Indeed. It also obviously only applied if there are more than two lines. for n>2, there are n lines that are not the fastest, so odds are n:1 that you are not in the fastest line.
The real question is: when there are only 2 (open) lines (which is often at my local supermarkets) why are you still always in the slowest line? And if you change, why does the new one always grind to a complete stop?
It still isn't entirely clear how their results came about, but I will venture a guess that they used the tileable options (on by default) that most tutorials correctly note you should disable.
Why they are on by default, I haven't the slightest clue.
My Portuguese isn't exactly good (working on it), so I can't tell if this is explained in the article, but as I've used resynthesizer before, I noticed that their results looked far worse than what I usually experience.
I've only tested one image, but there GIMP performed *much* better than what that blog would let you believe.
I resynthesized the same area in the large picture, so for comparison, look at the original compared to this - then contrast to the small version supposedly done by gimp in the bottom right corner: OriginalMy attempt (warning: 2.7MB, saved as PNG to avoid further artifacts).
I'm sorry, but most of your assertions are blatantly untrue.
1) Extensions created with Jetpack (the actual framework, not the prototype based on ideas from Ubiquity) have to a large extent the same powers as an old-style extension. There is a certain number of capabilities provided, but if you need more, you can write your own capabilities, share them, or indeed use others users shared capabilities.
2) As an official Jetpack Ambassador, and Ubiquity core developer (as previously mentioned, the base of some of the ideas for Jetpack), I can honestly say that I have never heard talks about ditching regular extensions, except from user-comments on sites like Slashdot. Indeed, many of us involved with the project have addressed this issue on several occasions.
3) The idea was never for "normal people" to make extensions, it was to widen the audience from a very few XUL developers (I believe the number is in the low end of 4-5000), to web-developers in general.
There are several interesting possibilities with this, amongst them companies using existing web developers in their employment to create work-flow enhancing extensions quickly, and letting website developers create new ways of interacting with their site. Especially in the latter case, the extensive security model in Jetpack compared with old-style extensions, and the ease of install/uninstall is paramount.
I can tell you that as far as I know, there are no plans to scrap the current extension system. The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions, that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions, and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process.
I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video http://www.vimeo.com/8372101 (a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin, head of UX at Mozilla) - and for those who can't be bothered with it all, you can skip to 35:10 or read this rough transcript:
"The rough plan for where we're going with this, is that by Firefox 3.7, this will be baked into Firefox in some degree, so that's end of Q2. [snip] And by Firefox 4 we're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions, and while I don't think we're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [...] we're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this." -- Aza Raskin
heh - this has allready been done - more or less...
I was at the world premiere of 'The Core' - and a few similarities can be spottet..:)
the major difference is the fact, that they detonate the nukes in the core, not in the sky...
well... it says nowhere that it is UNABLE to land on water... - in emergencies...
and.. it DOES state that it will be equipped with "the latest flight control technology" - which in my opinion means that it most likely WILL be able to detect rouge waves...
I haven't come across any articles describing the effects of waves or similar on the ground effect, but this page has quite a bit info on the effect itself
well.. that would pretty much put the concept of NEWS to rest, wouldn't it? If you can't post it when it's new, odds are, a lot fewer people will ever hear about it, hence a lot fewer to prove it wrong or right - a parallel to closed source could be drawn.... however - only the naive read news without the required grain of salt, news are news, if you want fact, get an encyclopedia...
as previously described, small moons ARE (or at least can be) interesting... just considering the cost of a new mission to investigate the moon, and perhaps others, I'm having trouble figuring out the benifit of delaying this research... don't get me wrong.. 1 mill IS a lot of money to loose, but if you aren't going to use the damn spacecraft, aren't the money allready lost?
Rocket engines are much more powerful, lighter, and more efficient (bizarely enough.)
well... not that bizare perhaps...
In the atmosphere, then yes.. jet-engines are more powerfull, but in space, a jet-engine would be useless...
the jet-engine compresses the air it intakes, and then pushes a turbine with again pushes air and voila.. movement...
now.. in space... there is no air to compress... so you need the propellant, which is simply "catapulted" out the bottom, thrusting the rocket in the oposite direction... a jet would get you nowhere...
