Yeah, people were saying this about the Netscape Suite in 1996. Then Mozilla. Then finally Firefox came out and everybody said, "wow, this is great, oh, wait, it's still got a single threaded UI?". And it was told how complicated it would be to re-architect things, and that if only you didn't use this extension or visit that poorly designed site or open too many tabs, or... whatever it wasn't Firefox's problem. I think they finally gave JavaScript its own thread in a recent release, which helps. They've had multi-process Firefox working for a year in the lab, but it's still another six months out for a release (until it slips again). Fedora 15 time, probably. As I recall the entire Firefox project was done in half that time.
Google apparently wised up to the intractability of fixing MoFo a few years ago. It's too bad, some of the better Mozilla technologies are likely to get lost for several years as Firefox wanes.
I dunno, but Slashdot's stereotype isn't a bad target demographic for the site. Perhaps they should buy a poll and see what their conversion rate looks like.
you sound informed on this topic, so perhaps you know:
The physics are well know, we've detonated MANY bombs underground on our own soil. We know how far down it needs to be and how it will effect the surrounding rock.
The physics under a mile of water are completely different than underground. Why would any of the nukes in our existing stockpile be able to take 5000' of pressure? A Trident can launch at 800 feet max, IIRC.
And why would a nuke be superior to a MOAB? Just size?
That's not strictly true. Some of this oil can be had from much shallower waters but for a forcible ban on such practices by governments.
Could this leak have been plugged if it were a mile off shore? I suspect it could have. A mile down is beyond our reliable technology's reach.
But people don't want to look at oil rigs while they're swimming. This is a consequence (combined with failed energy policy, of course).
To play devil's advocate, having the far-offshore rig did prevent a shoreline catastrophe. But if it wouldn't have happened near land, that point is moot.
In vitamin-word they call a microgram a "mikrogram" (phoenetic) which doens't reeenforce the unit, and instead of g they write mcg. They must be using cheap typewriters.
It's a total no-brainer, but the Firefox team wants to get all evangelistic and completely irrational, making it a holy war.
It's a good hill to die on, but that's what they're going to do. Maybe somebody will fork.
The Firefox 4 plans really re-enforce this notion. The right people were saying the right things ten years ago, but MoFo management has forestalled all the hard problems until now it is too late. Google realized this a few years back - Firefox could have been in 2007 what Chromium is now.
Accelerate it enough so that one drag of the finger gets you across the screen, and you end up with a pointer so sensitive that you can't click on anything small.
That's c. 1990 mouse-speed settings. Any good OS should now support an acceleration curve. I always set mine to be very slow for fine movements and very fast for gross movements. So I can do pixel-level editing in GIMP, but still jump across the screen with a swipe or so.
They want to favor Women over Men, or they could just get rid of urinals.
As I read it they want to provide the _same_ number of facilities. You can fit two or more urinals in the space of a toilet, so given equal floor-space, you're likely to get more men's 'stations' than women's.
To provide women with an equal number of facilities you have to provide more floor space for more toilets. This isn't gender favoritism, it's matter of mechanics. They will still have a lowered pipelined (!) throughput, because urinals are still more time-efficient. The Feds could go further still and mandate equivalent restroom throughput, but it appears they haven't, so women will still be disadvantaged to some extent. But the sexes are mechanically different, so perfect parity isn't reality.
The only favoritism argument that can be made is a purely monetary one, as rent on more floorspace is more expensive, so they'd be spending more money per woman on toilet facilities. I don't put it past the government to reduce the problem to an inappropriate measure.
Still, I wonder if there haven't been any novel advances in toilet design in the past century that could address the disparity more efficiently.
This was my thought--so what if they did? We did it more than 50 years ago, the Teller-Ulam designed warhead dates to 1951. Fusing two atoms is trivial.
Hey, let's not burden the journalists with dry facts.
Then it re-enforces the notion that we're living in universe that cheats. Like a simulation would.
We already have data that fits the theory so perhaps this space probe could show that it was wrong, somehow. It seems better to spend money chasing promising results, though.
This one has more detail, and is actually really-well written. Really, an AP story with some investigative journalism. Kudos, guy, you're making your co-workers look bad.:)
it's the possibility of damaging DNA that would be trouble
Risk/reward. What if there's a.00000001 chance of getting a melanoma from it? How does that stack up to post-surgical infection risk?
We're pretty good at DNA repair. Humans can take a 3 Rem exposure without much change in outcomes. Diet Coke contains mitochondrial DNA mutagens.
