> When you're clicking any Google link, theres subsequent javascript request being sent to Google on what link you clicked
Nope. That's not even possible. Once you've gone to another site, no javascript events on the original site can fire. It's not even physically possible. Don't make stuff up please. They could do it using the Google Toolbar, but not using javascript. The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.
> I really don't like the super-heavy home page with the ginormous image. It's cool once but I just can't have that for a page I pull up so often... > even if cached, the image is just too annoying over time.
The image is loaded dyamically using javascript after the page has already loaded and rendered. It therefore doesn't actually delay when the page becomes usable for searching. The only irritaing thing is that the image always has a different name, so can't adblock it if you don't like it appearing.
I disagree. I think many/most graphic artists have already decided that a tiny cursor over the image they're working on is far better than a screen on your desk with your hand/pen covering up what you're trying to work on while the whole thing is covered in grease and fingerprints.
Touch-screens might save space, but they're certainly not better than a separate tablet and screen combo in my opinion. When I tried one, I found I was just still looking at the main monitor most of the time so I could acutally see what I was doing. The touchscreen tablet was probably slightly faster for quickly changing tools, but overall you need your hand well away from the thing you're trying to see.
Movies at only 24/25 FPS are horrible
on
Framerates Matter
·
· Score: 1
Personally I get annoyed by the fact that although they've invented HD (woohoo) they're still shoving it out at only 24 or 25 FPS. To me, this looks really jittery! I wish they'd go up to 50FPS for HD.
Watching Avatar in 3D seemed to accentuate that problem. I'm not sure how they do the whole left/right thing in terms of projection, but it seemed to me that the left/right image was shown alternately and at nothing like a high enough speed for me to perceive it as fluid motion. Did anyone else notice this?
I think that as English people from England, know how to speak and spell English. Please don't correct us with your bastardised American or International <airquote>English</airquote>:)
Not sure what point you are making. Even if it is 2 BILLION off, that may just mean you have one pixel thats way off in colour compared to the other 9.999999 million pixels in that 10 megapixel Photoshop file you were working on. His point still stands - most of the time, data corruption goes completely unnoticed. If you go and change any single bit in a MP3 audio or MPEG4 file, I doubt you could ever spot it. It certainly doesn't cause any isses to a decoder. In fact you could destroy the whole frame if you wanted to by ruining that frame's header completely and in the grand scheme of things, you'd probably barely notice it in the 1/30th of a second that the corrupt frame flashed before your eyes. The same goes for most file formats and even large parts of.exe files which are probably the type that are most sensitive to corruption. I doubt there are many file formats where the data is cumulative, and ruining a single bit destroys the entire file. The obvious exception is zipped, encrypted or digitially signed files, but those formats all warn you that your data is corrupt when you expand or decrypt them, so no harm done.
Yeah it will at first. Leave them all running for a week and do the same thing in each. THEN tell me that firefox is using less memory. It might have a small footprint when you first load the tabs, but notice how it hardly releases any of that RAM when you close them. Now try doing the same thing in Chrome...
I think you're confused. eeplorer.exe is not a list of files - it's the whole user-interface of Windows - including the taskbar, desktop and window manager and any shell-extension plugins you've got hosted by it.
+1 from me. Firefox has the worst management of any browser out there and it keeps getting worse with each new version. In every single release they claim to sorted out memory leaks, but they haven't even started. I started Firefox this morning and it's already up to 850MB and needs restarting and I don't really even have any extensions installed anymore. You'd never get that with IE8 or Chome - they never seem to go over 200-300MB, no longer how long they're left running for. Don't get me wrong - Firefox is still my favourite and default browser - but don't ever try to claim to me that it's faster or better than Internet Explorer or Chrome because it's certainly NOT. Perhaps when it very first loads it is, but not in the real-world after 4-6 hours of usage.
> The issue is with the kludge design for multiple-tabbed browsing - which does the equivalent of starting an entire, new environment and plug-in
You mean like Chrome does? That's the BEST feature of IE8 - no more one-tab crashing taking down all yoru other tabs with more basic browsers like IE7 and Firefox.
-1, Wrong rather than +3 Insightful I'm afraid. Arrows go straight through body armour and chainmail (which is designed for protection against cuts from light swords). Arrows even go through modern bullet-proof jackets worn by police unless it contains a steel or titanium trauma plate in the middle (extremely rare). An arrow is around 20-60 times heavier than a bullet and usually much sharper. The overall energy of an arrow in flight may be less than that of a bullet but it's a better shape for piercing body armour (sharper) and made of a much harder metal than a traditional lead-based bullet, which tends to flatten or break up on impact with soft materials such as the energy dissipating layers of bullet proof vests.