I beg to differ... technology is here to benefit mankind, research to gain knowledge that may, or may not, lead to advances in technology....
many of the discoveries concerning the real essentials of science are made accidentally, or even in some genius' spare time, just playing around...
well.. you seem to be forgetting that:
1) it might be YOUR choice to smoke, but others are FORCED to put up with cancer-causing smoke, because you have an adiction...
2) cancer does not simply contain itself to one part of the body, and a large procentile of people suffering from smokerelated cancer, are hit by it in the throat-area, rather than in the lungs....
furthermore, it tends to spread rather rapidly, so even if you DO get it in the lungs, if you don't detect it relativly soon after, there's a great risk of it spreading to other organs, not so easily replaced...
hmm... I always thought Elisha Gray invented it...
has anyone else heard of her? - or is this just one of those weird memory-lapses I seem to get every one in a while...
An interesting aspect could be if we were able to controle these microbes, or perhaps geneticaly engineered ones, and use them to generate "rainfall on command"...
For instance if a forestfire erupts, we could just "summon" our small allies, and extinguish the flames with little or even no risc for human lives.
(Not that forestfires are to be put out, as they are quite good for the environment, but you get the point)
hmm... well correct me If I'm wrong, but consider this: say the ice is in a large hole on mars, as in underground, and it melts... well - water expands when it freezes, so the ice must then shrink. But hey! then it doesn't even fill up the whole in the ground the ice occupied, and certainly not cover the entire surface with 500 metres of water... So unless you assume that the entire hole colapses in, which must be quite a large chunk of the planet, this could never happen. And does that even sound like a good idea? - making half the planet collapse in on itself?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. It also obviously only applied if there are more than two lines. for n>2, there are n lines that are not the fastest, so odds are n:1 that you are not in the fastest line.
The real question is: when there are only 2 (open) lines (which is often at my local supermarkets) why are you still always in the slowest line? And if you change, why does the new one always grind to a complete stop?
According to this article http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitiken.dk%2Ftjek%2Fdigitalt%2F1065381%2Fnorsk-dreng-fik-twitter-i-knae%2F (google translated) it was a Norwegian boy who discovered the bug. Not that it really matters, I suppose...
It still isn't entirely clear how their results came about, but I will venture a guess that they used the tileable options (on by default) that most tutorials correctly note you should disable. Why they are on by default, I haven't the slightest clue.
My Portuguese isn't exactly good (working on it), so I can't tell if this is explained in the article, but as I've used resynthesizer before, I noticed that their results looked far worse than what I usually experience. I've only tested one image, but there GIMP performed *much* better than what that blog would let you believe. I resynthesized the same area in the large picture, so for comparison, look at the original compared to this - then contrast to the small version supposedly done by gimp in the bottom right corner: Original My attempt (warning: 2.7MB, saved as PNG to avoid further artifacts).
As I am curious, can a jetpack extension run a background timer independent of any window(as long as the application is running)?
Honestly, I don't know, but I imagine so.
Can a jetpack extension modify chrome elements and behaviours?
Yes. You can read more on the current version here: https://jetpack.mozillalabs.com/sdk/0.1/docs/ specifically the glossary might be interesting for a quick overview.
Is it just supposed to become a sort of official greasemonkey?
It is supposed to be a much more powerful greasemonkey, with a strong security system.
I'm sorry, but most of your assertions are blatantly untrue.
1) Extensions created with Jetpack (the actual framework, not the prototype based on ideas from Ubiquity) have to a large extent the same powers as an old-style extension. There is a certain number of capabilities provided, but if you need more, you can write your own capabilities, share them, or indeed use others users shared capabilities.
2) As an official Jetpack Ambassador, and Ubiquity core developer (as previously mentioned, the base of some of the ideas for Jetpack), I can honestly say that I have never heard talks about ditching regular extensions, except from user-comments on sites like Slashdot. Indeed, many of us involved with the project have addressed this issue on several occasions.
3) The idea was never for "normal people" to make extensions, it was to widen the audience from a very few XUL developers (I believe the number is in the low end of 4-5000), to web-developers in general.
