Yes, I think he was talking about photos all along although he just said "with any complexity". I agree that PNG is no good alternative for those unless you aren't publicizing them on the web.
Sorry, I linked to a DjVu community page and not the official one. DjVu is a trademark of LizardTech Inc (which also provides browser plugins for MacOS etc etc).
JPEG 2000 is "the" successor to JPEG (designed by the same team), and was noticeably better than JPEG when I checked out quality vs size, but it's patent encumbered. It is however intended to be royalty and license-fee free.
Elysium Ltd has developed a freeware Netscape plugin to make IE, Opera and Netscape browsers able to view JPEG 2000 pictures. This plugin is for Windows, and I don't really know if there are others for other platforms.
DjVu
DjVu was designed for the web to replace common formats like JPEG, GIF and TIFF. Although designed primarly for compressing text, it's very efficient at regular photos as well, and should compress similarly as JPEG 2000 (about half the size of JPEG with similar quality).
DjVuLibre is a GPL licensed open source implementation that includes plugins, viewers, and encoders for this format.
I find combo boxes good since they greatly reduce UI complexity. Just imagine a form where you're supposed to pick a country. That implies a ton of choices, so you'd probably go for a text box where a user can just type in the country name. But then you risk having users mistyping the country name, and if these form results are to be analyzed for statistics, a computer will have no idea what "Swtzerland" is. So to be sure to get better data, you need a list box with hundreds of items?
And now imagine that times 5, if you have a couple of more large selections like that.
It's much harder to brute force crack a 11 character password than a 10 character and so on, so I don't really see the problem.
A good way to make it easy to remember without restorting to mangled ASCII is to pick the first letter in a sentence you know (or the two first... you get the idea). You can end it with some other code you know since before, and you're set.
I don't know, there is a lack of realism of a marine can't hold a flashlight and say, a pistol at the same time, seeing as how its not hard at all to do
If you think the flashlight is a separate weapon because id Software didn't realize they could attach it to a helmet or something, you're entirely missing the point. They did this for immersion -- not everything is about realism; that's why we have monsters coming out of hell in the first place.
I kept wondering why, why why why, that marines in the year 2195 didn't have flashlights standard on their helmets.... or why for that matter our hero in this game didn't have a helmet. =/
This is because it makes the game less scary.
There are elements added to the game for realism like ragdoll physics, and there are elements added for other reasons. Like in all games.
I think most people have an intutive sense that we are, indeed, alone in the universe.
Well...
It's hard to say otherwise since right now we don't have the technology to detect planets that harbor life, unless gas giants can. We haven't detected earth sized planets orbiting stars because we can't.
Of the 100+ systems currently known to contain planets, all contain seemingly only gas giants. However, this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth.
I can end this question right now.
It is because current technology can only detect said planets.
They're finding out just how screwy the security system within Windows really is.
SP2 is supposed to be a big "security fix." Assuming that it really is, it sounds as if it's breaking lots of stuff that was previously able to work around existing security to function.
I doubt their screwed security is that hard to fix, but rather finding out how many programs depends on this former screwed security. Which are marked with this logo. I guess this is why the final stages of this service pack has been delayed so much. It doesn't seem like the actual core coding took much longer than estimated, but rather what they're finding out in the QA stages.
Strangely, some of the recent SPEC benchmark results show the 3.6 Ghz chip to be slower than the 3.4 Ghz chip. One possible explanation for this is that the 3.6 Ghz chips will slow down due to 'thermal throttling' if you are not very careful to keep them cool. So it seems like heat may be the reason Intel's roadmap does now show much improvement."
Sure, but this is just another form of performance problem. That it takes the form of heat is just a sign of a too inefficient design for the speed. I'm of the opinion that when you get problems to cool the processor good enough (I assume those testers used proper fans for the CPU like they should always do) at 100% usage, then it's not your problem anymore.
This is an interesting question, since it's legal in Sweden too, and we are a rather large "music country" for our size (9 million people) with numerous successful music exports.
Firefox is still the best, AFAIK, despite this weakness.
With "this weakness" -- do you mean the fact that they're developing a product with secret bugs (security by obscurity), or do you mean this particular bug?
The problem was known 4 years ago, but it was marked confidential. I'm not familiar with BugZilla,so I didn't even know there could be a "confidential" bug. This is the antithesis of Open Source philosophy.
I fully agree this is a very bad idea. All it takes is someone to get hacked, or in another way disclosing information about these secret bugs, and then they might start circulating among "underground" hackers without us knowing it, and voila we have an exploit for an issue a very large group of the developers didn't even know exist.
If they did know, they could of course have offered help in resolving the bug much earlier.
They need to start thinking about these things now as the browser might start to gain momentum. Even if it's not huge problems revealed, merely the fact that secret bugs exists and are revealed now and then (I have no doubt we'll see more in the future since this is probably not the only one), is severe negative publicity for the Mozilla products. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the bugs weren't secret.
Slashdot Mirror
They are putting a 1 cent per pixel toll on all JPEG images.
Ahh, so this is how you make a geek bankrupt from having too many girlfriends!
Damn, it was a great side effect from avoiding real life girlfriends while it lasted.
Yes, I think he was talking about photos all along although he just said "with any complexity". I agree that PNG is no good alternative for those unless you aren't publicizing them on the web.
Sorry, I linked to a DjVu community page and not the official one.
DjVu is a trademark of LizardTech Inc (which also provides browser plugins for MacOS etc etc).
I can think of two successors to JPEG...
JPEG 2000
JPEG 2000 is "the" successor to JPEG (designed by the same team), and was noticeably better than JPEG when I checked out quality vs size, but it's patent encumbered. It is however intended to be royalty and license-fee free.