There isn't anyone that *cannot* upgrade. All computers that run IE6 can also run IE8 or Firefox - you might need to ask your IT department to do it (in a restricted environment) but it CAN be done. There's nothing special about IE 6 that means it works where IE8 or Firefox would not.
"How many times have you bit into a piece of fruit only to find that you're also chomping on a sticker label?
Never. Not a single time. Unless you eat fruit in the dark, or are blind, this simply never happens and this is a solution looking for a problem. Personally I think it makes the fruit itself somehow artificial and unappealing. I doubt this will ever catch on. I'd rather eat one that hasn't been maimed - it will also look nicer in the fruit bowl without the skin-spam.
Unfortunately many/most people do not use social networking sites, and if they do, they don't necessarily have friends who care about browser versions. Any IE6 must die campaign should be supported by the actual websites themselves, telling users they need to upgrade directly on the page.
What would be good is a small bit of script people can embed in their page, which tells IE 6 users to upgrade to something more recent by outputting a bar above the top of the page which tells them what to do. Kind of like the bar that appears on YouTube if you look at it in IE 6. I've found one or two such scripts on the net but I won't use any which don't endorse IE 8 as an acceptable upgrade to IE 6 as I believe it's a worthy replacement and users should have a choice of ALL major browsers when prompted to upgrade. Many sites are simply trying to force users to upgrade to Firefox or Opera. Many users will not do this just because both of those browsers have stupid names (who the hell thought "Opera" was a good name for a modern web browser? Firefox isn't much better and my parents think it sounds like a children's toy and refuse to click the icon).
Wouldn't it have been better to make it a power of 2? Some work is more easily divided when you can just keep halving it. 64 or 128 would have been more logical I would have thought. I'm not an SMP programmer thought, so perhaps it doesn't make any difference.
Slashdot Mirror
> When you're clicking any Google link, theres subsequent javascript request being sent to Google on what link you clicked
Nope. That's not even possible. Once you've gone to another site, no javascript events on the original site can fire. It's not even physically possible. Don't make stuff up please. They could do it using the Google Toolbar, but not using javascript. The closes thing they do is to use a 302 http header redirect, but again, that's got nothing to do with javascript.
> I really don't like the super-heavy home page with the ginormous image. It's cool once but I just can't have that for a page I pull up so often...
> even if cached, the image is just too annoying over time.
The image is loaded dyamically using javascript after the page has already loaded and rendered. It therefore doesn't actually delay when the page becomes usable for searching. The only irritaing thing is that the image always has a different name, so can't adblock it if you don't like it appearing.
Eh? Most of those already have tablet PCs out - it's Apple that are copying them - not the other way round!
You need paper and pencil then. It will exactly fit your requirements.
I disagree. I think many/most graphic artists have already decided that a tiny cursor over the image they're working on is far better than a screen on your desk with your hand/pen covering up what you're trying to work on while the whole thing is covered in grease and fingerprints.
Touch-screens might save space, but they're certainly not better than a separate tablet and screen combo in my opinion. When I tried one, I found I was just still looking at the main monitor most of the time so I could acutally see what I was doing. The touchscreen tablet was probably slightly faster for quickly changing tools, but overall you need your hand well away from the thing you're trying to see.
Personally I get annoyed by the fact that although they've invented HD (woohoo) they're still shoving it out at only 24 or 25 FPS. To me, this looks really jittery! I wish they'd go up to 50FPS for HD.
Watching Avatar in 3D seemed to accentuate that problem. I'm not sure how they do the whole left/right thing in terms of projection, but it seemed to me that the left/right image was shown alternately and at nothing like a high enough speed for me to perceive it as fluid motion. Did anyone else notice this?
France.
I guess I should have read that properly before posting, as I've now ruined my own point :)
I think that as English people from England, know how to speak and spell English. Please don't correct us with your bastardised American or International <airquote>English</airquote> :)
You mean 3D barcodes? I think you'll find they're already patented :)
Not sure what point you are making. Even if it is 2 BILLION off, that may just mean you have one pixel thats way off in colour compared to the other 9.999999 million pixels in that 10 megapixel Photoshop file you were working on. His point still stands - most of the time, data corruption goes completely unnoticed. If you go and change any single bit in a MP3 audio or MPEG4 file, I doubt you could ever spot it. It certainly doesn't cause any isses to a decoder. In fact you could destroy the whole frame if you wanted to by ruining that frame's header completely and in the grand scheme of things, you'd probably barely notice it in the 1/30th of a second that the corrupt frame flashed before your eyes. The same goes for most file formats and even large parts of .exe files which are probably the type that are most sensitive to corruption. I doubt there are many file formats where the data is cumulative, and ruining a single bit destroys the entire file. The obvious exception is zipped, encrypted or digitially signed files, but those formats all warn you that your data is corrupt when you expand or decrypt them, so no harm done.
