The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a technical coordination body for the Internet. Created in October 1998 by a broad coalition of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and user communities, ICANN is assuming responsibility for a set of technical functions previously performed under U.S. government contract by IANA and other groups.
I read Blizzard is planning digital purchases / download of Diablo II as well, and I guess that patch was in that case a precursor for that (you won't have any CD's to insert in the first place).
But yes, that's a nice touch for other players too.
Am I the only one who finds this game to be boring, even by its demo videos? Fancy graphics and physics engine aside, it is essentially Lots Of Zombies + MASSIVE DAMAGE. In essence: Lame.
No more lame than a D1 or D2 video? Maybe this isn't your kind of game then. Note that a crappy quality gameplay video won't show the intricaties of character builds though and optimizing item usage for a character role you thought up in your classroom.;-)
That's what I think made especially Diablo II so much fun. The skilled players could think up their own limits in which items to use, and so on. Not to mention hardcore mode which I assume will be in Diablo III.
Me neither, at least not as for the details, but it seems to have something to do with a comet crashing down in Tristram. *shrug* According to what was on blizzard.com/diablo3 at least earlier today (that site seem to have lost a lot of info now though, not sure what's going on there, if Blizzard is maybe still working on the initial version). I thought it was odd they didn't follow the D2 storyline with the worldstone shattering. But maybe that's somehow related to how the events unfold in D3 as well. Hm.
Opera has its memory cache configurable via the UI. The default is "Automatic", and depends on how much RAM you have installed. So at least Opera may have given a "worse" result here simply from trying to use available RAM, RAM not used for anything else. And not really that it *needs* it.
You can set the memory cache to just be 10 MB in Opera if you wish, would've been more interesting to see how well that setting reflects reality than this, that most likely depends on his amount of RAM.
Meanwhile, other browsers may not use that strategy, so these results could well be quite skewed.
They need to test this on several systems with varying amounts of free RAM at the very least.
Only in situations when free RAM is constrained are these results of interest, anyway. Otherwise the user won't notice much. Free RAM is fast RAM, only when it has to go swap to the drive, it becomes a problem.
Ask a lot of young women of today and they'll tell you much the same (though probably a little less extreme). Ehm, I know single women up to their thirties thinking like this, much like the men. Welcome to the 2000's.:-)
And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of. It sounds like you're more used to Firefox since you've grown accustomed to your extensions. Could this be why you feel it's easier to use? I'm a pretty long time Opera user knowing keyboard shortcuts like '.' to avoid the Ctrl+F search dialog and e.g. Ctrl+Enter to use the wand tool (try to only have one correct password for a domain to avoid the dialog box popping up there), and I think it's really about what you're more used to. I don't see many things in Opera being hard to work with.
IE 7 on the other hand, with their peculiar internet zone hierarchies with dozens of techie security settings within (due to their inclusion of inherently insecure technologies), and radically different new uncustomizable user interface...
Yes, Firefox is also pretty user friendly IMHO, but I don't see Opera being that much worse. It's different, sure, but not bad enough that I see its interface coming in the way.
Yes, when it comes down to the basic difference in philosophy with Opera vs Firefox, it's really about Opera giving you what they think you'll need/want from a good browser in a package, while Mozilla relies on a shorter feature list and extensions. I can see some wanting Firefox for the far more advanced feature set customization, and some preferring Opera because of not having to get Adblock, Chatzilla, or what have you, after downloading the browser.
I have to wonder if Opera 10 won't feature an Extension API as one of the new major features though. It has to be among their most requested features at least. What they have is good though, it's pretty amazing how Opera fit an as modern browser as Opera 9.5 with IRC, BitTorrent, mail, and Usenet support in around 4-5 MB after install (excluding unnecessary localization and the plugin folder for third-party components like Flash here).
IMO, their bittorrent client sucked compared to uTorrent in 9.0 as well. I just reconfigured the.torrent filetype to use that app instead. I can't blame Opera for trying though; I think it's becoming as natural as having FTP support these days. It makes sense to me, and fills a niche, to support P2P by supporting the most common protocol as well. One could've hoped for a better client though.
(remember when Windows 7 was supposed to be a clean new start?) It wasn't, MS released minimal info on this, and then came the MinWin demo during all hush-hush, and people (read: bad journalists and bloggers) assumed it would be in Win 7 and all new. Even at the MinWin demo, the MS dude said it was still experimental. That doesn't imply it's to be in Win 7 whatsoever.
Note: Win 7 may suck horribly, I'm not defending the OS, just trying to correct this kind of misinformation. No MS source ever said that Win 7 would be written from scratch, period.