Elysium Ltd has developed a freeware Netscape plugin to make IE, Opera and Netscape browsers able to view JPEG 2000 pictures. This plugin is for Windows, and I don't really know if there are others for other platforms.
DjVu
DjVu was designed for the web to replace common formats like JPEG, GIF and TIFF. Although designed primarly for compressing text, it's very efficient at regular photos as well, and should compress similarly as JPEG 2000 (about half the size of JPEG with similar quality).
DjVuLibre is a GPL licensed open source implementation that includes plugins, viewers, and encoders for this format.
I find combo boxes good since they greatly reduce UI complexity. Just imagine a form where you're supposed to pick a country. That implies a ton of choices, so you'd probably go for a text box where a user can just type in the country name. But then you risk having users mistyping the country name, and if these form results are to be analyzed for statistics, a computer will have no idea what "Swtzerland" is. So to be sure to get better data, you need a list box with hundreds of items?
And now imagine that times 5, if you have a couple of more large selections like that.
The user would be overwhelmed...
"IEv6x is the Courtney Love browser in a world of Kirsten Dunst browsers"
:-)
Haha, this should go in my sig.
Just pick a long easy to remember password...?
It's much harder to brute force crack a 11 character password than a 10 character and so on, so I don't really see the problem.
A good way to make it easy to remember without restorting to mangled ASCII is to pick the first letter in a sentence you know (or the two first... you get the idea). You can end it with some other code you know since before, and you're set.
I don't know, there is a lack of realism of a marine can't hold a flashlight and say, a pistol at the same time, seeing as how its not hard at all to do
If you think the flashlight is a separate weapon because id Software didn't realize they could attach it to a helmet or something, you're entirely missing the point. They did this for immersion -- not everything is about realism; that's why we have monsters coming out of hell in the first place.
I kept wondering why, why why why, that marines in the year 2195 didn't have flashlights standard on their helmets.... or why for that matter our hero in this game didn't have a helmet. =/
This is because it makes the game less scary.
There are elements added to the game for realism like ragdoll physics, and there are elements added for other reasons. Like in all games.
Just use an open proxy in Europe and you'll be wathing the games live as well.
:-(
Poor proxy...
How does that help in making them live?
It's what's being discussed here, or?
I think most people have an intutive sense that we are, indeed, alone in the universe.
Well...
It's hard to say otherwise since right now we don't have the technology to detect planets that harbor life, unless gas giants can. We haven't detected earth sized planets orbiting stars because we can't.
Of the 100+ systems currently known to contain planets, all contain seemingly only gas giants. However, this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth.
I can end this question right now.
It is because current technology can only detect said planets.
Time to read up for the journalist?
It's kinda sad to see them going these lengths to write these stories when he hasn't even done basic research.
They're finding out just how screwy the security system within Windows really is.
SP2 is supposed to be a big "security fix." Assuming that it really is, it sounds as if it's breaking lots of stuff that was previously able to work around existing security to function.
I doubt their screwed security is that hard to fix, but rather finding out how many programs depends on this former screwed security. Which are marked with this logo. I guess this is why the final stages of this service pack has been delayed so much. It doesn't seem like the actual core coding took much longer than estimated, but rather what they're finding out in the QA stages.
There's certainly more to it than "previous security updates". See also this.
Step in the right direction PR-wise if you ask me
Yes, because it's never about quality when it comes to Microsft... *sigh*
Patching doesn't alway guarantee that.
Why not? What is the difference?
Yes, you need to remember to include everything in the patch, but same goes for the stand-alone binary.
How can you live with yourself playing CS all day...
Seriously... How can you post here and not have figured that part out?
Bookmark autopr0n and get a new girlfriend each day!
*sigh*
Some geeks...
Strangely, some of the recent SPEC benchmark results show the 3.6 Ghz chip to be slower than the 3.4 Ghz chip. One possible explanation for this is that the 3.6 Ghz chips will slow down due to 'thermal throttling' if you are not very careful to keep them cool. So it seems like heat may be the reason Intel's roadmap does now show much improvement."
Sure, but this is just another form of performance problem. That it takes the form of heat is just a sign of a too inefficient design for the speed. I'm of the opinion that when you get problems to cool the processor good enough (I assume those testers used proper fans for the CPU like they should always do) at 100% usage, then it's not your problem anymore.
More can be found here. ;-)
Yep, we also share Norway's laws in this regard.
Are there a lot of artists/musicians in Norway?
This is an interesting question, since it's legal in Sweden too, and we are a rather large "music country" for our size (9 million people) with numerous successful music exports.
This is not "Insightful", as it has nothing to do with legality to download copyrighted software.
It's legal here in Sweden too.
User name: bugmenot
Password: passbyabm
It may be unethical, but so is spam.
Firefox is still the best, AFAIK, despite this weakness.
With "this weakness" -- do you mean the fact that they're developing a product with secret bugs (security by obscurity), or do you mean this particular bug?
The problem was known 4 years ago, but it was marked confidential. I'm not familiar with BugZilla,so I didn't even know there could be a "confidential" bug. This is the antithesis of Open Source philosophy.
I fully agree this is a very bad idea. All it takes is someone to get hacked, or in another way disclosing information about these secret bugs, and then they might start circulating among "underground" hackers without us knowing it, and voila we have an exploit for an issue a very large group of the developers didn't even know exist.
If they did know, they could of course have offered help in resolving the bug much earlier.
They need to start thinking about these things now as the browser might start to gain momentum. Even if it's not huge problems revealed, merely the fact that secret bugs exists and are revealed now and then (I have no doubt we'll see more in the future since this is probably not the only one), is severe negative publicity for the Mozilla products. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the bugs weren't secret.