Well, memory and harddrive upgrades are generally the most valuable to me. AMD is about to introduce their new socket, M2, which will also be their first DDR2-based platform. So you can either go for an Intel DDR2-based sytem now, or (much smarter) wait a few months for an AMD DDR2-based system. Then you'll have a very long-lived platform.
Some words about longevity - the two parts of a system I recommend NOT skimping on are the power supply and the memory. Get the best of each you can. 'Best' in terms of power supply does NOT mean the one with the highest wattage rating. I like PC Power & Cooling; I've never had one die on me. Also, check connectors - 20pin vs 24pin. My current PSU has only a 20pin, so if I upgrade, that'll have to get upgraded, as well, most likely.
I just upgraded my old system with some new parts (now a 1.8ghz Athlon XP-M running at 2ghzx with 1gig DDR RAM), so I'm pretty happy. I think a gig of RAM is now a requirement - this is _way_ nicer at 512; I'm surprised by how big a difference it's made. If I was going for a new system, I'd wait for an M2-based system for sure. This is probably the last homebuilt I'll do for the foreseeable future - I'm waiting for the Intel-based Mac Mini as my next computer, assuming Apple doesn't screw it up somehow.
Haven't we gone over this enough times already, fellow nerds?! Jeebus! It's like listening to a person working at Best Buy recommending something to a customer.:(
The whole "anything for national security" seems to be nothing more than an excuse to pump as much money as possible into the military-industrial complex, not to actually make the nation more secure, so I wouldn't count on that being a reason to adopt renewable energy.
To satisfy ultra-low sulfur requirements, Fischer-Tropsch diesel makes more sense.
For the ULSD, sure, but you might want to investigate the _price_ of diesel made from natural gas (GTL). Another method that produces a very 'clean' diesel (sulfur-wise)is CTL - coal to liquid, and we've got one hell of a lot of coal, though I really don't much like what happens to the area it's mined from.:(
If we're going to use natural gas (and we are), and if we're going to use coal (and we are), then I'd much prefer to see the natural gas used for baseload power generation, and the coal converted to no-sulfur diesel for autos (and a massive incrase in the # of diesel autos in the U.S.).
And if those hydrogen-injection systems (like the H2N-Gen system) become affordable, that would be an ideal addition to autos, both from a fuel efficiency standpoint, as well as an emissions standpoint.
Nope. The California PUC has ruled that any long-term contracts for power by investor-owned utilities must have emissions profiles no worse than combined-cycle natural gas turbine systems. This effectively means that no coal-fired plants can be used, even out of state. IGCC plants don't even meet this target, so 'clean coal' isn't gonna happen for them.
Keep in mind, this is only for investor-owned utilities in California, and also only for investor-owned utilities. Still, that's pretty huge.
This ruling is a pretty huge deal; it may impact the large transmission projects proposed to bring power out of Wyoming (coal-based and wind-based), though my guess is that they'll change those transmission projects to bring that power into Nevada and Arizona, then the power contracts for California can use the existing natural gas plants instead.
Nevertheless, California is no longer going to be the one importing coal power into it's state, not even 'clean coal.'
I've got the series on DVD and have watched it recently, trust me - it's as good as BSG.
re: pilots too precious for ground missions
They're "Marines". That's good enough an explanation for me. Plus, the logistics of interplanetary space travel may make such distinctions obsolete. Whatever. The old BSG pilots certainly did plenty of ground missions. We'll see how closely they follow the old storylines; they've come surprisingly close so far, though I gotta say, the new Boomer's lookin' mighty hot compared to the old one.:)
I'm surprised that neither Stargate SG-1 nor Atlantis are on the list.
SG-1 from a few seasons ago, sure, but the current one? You gotta be joking! And I _know_ you're joking with Atlantis. Sheesh, what a piece of crap. But, it's sci-fi, so I'm legally required to watch it. *sigh*
If anyone missed it (and it wouldn't have been hard to do so), a show just as good as BSG, cancelled in its prime, is now out on DVD - Space: Above and Beyond. Go get it; it's not that expensive, since it only lasted a season. *sniff*
I'd also make a plea for those who tried Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and didn't like Sarah Michelle Gellar (the actress who played Buffy) - just watch the first season or so, and ignore her. She's irritating, but the rest of the cast, and the writing, are beyond brilliant. The bigger a nerd you are, the more you'll get all the little jokes that fly by so fast. Angel, less so, but it's also got the funniest episode of any tv show ever - Smiletime. But, to really get that one, you should watch the series leading up to it, as you'll have more invested in the characters.