Given the choice at my local hospital, I'd take the chance and not have a big scar. My existing scar tissue has more problems than normal skin, so there are other risks down the line to consider as well.
Just don't lock anything. And leave your car key in your car's ignition.
That drains the battery in some cars (though not a 90's Chevy truck, I know). Leave them in the center console.
I mean, it's still illegal to steal stuff, so no one's going to.
Yeah, if you live somewhere worth living (IMHO, of course). It also helps to drive an old cheap car and put an NRA sticker on the back window.
Locking everything up is a real pain, rarely but sometimes dangerous, and not very effective. Surveillance and a 'no tresspassing' sign is probably more effective in most cases.
C'mon, half of us would've been blacksmiths in a different era - it's perfectly fair game.
But, yeah, an X-acto would have been a superior choice. Who hacks on SIM cards and doesn't have an X-acto set? Oh, right, he does, but probably wanted to show off his hundred-dollar vegetable knife.:)
You would have a point, except that BP carries no insurance for spills.
It's OK to self-insure. What's not OK, at least by me, is the absolution of responsibility with the government fake-out called 'corporations'. If there was responsibility, I suspect they'd carry insurance. Instead we wind with with captured regulators issuing fines for 1% of the cost-savings of whatever bad thing that was done. Yeah, that'll show 'em boys!
Slashdot Mirror
The UI should be instant
Yeah, people were saying this about the Netscape Suite in 1996. Then Mozilla. Then finally Firefox came out and everybody said, "wow, this is great, oh, wait, it's still got a single threaded UI?". And it was told how complicated it would be to re-architect things, and that if only you didn't use this extension or visit that poorly designed site or open too many tabs, or... whatever it wasn't Firefox's problem. I think they finally gave JavaScript its own thread in a recent release, which helps. They've had multi-process Firefox working for a year in the lab, but it's still another six months out for a release (until it slips again). Fedora 15 time, probably. As I recall the entire Firefox project was done in half that time.
Google apparently wised up to the intractability of fixing MoFo a few years ago. It's too bad, some of the better Mozilla technologies are likely to get lost for several years as Firefox wanes.
RECLAIM doesn't seem to work. It tells me I have vulnerabilities, but when I click "fix" it doesn't fix the problems.
Same here. The underlined link did bring up the right page and I unchecked the right boxes. Then it verified the change correctly.
if this is a slashvertisment for CougarLife
I dunno, but Slashdot's stereotype isn't a bad target demographic for the site. Perhaps they should buy a poll and see what their conversion rate looks like.
They're banning the term "Cougar" before Apple can use it as the name of its next OS X release.
You say that like Apple's still working on the Macintosh.
you sound informed on this topic, so perhaps you know:
The physics are well know, we've detonated MANY bombs underground on our own soil. We know how far down it needs to be and how it will effect the surrounding rock.
The physics under a mile of water are completely different than underground. Why would any of the nukes in our existing stockpile be able to take 5000' of pressure? A Trident can launch at 800 feet max, IIRC.
And why would a nuke be superior to a MOAB? Just size?
as the oil only gets deeper and deeper
That's not strictly true. Some of this oil can be had from much shallower waters but for a forcible ban on such practices by governments.
Could this leak have been plugged if it were a mile off shore? I suspect it could have. A mile down is beyond our reliable technology's reach.
But people don't want to look at oil rigs while they're swimming. This is a consequence (combined with failed energy policy, of course).
To play devil's advocate, having the far-offshore rig did prevent a shoreline catastrophe. But if it wouldn't have happened near land, that point is moot.
Cherrypal, an obscure company that sells $99 netbooks, has dropped Linux in favor of Android in its bottom-shelf PC line.
Soon we'll see companies dropping Linux in favor of MeeGo or Fedora or Ubuntu. Perhaps to be expected from a WinCE site.
Anybody see the Coby NBPC722 Coby NBPC722 stateside yet?
OK, so Slashdot appears to be an old cheap typewriter too.
It's worse.
In vitamin-word they call a microgram a "mikrogram" (phoenetic) which doens't reeenforce the unit, and instead of g they write mcg. They must be using cheap typewriters.
It's a total no-brainer, but the Firefox team wants to get all evangelistic and completely irrational, making it a holy war.
It's a good hill to die on, but that's what they're going to do. Maybe somebody will fork.