I wonder how simple molecules these would be treated as by a chemist. That's the big question to me. Are they so simple that it's quite likely they'll both have appeared on Earth and in space? Because, in that case, this isn't really as impressive as it may seem. Just because they're used in DNA/RNA doesn't imply they're complex alone.
Coincidentally, Firefox 3 also has a new extremely fast JavaScript engine since beta 5. I'm not sure if it was rewritten from scratch, but it's winning some tests at least.
As ridiculous it may seem, I'm pretty sure that this celestial body class was invented in some sort of weird attempt to satisfy people that didn't want Pluto to lose its planetary status.
"Now, it's at least a plutoid. Happy?"
Yes, from a scientific POV, it's pure bullshit, of course.
I'd normally say it's about what to teach the kids and what's not as important -- a definition makes it easier to draw the line. However... This isn't about planets anymore, but plutoids. I think that moves more into the realms of advanced astronomy rather than schoolbooks, and then the definitions also matter less besides to split up things into smaller tables.:-p
I don't think the poster meant "centrism" in the literal sense, but in a more abstract sense. I.e. that it's naive to think that the big bang started it all, just because we have our single reference point (our universe). Like before as we thought we were the center of the Universe, just this time in a larger scale.
For me, it's a lot about the little things. When he showed the thing about right-clicking on a downloaded file and being able to go back to the actual download page, that's when I thought "why haven't other browser devs thought of that before".
IMHO, Firefox 3 isn't a huge advance among web browsers, and actually catches up in some areas with some of the competition -- thinking of the site identification support. And it isn't the dominating browser in the Acid3 test either. But it does a lot of things right, and that with the extensive plugin support not found on any other browser (besides Firefox compatible derivatives). With the resource consumptions fixes (that Safari is in dire need of on Windows, and IE 7 too somewhat), it's really becoming a quite pleasant browser to use.
I'm a former Opera user, but the thing is that I feel Firefox 3's new Javascript speed enhancements and memory fixes making it so fast (and with the scrolling plugin YASS giving it the final touch of smooth "speed scrolling"), that I can't really switch back at this point. I did with Firefox 2 due to the memory issues, but I doubt I will again until perhaps Opera 10 or something is released.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the post was considered redundant because that's the obvious reaction to the story?
Marina del Rey, CA (July 5, 2008) --
ENUF. :-( ICANN HAS MY DOMAINS PLZ?
About ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a technical coordination body for the Internet. Created in October 1998 by a broad coalition of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and user communities, ICANN is assuming responsibility for a set of technical functions previously performed under U.S. government contract by IANA and other groups.
Speak for yourself instead of using the word "we".
Firefox 3.1 is supposed to have feature changes though, Opera 9.51 merely bug fixes, more specifically a number of important crash fixes.
I read Blizzard is planning digital purchases / download of Diablo II as well, and I guess that patch was in that case a precursor for that (you won't have any CD's to insert in the first place).
But yes, that's a nice touch for other players too.
Am I the only one who finds this game to be boring, even by its demo videos? Fancy graphics and physics engine aside, it is essentially Lots Of Zombies + MASSIVE DAMAGE. In essence: Lame.
No more lame than a D1 or D2 video? Maybe this isn't your kind of game then. Note that a crappy quality gameplay video won't show the intricaties of character builds though and optimizing item usage for a character role you thought up in your classroom. ;-)
The stuff leading up the gargantuan websites like these:
http://strategy.diabloii.net/
That's what I think made especially Diablo II so much fun. The skilled players could think up their own limits in which items to use, and so on. Not to mention hardcore mode which I assume will be in Diablo III.
Don't know what happens in D3 obviously,
Me neither, at least not as for the details, but it seems to have something to do with a comet crashing down in Tristram. *shrug* According to what was on blizzard.com/diablo3 at least earlier today (that site seem to have lost a lot of info now though, not sure what's going on there, if Blizzard is maybe still working on the initial version). I thought it was odd they didn't follow the D2 storyline with the worldstone shattering. But maybe that's somehow related to how the events unfold in D3 as well. Hm.
Opera has its memory cache configurable via the UI. The default is "Automatic", and depends on how much RAM you have installed. So at least Opera may have given a "worse" result here simply from trying to use available RAM, RAM not used for anything else. And not really that it *needs* it.
You can set the memory cache to just be 10 MB in Opera if you wish, would've been more interesting to see how well that setting reflects reality than this, that most likely depends on his amount of RAM.
Meanwhile, other browsers may not use that strategy, so these results could well be quite skewed.