You're right -- it's hard to do bad design with CSS. What's your point?
I said nothing of the sort, and that's factually ridiculous, but let's move on the the real crux of the matter:
I'll presume that you're talking about layout columns, similar to those slashboxes next to the comment you're reading now. And in that case, you still don't have a reason to use tables: five-year old CSS can put out a clean-looking layout just fine with DIV tags.
Yes, I'm talking about layout columns, similar to what slashdot uses, but you're missing the point. _Stylistically_, they don't operate the same as a table cell; the bottom edge of the div ends when the content ends, and thus doesn't line up with the bottom edge of divs next to it, so while you can layout content somewhat similarly horizontally, vertically, you cannot, say, place something at the bottom of a div and have it be at the same level vertically as something at the bottom of a div next to it, if they have different amounts of content. You also cannot STYLE them similarly, and have borders and such line up, because of the same issue. And if you have a border between them, it'll stop when the content stops, thus producing the need for all sorts of column-related hacks that you'll find at various CSS design sites. This is a hot topic in the CSS design world, so I'm going to assume you're not a professional here, or you'd know what I was talking before this. Just trust me here - divs do not act like table cells, though they have some traits in common.
The worst part of this is that this isn't a CSS implementation problem on the part of browsers - this is an intentional design aspect of CSS which is pretty ridiculous. Until CSS can truly let us do the same things table layout does, _some_ designs (not all) will require table layout unless you resort to hacks (which I won't do).
Lee went to Microsoft where Balmer cut off all his hair and killed him, leaving his corpse lying on a big rock in the Redmond campus. The rock later split with a deafening kaboom, and Lee reappeared, unharmed, at Google.
Yeah, weird, huh? That's life in the dot-com era, though. I've seen stranger things happen.
Re:how to make a ricer Firefox
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I know suicide doors _alone_ don't make for a ricer; it's the combination of features that do that.
If I ever manage to create the car I really want -- a completely restored and heavily-modified (modernized) '66 Mustang Fastback -- I'm totally using suicide doors. And back window louvres. Hells yeah.
Well, I'm thinking about the colour abilities of something more in the price range of a $1,000-2,000 CRT, but you get the idea. LCDs still aren't there yet, but they do seem to be improving pretty rapidly. With my luck, they won't get to where I want before these new UMI DRM-required interfaces are all that's available.:(
I've had to make sites where there needed to be certain amounts of content, of varying kids. Let's say two columns of text for various article blurbs, with another column for navigation, and then let's not forget to reserve space for advertising. They wanted graphics of a certain size (retail site) for product photos, and the text can't be too small, or people can't read it, but they required all that text to be on there. And then you have to contend with grouping the stuff into some semblence of logical order so people can find it, which puts restrictions on where you can place things; you can't just use any old space you have available. Trying to talk sense into business types is often just not possible; I wish it were. I've often had to come up with a design according to their wishes just to prove to them that it won't work well, and that often just gets put into production, because they rarely allow enough time for another design iteration. And that's assuming I'm the one that gets to do the design (I'm usually the one doing the coding). Gah.
Doing web pages for a living has really killed any love for doing them on my own time.:(
Well, let's call that unfortunate wording - by 'true colour fidelity,' I mean, as good as professional-grade CRTs. Is that picky enough wording to satisfy you?
b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues: 8ms switching time c) true colour fidelity: OK, I do not have the specs for this, haven't read through the documentation yet.
See, that's the real trick - panels that have 8ms switching time don't tend to have true colour fidelity.
how to make a ricer Firefox
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 5, Funny
add {
extension:ridiculous body kit
extension:Big-Ass Wing
extension:18" rims w/spinners
extension:ground effect lighting
extension:thumpin' stereo
extension:in-dash DVD player
extension:VTEC sticker
extension:fake boost gauges
extension:fire extinguisher (fake, to hold your Ecstasy/weed)
extension:remote starter
extension:suicide doors (or scissor doors)
extension:wiper fluid nozzle lights
extension:extra chrome
extension:calvin peeing on something sticker
extension:some type of rear window sticker proclaiming you to be a bling-bling homey
extension:some type of sticker with kanji on it (that you can't read)
extension:Momo or Recaro seats with multi-point seatbelts (which you don't wear)
extension:under-dash LED or neon lights that plug into the cigarette lighter (for that touch of class) } et voila, a ricer Firefox!