Get a new job then :)
Yeah it will at first. Leave them all running for a week and do the same thing in each. THEN tell me that firefox is using less memory.
It might have a small footprint when you first load the tabs, but notice how it hardly releases any of that RAM when you close them. Now try doing the same thing in Chrome...
I think you're confused. eeplorer.exe is not a list of files - it's the whole user-interface of Windows - including the taskbar, desktop and window manager and any shell-extension plugins you've got hosted by it.
+1 from me.
Firefox has the worst management of any browser out there and it keeps getting worse with each new version.
In every single release they claim to sorted out memory leaks, but they haven't even started. I started Firefox this morning and it's already up to 850MB and needs restarting and I don't really even have any extensions installed anymore. You'd never get that with IE8 or Chome - they never seem to go over 200-300MB, no longer how long they're left running for. Don't get me wrong - Firefox is still my favourite and default browser - but don't ever try to claim to me that it's faster or better than Internet Explorer or Chrome because it's certainly NOT. Perhaps when it very first loads it is, but not in the real-world after 4-6 hours of usage.
> The issue is with the kludge design for multiple-tabbed browsing - which does the equivalent of starting an entire, new environment and plug-in
You mean like Chrome does? That's the BEST feature of IE8 - no more one-tab crashing taking down all yoru other tabs with more basic browsers like IE7 and Firefox.
-1, Wrong rather than +3 Insightful I'm afraid.
Arrows go straight through body armour and chainmail (which is designed for protection against cuts from light swords). Arrows even go through modern bullet-proof jackets worn by police unless it contains a steel or titanium trauma plate in the middle (extremely rare). An arrow is around 20-60 times heavier than a bullet and usually much sharper. The overall energy of an arrow in flight may be less than that of a bullet but it's a better shape for piercing body armour (sharper) and made of a much harder metal than a traditional lead-based bullet, which tends to flatten or break up on impact with soft materials such as the energy dissipating layers of bullet proof vests.
I don't see how frightened ostridges will help on this occasion?
> Google's language is called Go! (with an exclamation mark.)
-1, Wrong
Err, no it's not
There isn't anyone that *cannot* upgrade. All computers that run IE6 can also run IE8 or Firefox - you might need to ask your IT department to do it (in a restricted environment) but it CAN be done. There's nothing special about IE 6 that means it works where IE8 or Firefox would not.
"How many times have you bit into a piece of fruit only to find that you're also chomping on a sticker label?
Never. Not a single time. Unless you eat fruit in the dark, or are blind, this simply never happens and this is a solution looking for a problem.
Personally I think it makes the fruit itself somehow artificial and unappealing. I doubt this will ever catch on. I'd rather eat one that hasn't been maimed - it will also look nicer in the fruit bowl without the skin-spam.
You're still driving a car which has a physical dipstick and a wooden running board? Oh well, I hope you get a better job soon :)
Unfortunately many/most people do not use social networking sites, and if they do, they don't necessarily have friends who care about browser versions. Any IE6 must die campaign should be supported by the actual websites themselves, telling users they need to upgrade directly on the page.
What would be good is a small bit of script people can embed in their page, which tells IE 6 users to upgrade to something more recent by outputting a bar above the top of the page which tells them what to do. Kind of like the bar that appears on YouTube if you look at it in IE 6. I've found one or two such scripts on the net but I won't use any which don't endorse IE 8 as an acceptable upgrade to IE 6 as I believe it's a worthy replacement and users should have a choice of ALL major browsers when prompted to upgrade. Many sites are simply trying to force users to upgrade to Firefox or Opera. Many users will not do this just because both of those browsers have stupid names (who the hell thought "Opera" was a good name for a modern web browser? Firefox isn't much better and my parents think it sounds like a children's toy and refuse to click the icon).
Wouldn't it have been better to make it a power of 2? Some work is more easily divided when you can just keep halving it. 64 or 128 would have been more logical I would have thought. I'm not an SMP programmer thought, so perhaps it doesn't make any difference.
Eh? It comes with Explorer.