The Firefox 4 plans really re-enforce this notion. The right people were saying the right things ten years ago, but MoFo management has forestalled all the hard problems until now it is too late. Google realized this a few years back - Firefox could have been in 2007 what Chromium is now.
Accelerate it enough so that one drag of the finger gets you across the screen, and you end up with a pointer so sensitive that you can't click on anything small.
That's c. 1990 mouse-speed settings. Any good OS should now support an acceleration curve. I always set mine to be very slow for fine movements and very fast for gross movements. So I can do pixel-level editing in GIMP, but still jump across the screen with a swipe or so.
They want to favor Women over Men, or they could just get rid of urinals.
As I read it they want to provide the _same_ number of facilities. You can fit two or more urinals in the space of a toilet, so given equal floor-space, you're likely to get more men's 'stations' than women's.
To provide women with an equal number of facilities you have to provide more floor space for more toilets. This isn't gender favoritism, it's matter of mechanics. They will still have a lowered pipelined (!) throughput, because urinals are still more time-efficient. The Feds could go further still and mandate equivalent restroom throughput, but it appears they haven't, so women will still be disadvantaged to some extent. But the sexes are mechanically different, so perfect parity isn't reality.
The only favoritism argument that can be made is a purely monetary one, as rent on more floorspace is more expensive, so they'd be spending more money per woman on toilet facilities. I don't put it past the government to reduce the problem to an inappropriate measure.
Still, I wonder if there haven't been any novel advances in toilet design in the past century that could address the disparity more efficiently.
This was my thought--so what if they did? We did it more than 50 years ago, the Teller-Ulam designed warhead dates to 1951. Fusing two atoms is trivial.
Hey, let's not burden the journalists with dry facts.
In house software for government jobs is the way to go. 1) ... 4) ...
You seem to have left off 'junkets to the tropics' from your list. Perhaps that was an oversight.
You know, the ones that take several strokes to move the pointer across the screen and click if you tap too hard.
Most OS's have configuration tools to adjust both of these to your preference. 'Mouse acceleration' and 'tap to click' would be terms to look for.
damn, that's spooky, my thoughts exactly.
"This Is" disappeared from my post, weird.
um, you do know that primary aphasia is one of the risk factors for vasectomy, right?
Cool, thanks for the background info.
What happens if they don't find anything?
Then it re-enforces the notion that we're living in universe that cheats. Like a simulation would.
We already have data that fits the theory so perhaps this space probe could show that it was wrong, somehow. It seems better to spend money chasing promising results, though.
This one has more detail, and is actually really-well written. Really, an AP story with some investigative journalism. Kudos, guy, you're making your co-workers look bad. :)
I think that was the coolest commercial I have ever seen.
Let me just say this to the guy at Google who:
<WaynesWorld>
We're Not Worthy! We're Not Worthy!
</WaynesWorld>
Somebody please post a scan of this most legendary PO of all time.
it's the possibility of damaging DNA that would be trouble
Risk/reward. What if there's a .00000001 chance of getting a melanoma from it? How does that stack up to post-surgical infection risk?
We're pretty good at DNA repair. Humans can take a 3 Rem exposure without much change in outcomes. Diet Coke contains mitochondrial DNA mutagens.
Given the choice at my local hospital, I'd take the chance and not have a big scar. My existing scar tissue has more problems than normal skin, so there are other risks down the line to consider as well.
Just don't lock anything. And leave your car key in your car's ignition.
That drains the battery in some cars (though not a 90's Chevy truck, I know). Leave them in the center console.
I mean, it's still illegal to steal stuff, so no one's going to.
Yeah, if you live somewhere worth living (IMHO, of course). It also helps to drive an old cheap car and put an NRA sticker on the back window.
Locking everything up is a real pain, rarely but sometimes dangerous, and not very effective. Surveillance and a 'no tresspassing' sign is probably more effective in most cases.
C'mon, half of us would've been blacksmiths in a different era - it's perfectly fair game.
But, yeah, an X-acto would have been a superior choice. Who hacks on SIM cards and doesn't have an X-acto set? Oh, right, he does, but probably wanted to show off his hundred-dollar vegetable knife. :)
I recognize his kind.
You would have a point, except that BP carries no insurance for spills.
It's OK to self-insure. What's not OK, at least by me, is the absolution of responsibility with the government fake-out called 'corporations'. If there was responsibility, I suspect they'd carry insurance. Instead we wind with with captured regulators issuing fines for 1% of the cost-savings of whatever bad thing that was done. Yeah, that'll show 'em boys!