I haven't seen anything with both b and c yet, at any price. I guess that depends on what you mean by 'pretty much.' I'm wanting more of an absolute.:)
If you have any product suggestions, please let me know; I haven't done much research on this in the last several months, so things may have changed.
I recently saw a site talking about typography for the web, and it stated that there is an 'ideal' width for lines of text, about 66 characters. Now, with CSS, you can specify in ems (the width of a capital M in whatever font/size you're looking at). So, specify text areas widths in ems to make it more readable - I haven't designed any new sites since I read this, but it seems very interesting.
CSS also had max-width and min-width options (that of course don't work in IE; hopefully in IE7) that one can make use of to make sure things don't get too narrow or too wide.
I'd suggest not listening to the jihadists here saying flat-out, "web sites should be resolution independent," as it's pretty obvious most of them aren't professional web designers who have to deal with a variety of layout needs -- BUSINESS needs that dictate how much and what kind of content, textual and graphical, that need to be on a web page sometimes. That's life in the professional world that most of us have to live in. If you're doing a web site for your OSS project, great, have at it, and make sure it doesn't look nice on IE while you're at it, but keep in mind that for the rest of us, web design activism doesn't pay the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, if you're dumb enough to let CDs and DVDs autoplay on your computer, you deserve whatever happens as a result.
Yes. The Fifth Element is classic in my book for the ample bussoms of Milla Jovovich being seen on the big screen.
Look, I lust after Leeloo with the best of them, but 'ample' isn't a word that is applicable in her case. Not that that's a bad thing.
So you're pretty happy with your computer display at 6480x480, are ya? More power to ya!
Well, memory and harddrive upgrades are generally the most valuable to me. AMD is about to introduce their new socket, M2, which will also be their first DDR2-based platform. So you can either go for an Intel DDR2-based sytem now, or (much smarter) wait a few months for an AMD DDR2-based system. Then you'll have a very long-lived platform.
Some words about longevity - the two parts of a system I recommend NOT skimping on are the power supply and the memory. Get the best of each you can. 'Best' in terms of power supply does NOT mean the one with the highest wattage rating. I like PC Power & Cooling; I've never had one die on me. Also, check connectors - 20pin vs 24pin. My current PSU has only a 20pin, so if I upgrade, that'll have to get upgraded, as well, most likely.
I just upgraded my old system with some new parts (now a 1.8ghz Athlon XP-M running at 2ghzx with 1gig DDR RAM), so I'm pretty happy. I think a gig of RAM is now a requirement - this is _way_ nicer at 512; I'm surprised by how big a difference it's made. If I was going for a new system, I'd wait for an M2-based system for sure. This is probably the last homebuilt I'll do for the foreseeable future - I'm waiting for the Intel-based Mac Mini as my next computer, assuming Apple doesn't screw it up somehow.
Haven't we gone over this enough times already, fellow nerds?! Jeebus! It's like listening to a person working at Best Buy recommending something to a customer. :(
Great....I wonder what 200 gigs of Tara Patrick videos being lost looks like...
:)
They're not lost, they're just correctly spelled as 'Tera Patrick'.
I really miss the Tera Show. *sniff* Wish I could find an archive of that somewhere.
That's right. It's not just for toasters any more.
"I mean, what's the point of buying a toaster with artificial intelligence if you don't like toast?"
The whole "anything for national security" seems to be nothing more than an excuse to pump as much money as possible into the military-industrial complex, not to actually make the nation more secure, so I wouldn't count on that being a reason to adopt renewable energy.
One can only hope that 2006 will be the year the United States government returns to the path that reflects fundamental American values.
I wouldn't count on that being even a remote possibility until 2009 at the earliest. (see also election schedule)
To satisfy ultra-low sulfur requirements, Fischer-Tropsch diesel makes more sense.
:(
For the ULSD, sure, but you might want to investigate the _price_ of diesel made from natural gas (GTL). Another method that produces a very 'clean' diesel (sulfur-wise)is CTL - coal to liquid, and we've got one hell of a lot of coal, though I really don't much like what happens to the area it's mined from.
