A browser plugin is not required to disable Javascript.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though I don't use it for development, I've got several of my clients using Chrome to take advantage of the Javascript engine. My applications use a lot of Javascript for the interfaces, and Chrome speeds up the rendering of large data sets compared to IE or Firefox.
For printing, the only solution to keep you sane is to export reports as PDF and let them print through their reader. That's specifically what PDF is for (consistency in displaying and printing). Depending on the report, they may also appreciate a CSV version that they can do their own filtering and sorting on.
Sometimes I despair when I read or hear somebody referring to eg. Djengis Khan as "Mr Khan"
Is that guy related to Ghengis? They have the same last name.
What are you talking about? Is this the same man who described his company as being the market leader in cut-and-paste?
Heres an idea ... don't want people to hear your private conversations? STOP SHOUTING IT SO EVERYONE WITHIN 300m or more can hear you!
Tell that to the cable, satellite TV, and cell phone industries.
So.. when do we call out this idiot as an MS shill?
I'm pretty sure an MS shill isn't going to complain about a lack of source code.
all you little endian people who count the wrong way around...
Do you write the current year as 0102?
But you don't need a book to learn the keyboard shortcuts of your operating system.
Like I pointed out, it was just an example. I'm sure that Windows 7 includes several new tools and utilities that one wouldn't run across with normal usage, but would still be helpful to know about.
Not only are they probably explained in the user interface
Not that I'm aware of, I don't know where I would see a tooltip to indicate that I can press Windows-E to open Explorer, or Windows-R to open the Run dialog, or Windows-M to minimize/restore all applications.
they're also listed in the manual that came with the OS and placed in the support section on the developer's website
Like most other users, I assume, I only check the manual or support website when I'm having a problem. I don't normally peruse those to look for useful tips I don't already know about if I'm not having any other problems using the software.
Not only that, but books like this are good for pointing out useful things that otherwise would be hard to find out about just from using it. The Windows-key shortcuts are a good example, I don't know how many years I was using XP before I found out about various shortcuts that could save me several seconds of using the mouse.
India fears that ACTA will eventually be used against it and other countries who were given no chance to be a part of the process drafting it.
As a US citizen, I can relate to that.
I see your point, but regardless of the source or relevance, it's never a bad practice to debunk faulty logic or unsubstantiated claims when you see them. It's good for people to view claims with a certain level of cynicism and requiring evidence.
Probably because of statements like these:
When it collapses, it will be at least as bright as the full moon, and maybe as bright as the sun. For six weeks. So the really lucky folks (for whom Betelgeuse is only visible at night) will get 24 hour days, everybody else will get at least some time with two suns in the sky. The extra hour of light from daylight savings time won't burn the crops, but this might.
If this is really as bright as the sun (and no one is really sure; this is about the biggest star that's ever been recorded)...then all the other doom scenarios become small beer.....
Hmm all this talk of 6 weeks of constant daylight and two suns in the sky from Betelgeuse which happens to be not far away at all from where google sky, wiki etc blacked out an area said to contain nibiru
photons are photons and as bright as the sun would include as hot as the sun.
Maybe it won't be as bad for people who are in the winter hemisphere. Or not. Geez. No part of the planet would be unaffected.
Those were from page 1 of the forum thread. Not exactly a bastion of critical thinking.
Considering that the only observations we get happened 640 years ago, I'm assuming it's the former.
This wasn't his point, but the author of the article described the android fragmentation perfectly.
Actually, that was specifically his point. From the preceding paragraph:
Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t real challenges in making sure that Android devices are compatible with each other, or that there aren’t very real concerns that keep app developers awake at night. There definitely are, and I spend a great deal of time indeed thinking about them and addressing them. The trick is to define them clearly.
..then he goes on to offer a definition for "Android Compatibility", and a few examples of problem areas (which you quoted). He then goes on to describe steps they have taken to mitigate the problems. The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem, and that's what he's doing.
Right, and all they have to do is genetically engineer all the flies in the world, or at least every population of them.
The marijuana possession law is null-and-void, when you obey the Law.
I'm not aware of "The Supreme Law", or if that's a legal term you're referring to, but when I got arrested for marijuana violations I did not get charged by Congress, I got charged by the State of Arizona for violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Federal law never came into play.
The Supreme Law never gave Congress the power to ban a plant.
Congress was also not specifically granted the power to outlaw controlled substances like heroin, or the trafficking of such. Things change. Our laws are not created in a vacuum.
I can own as many firearms as I want, so long as I don't assault anybody without justifiable cause.
Not in all cases. My point is just that mere possession can in fact be a crime under certain circumstances. Alcohol is a great example, it's never legal for a person under 21 to be in possession of an open container of alcohol. I believe that the laws concerning child porn are equally black and white, it's never OK to possess it. Personally, I don't find an ethical nor legal objection to that particular law.
Mere possession is not a crime.
The law tends to disagree with you there. Both in terms of drugs and child pornography. Or alcohol if you're under 21, or burglary tools, or a firearm if you're a convicted felon, etc etc etc.
Maybe so, but their uptime graph really sucks.
You think child porn is protected by freedom of expression?
Tell me, whose freedom are you thinking should be protected? The adult or the child? Is it OK if the adult's freedoms infringe on those of the child?
Of course development has slowed - it has achieved the goal most users/developers have wanted for it: To be a stable, fairly secure platform that allows a decent plugin model, and works consistently between platforms.
What? Where did you get that from?