They need to test this on several systems with varying amounts of free RAM at the very least.
Only in situations when free RAM is constrained are these results of interest, anyway. Otherwise the user won't notice much. Free RAM is fast RAM, only when it has to go swap to the drive, it becomes a problem.
Or "My god, it's beautiful!"
IE 7 on the other hand, with their peculiar internet zone hierarchies with dozens of techie security settings within (due to their inclusion of inherently insecure technologies), and radically different new uncustomizable user interface...
Yes, Firefox is also pretty user friendly IMHO, but I don't see Opera being that much worse. It's different, sure, but not bad enough that I see its interface coming in the way.
Yes, when it comes down to the basic difference in philosophy with Opera vs Firefox, it's really about Opera giving you what they think you'll need/want from a good browser in a package, while Mozilla relies on a shorter feature list and extensions. I can see some wanting Firefox for the far more advanced feature set customization, and some preferring Opera because of not having to get Adblock, Chatzilla, or what have you, after downloading the browser.
I have to wonder if Opera 10 won't feature an Extension API as one of the new major features though. It has to be among their most requested features at least. What they have is good though, it's pretty amazing how Opera fit an as modern browser as Opera 9.5 with IRC, BitTorrent, mail, and Usenet support in around 4-5 MB after install (excluding unnecessary localization and the plugin folder for third-party components like Flash here).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbvbyzvXOOc
;)
That one had me laugh out loud at work today.
Yes, we should stick with the toolbar paradigm regardless application complexity for all eternity.
IMO, their bittorrent client sucked compared to uTorrent in 9.0 as well. I just reconfigured the .torrent filetype to use that app instead. I can't blame Opera for trying though; I think it's becoming as natural as having FTP support these days. It makes sense to me, and fills a niche, to support P2P by supporting the most common protocol as well. One could've hoped for a better client though.
Note: Win 7 may suck horribly, I'm not defending the OS, just trying to correct this kind of misinformation. No MS source ever said that Win 7 would be written from scratch, period.
I wonder how simple molecules these would be treated as by a chemist. That's the big question to me. Are they so simple that it's quite likely they'll both have appeared on Earth and in space? Because, in that case, this isn't really as impressive as it may seem. Just because they're used in DNA/RNA doesn't imply they're complex alone.
:)
Uracil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uracil
Xanthine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthine
As an amateur, they don't look too complex to me, but hey, what do I know...
Here's one of those tests:
http://flickr.com/photos/nitot/2410514595/sizes/o/
Coincidentally, Firefox 3 also has a new extremely fast JavaScript engine since beta 5. I'm not sure if it was rewritten from scratch, but it's winning some tests at least.
Umm, and they get shovels if contributing well..
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intellipedia_shovel.jpg
"I dig Intellipedia! It's wiki wiki, Baby"
Ahem...
As ridiculous it may seem, I'm pretty sure that this celestial body class was invented in some sort of weird attempt to satisfy people that didn't want Pluto to lose its planetary status.
"Now, it's at least a plutoid. Happy?"
Yes, from a scientific POV, it's pure bullshit, of course.
I'd normally say it's about what to teach the kids and what's not as important -- a definition makes it easier to draw the line. However... This isn't about planets anymore, but plutoids. I think that moves more into the realms of advanced astronomy rather than schoolbooks, and then the definitions also matter less besides to split up things into smaller tables. :-p
I think you need to watch this.
I don't think the poster meant "centrism" in the literal sense, but in a more abstract sense. I.e. that it's naive to think that the big bang started it all, just because we have our single reference point (our universe). Like before as we thought we were the center of the Universe, just this time in a larger scale.For me, it's a lot about the little things. When he showed the thing about right-clicking on a downloaded file and being able to go back to the actual download page, that's when I thought "why haven't other browser devs thought of that before".
IMHO, Firefox 3 isn't a huge advance among web browsers, and actually catches up in some areas with some of the competition -- thinking of the site identification support. And it isn't the dominating browser in the Acid3 test either. But it does a lot of things right, and that with the extensive plugin support not found on any other browser (besides Firefox compatible derivatives). With the resource consumptions fixes (that Safari is in dire need of on Windows, and IE 7 too somewhat), it's really becoming a quite pleasant browser to use.
I'm a former Opera user, but the thing is that I feel Firefox 3's new Javascript speed enhancements and memory fixes making it so fast (and with the scrolling plugin YASS giving it the final touch of smooth "speed scrolling"), that I can't really switch back at this point. I did with Firefox 2 due to the memory issues, but I doubt I will again until perhaps Opera 10 or something is released.