If we're going to use natural gas (and we are), and if we're going to use coal (and we are), then I'd much prefer to see the natural gas used for baseload power generation, and the coal converted to no-sulfur diesel for autos (and a massive incrase in the # of diesel autos in the U.S.).
And if those hydrogen-injection systems (like the H2N-Gen system) become affordable, that would be an ideal addition to autos, both from a fuel efficiency standpoint, as well as an emissions standpoint.
Nope. The California PUC has ruled that any long-term contracts for power by investor-owned utilities must have emissions profiles no worse than combined-cycle natural gas turbine systems. This effectively means that no coal-fired plants can be used, even out of state. IGCC plants don't even meet this target, so 'clean coal' isn't gonna happen for them.
:)
Keep in mind, this is only for investor-owned utilities in California, and also only for investor-owned utilities. Still, that's pretty huge.
This ruling is a pretty huge deal; it may impact the large transmission projects proposed to bring power out of Wyoming (coal-based and wind-based), though my guess is that they'll change those transmission projects to bring that power into Nevada and Arizona, then the power contracts for California can use the existing natural gas plants instead.
Nevertheless, California is no longer going to be the one importing coal power into it's state, not even 'clean coal.'
FYI - I'm a reporter in the energy industry.
I've got the series on DVD and have watched it recently, trust me - it's as good as BSG.
:)
re: pilots too precious for ground missions
They're "Marines". That's good enough an explanation for me. Plus, the logistics of interplanetary space travel may make such distinctions obsolete. Whatever. The old BSG pilots certainly did plenty of ground missions. We'll see how closely they follow the old storylines; they've come surprisingly close so far, though I gotta say, the new Boomer's lookin' mighty hot compared to the old one.
I'm surprised that neither Stargate SG-1 nor Atlantis are on the list.
SG-1 from a few seasons ago, sure, but the current one? You gotta be joking! And I _know_ you're joking with Atlantis. Sheesh, what a piece of crap. But, it's sci-fi, so I'm legally required to watch it. *sigh*
If anyone missed it (and it wouldn't have been hard to do so), a show just as good as BSG, cancelled in its prime, is now out on DVD - Space: Above and Beyond. Go get it; it's not that expensive, since it only lasted a season. *sniff*
I'd also make a plea for those who tried Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and didn't like Sarah Michelle Gellar (the actress who played Buffy) - just watch the first season or so, and ignore her. She's irritating, but the rest of the cast, and the writing, are beyond brilliant. The bigger a nerd you are, the more you'll get all the little jokes that fly by so fast. Angel, less so, but it's also got the funniest episode of any tv show ever - Smiletime. But, to really get that one, you should watch the series leading up to it, as you'll have more invested in the characters.
You're right -- it's hard to do bad design with CSS. What's your point?
I said nothing of the sort, and that's factually ridiculous, but let's move on the the real crux of the matter:
I'll presume that you're talking about layout columns, similar to those slashboxes next to the comment you're reading now. And in that case, you still don't have a reason to use tables: five-year old CSS can put out a clean-looking layout just fine with DIV tags.
Yes, I'm talking about layout columns, similar to what slashdot uses, but you're missing the point. _Stylistically_, they don't operate the same as a table cell; the bottom edge of the div ends when the content ends, and thus doesn't line up with the bottom edge of divs next to it, so while you can layout content somewhat similarly horizontally, vertically, you cannot, say, place something at the bottom of a div and have it be at the same level vertically as something at the bottom of a div next to it, if they have different amounts of content. You also cannot STYLE them similarly, and have borders and such line up, because of the same issue. And if you have a border between them, it'll stop when the content stops, thus producing the need for all sorts of column-related hacks that you'll find at various CSS design sites. This is a hot topic in the CSS design world, so I'm going to assume you're not a professional here, or you'd know what I was talking before this. Just trust me here - divs do not act like table cells, though they have some traits in common.
The worst part of this is that this isn't a CSS implementation problem on the part of browsers - this is an intentional design aspect of CSS which is pretty ridiculous. Until CSS can truly let us do the same things table layout does, _some_ designs (not all) will require table layout unless you resort to hacks (which I won't do).
Red pill or blue pill? Hopefully the next on will be: 'Emacs vs vi' or 'KDE vs Gnome.'
:)
It's good to know some things never change.