From Wikipedia:
The Firefox project began as an experimental branch of the Mozilla project by Dave Hyatt, Joe Hewitt and Blake Ross. They believed the commercial requirements of Netscape's sponsorship and developer-driven feature creep compromised the utility of the Mozilla browser. To combat what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a stand-alone browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla Suite.
Intended to combat feature creep. It was designed to be a lightweight standalone browser. See any mention in there about a decent extension model (plugins aren't the same as extensions BTW; Flash is a plugin, Adblock is an extension)?
From Computer World in Sept. 2002, the week Phoenix 0.1 was released:
The Mozilla development project, Mozilla.org, this week released Phoenix 0.1, a speedier version of its open-source Web browser.
The Phoenix browser is designed to improve upon Mozilla 1.1, released in August, with additional features such as a new design, customizable tool bar and improved bookmark manager...
The Phoenix browser, which uses a large amount of the Mozilla code, is "a lean and fast browser" that loads in about half the time of Mozilla 1.1, Mozilla.org said.
Again, emphasis is on performance. The line in that article talking about the plugin management for version 0.2 is referring to classical plugins, not Firefox extensions. Extensions were not added to Firefox until version 2.0. Extensions were never an original design goal. I don't have a source for this, but I actually remember downloading Phoenix 0.1. It was distributed as a single zip file without an installer, you just unzipped it and ran the executable. What people were impressed with for that release were the disk size of the files, the startup speed, and the memory footprint. All performance metrics.
It's fine if you want to defend Firefox, but there's no reason to try to rewrite history by saying the design goals for Firefox were different than what they actually were. It's a fact that the current version of Firefox does not live up to many of the ideals that the designers of Phoenix started with. It's also a fact that the current version includes several useful things that were not part of the original goals. Again, there's no reason to rewrite history. People like to defend Firefox because of its extensions, but the fact is that extensions were never part of the plan, speed and performance were the goals. The extension model was added because the core browser lacked many features that could not be included and still meet the performance goals. So, now we have an extension model and worse performance. That's the way it goes.
And yes, I remember this happening. I remember downloading and using Phoenix, I remember the name change to Firebird and then to Firefox, and the initial release in 2004, 2 years after Phoenix started. The release of Firefox 1.0 was a major event in the tech world, they even ran full-page ads for it in the New York Times funded by donations (you got your name listed in the ad, I was there). I remember using the 1.x line, I remember when the extension system was announced for 2.0 and how much it excited everyone, 2 years after the release of 1.0. I remember continually seeing the performance of the browser decline. That hasn't really stopped, even the IE9 preview is now faster at Javascript than Firefox 3.7. So the conclusion holds, the original design goals of Firefox have been neglected or ignored in part, and some of them have
I'm an Opera fan myself, but I would not rank IE last in resource usage, certainly not below Firefox. IE deserves a lot of scorn, but I think that one of Microsoft's goals with IE is to use resources as efficiently as possible (considering their huge customer base), and I think they've accomplished that goal. I would be pretty shocked to see any real-world benchmarks where Firefox beats IE in terms of memory use. Granted, IE is going to execute Javascript an order of magnitude slower than anything else, but it's going to do it while using less memory. Although, if Mozilla doesn't get its act together then it's going to soon find itself lagging behind IE9 in Javascript performance. That would be embarrassing. Of the top 5 browsers, Firefox is currently ranked 4th in Javascript performance. The IE9 preview already beats Firefox 3.7, but the IE9 preview isn't an actual browser yet.
Like I said, IE deserves a lot of scorn for the bugs and differences between everything else, but I think it's safe to say that resource usage might be IE's strongest point (fighting for first place with an easy-to-use UI).
That being said, Opera still rocks everything else.
That's not true, I'll use Firefox until someone else duplicates the functionality of Firebug. I just don't see the browser as some sort of panacea.
Nobody is saying that Firefox... (Score:2)
by deesine (722173)
Alter Relationship
on Tuesday May 18, @12:24PM (#32256680)
is the only way to protect against this, or that Noscript is the only way to protect against this.
This is what was said:
Of course the nice thing is yet again Noscript comes to the rescue, as with Noscript on my highest ID # is 1 in 256, which is only because of using FF over IE. So yet again FF scores a win for me by having the indispensable Noscript. FF plug-ins FTW!
The emphasized part is clearly false. It has nothing to do with browser choice. In fact, one could even argue that IE with Javascript disabled is the single most non-personally-identifiable setup.
What percentage of people use a browser that doesn't enable the user to turn off Javascript?
Probably very low, and that's my point. You don't need Noscript to be protected against things like this. You only need to understand what Javascript is. It's disingenuous to say that Noscript is the way to protect against this, because it implies that you are only protected if you're using Firefox. I can whitelist sites in Opera, and that works just fine.
In the context of this discussion, that's all it's being used for. The EFF says that disabling Javascript is one way to mitigate this type of tracking (another recommendation, BTW, is to use a "non-rare" browser, such as IE). One can disable Javascript in Firefox without using Noscript, Noscript is not required to defend against this. In Opera, for example, my results are noticeably smaller when I disable Javascript and information about my installed plugins and fonts are missing from the test.
People like the OP use the term "enable Noscript" as a substitute for "disable Javascript", and then go on to praise Noscript for its Javascript-disabling qualities ("Noscript comes to the rescue"). In the interest of education that's misleading, defending from this type of tracking has nothing to do with using Noscript, it's about disabling Javascript. A browser plugin is not required to disable Javascript.