Lee went to Microsoft where Balmer cut off all his hair and killed him, leaving his corpse lying on a big rock in the Redmond campus. The rock later split with a deafening kaboom, and Lee reappeared, unharmed, at Google.
Yeah, weird, huh? That's life in the dot-com era, though. I've seen stranger things happen.
Oh, I know suicide doors _alone_ don't make for a ricer; it's the combination of features that do that.
:)
If I ever manage to create the car I really want -- a completely restored and heavily-modified (modernized) '66 Mustang Fastback -- I'm totally using suicide doors. And back window louvres. Hells yeah.
And a bare foot-shaped gas pedal!
Well, I'm thinking about the colour abilities of something more in the price range of a $1,000-2,000 CRT, but you get the idea. LCDs still aren't there yet, but they do seem to be improving pretty rapidly. With my luck, they won't get to where I want before these new UMI DRM-required interfaces are all that's available. :(
I've had to make sites where there needed to be certain amounts of content, of varying kids. Let's say two columns of text for various article blurbs, with another column for navigation, and then let's not forget to reserve space for advertising. They wanted graphics of a certain size (retail site) for product photos, and the text can't be too small, or people can't read it, but they required all that text to be on there. And then you have to contend with grouping the stuff into some semblence of logical order so people can find it, which puts restrictions on where you can place things; you can't just use any old space you have available. Trying to talk sense into business types is often just not possible; I wish it were. I've often had to come up with a design according to their wishes just to prove to them that it won't work well, and that often just gets put into production, because they rarely allow enough time for another design iteration. And that's assuming I'm the one that gets to do the design (I'm usually the one doing the coding). Gah.
:(
Doing web pages for a living has really killed any love for doing them on my own time.
Well, let's call that unfortunate wording - by 'true colour fidelity,' I mean, as good as professional-grade CRTs. Is that picky enough wording to satisfy you?
b) fast enough to not have ghosting issues: 8ms switching time
c) true colour fidelity: OK, I do not have the specs for this, haven't read through the documentation yet.
See, that's the real trick - panels that have 8ms switching time don't tend to have true colour fidelity.
add {
extension:ridiculous body kit
extension:Big-Ass Wing
extension:18" rims w/spinners
extension:ground effect lighting
extension:thumpin' stereo
extension:in-dash DVD player
extension:VTEC sticker
extension:fake boost gauges
extension:fire extinguisher (fake, to hold your Ecstasy/weed)
extension:remote starter
extension:suicide doors (or scissor doors)
extension:wiper fluid nozzle lights
extension:extra chrome
extension:calvin peeing on something sticker
extension:some type of rear window sticker proclaiming you to be a bling-bling homey
extension:some type of sticker with kanji on it (that you can't read)
extension:Momo or Recaro seats with multi-point seatbelts (which you don't wear)
extension:under-dash LED or neon lights that plug into the cigarette lighter (for that touch of class)
}
et voila, a ricer Firefox!
I think they call it 'Flock.'
That would be a hack, which I tend to avoid pretty scrupulously, as they tend to break, which requires maintenance, which I like to minimize.
Besides, max-width is the vastly more-useful of the two, anyway, at least for me.
I haven't seen anything with both b and c yet, at any price. I guess that depends on what you mean by 'pretty much.' I'm wanting more of an absolute. :)
If you have any product suggestions, please let me know; I haven't done much research on this in the last several months, so things may have changed.
I recently saw a site talking about typography for the web, and it stated that there is an 'ideal' width for lines of text, about 66 characters. Now, with CSS, you can specify in ems (the width of a capital M in whatever font/size you're looking at). So, specify text areas widths in ems to make it more readable - I haven't designed any new sites since I read this, but it seems very interesting.
CSS also had max-width and min-width options (that of course don't work in IE; hopefully in IE7) that one can make use of to make sure things don't get too narrow or too wide.
I'd suggest not listening to the jihadists here saying flat-out, "web sites should be resolution independent," as it's pretty obvious most of them aren't professional web designers who have to deal with a variety of layout needs -- BUSINESS needs that dictate how much and what kind of content, textual and graphical, that need to be on a web page sometimes. That's life in the professional world that most of us have to live in. If you're doing a web site for your OSS project, great, have at it, and make sure it doesn't look nice on IE while you're at it, but keep in mind that for the rest of us, web design activism doesn't pay the bills.