There are several interesting possibilities with this, amongst them companies using existing web developers in their employment to create work-flow enhancing extensions quickly, and letting website developers create new ways of interacting with their site. Especially in the latter case, the extensive security model in Jetpack compared with old-style extensions, and the ease of install/uninstall is paramount.
Best regards,
-- cers / Christian Sonne
I can tell you that as far as I know, there are no plans to scrap the current extension system. The plan is to provide an easier way of developing extensions, that will be powerful enough for the vast majority of extensions, and easy enough to allow a far greater amount of people to take part in the process.
I believe much of this confusion could be alleviated if everyone concerned watched this video http://www.vimeo.com/8372101 (a talk on the topic by Aza Raskin, head of UX at Mozilla) - and for those who can't be bothered with it all, you can skip to 35:10 or read this rough transcript:
"The rough plan for where we're going with this, is that by Firefox 3.7, this will be baked into Firefox in some degree, so that's end of Q2. [snip] And by Firefox 4 we're really going to be pushing for making Jetpack or Jetpack enabled extensions the premier way of writing extensions, and while I don't think we're ever going to phase out the old model entirely [...] we're going to be pushing that almost everything happens inside of this." -- Aza Raskin
-- cers / Christian Sonne
.. the one samsung displayed not too long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2SCZvU8sGU
heh - this has allready been done - more or less... :)
I was at the world premiere of 'The Core' - and a few similarities can be spottet..
the major difference is the fact, that they detonate the nukes in the core, not in the sky...
well... it says nowhere that it is UNABLE to land on water... - in emergencies...
and.. it DOES state that it will be equipped with "the latest flight control technology" - which in my opinion means that it most likely WILL be able to detect rouge waves...
I haven't come across any articles describing the effects of waves or similar on the ground effect, but this page has quite a bit info on the effect itself
well.. that would pretty much put the concept of NEWS to rest, wouldn't it?
If you can't post it when it's new, odds are, a lot fewer people will ever hear about it, hence a lot fewer to prove it wrong or right - a parallel to closed source could be drawn....
however - only the naive read news without the required grain of salt, news are news, if you want fact, get an encyclopedia...
as previously described, small moons ARE (or at least can be) interesting...
just considering the cost of a new mission to investigate the moon, and perhaps others, I'm having trouble figuring out the benifit of delaying this research...
don't get me wrong.. 1 mill IS a lot of money to loose, but if you aren't going to use the damn spacecraft, aren't the money allready lost?
Rocket engines are much more powerful, lighter, and more efficient (bizarely enough.)
well... not that bizare perhaps...
In the atmosphere, then yes.. jet-engines are more powerfull, but in space, a jet-engine would be useless...
the jet-engine compresses the air it intakes, and then pushes a turbine with again pushes air and voila.. movement...
now.. in space... there is no air to compress... so you need the propellant, which is simply "catapulted" out the bottom, thrusting the rocket in the oposite direction... a jet would get you nowhere...
I beg to differ...
technology is here to benefit mankind, research to gain knowledge that may, or may not, lead to advances in technology....
many of the discoveries concerning the real essentials of science are made accidentally, or even in some genius' spare time, just playing around...
well.. you seem to be forgetting that:
1) it might be YOUR choice to smoke, but others are FORCED to put up with cancer-causing smoke, because you have an adiction...
2) cancer does not simply contain itself to one part of the body, and a large procentile of people suffering from smokerelated cancer, are hit by it in the throat-area, rather than in the lungs....
furthermore, it tends to spread rather rapidly, so even if you DO get it in the lungs, if you don't detect it relativly soon after, there's a great risk of it spreading to other organs, not so easily replaced...
hmm... I always thought Elisha Gray invented it...
has anyone else heard of her? - or is this just one of those weird memory-lapses I seem to get every one in a while...
duly noted... how would we survive without PowerPC's?
An interesting aspect could be if we were able to controle these microbes, or perhaps geneticaly engineered ones, and use them to generate "rainfall on command"...
For instance if a forestfire erupts, we could just "summon" our small allies, and extinguish the flames with little or even no risc for human lives.
(Not that forestfires are to be put out, as they are quite good for the environment, but you get the point)
hmm... well correct me If I'm wrong, but consider this:
say the ice is in a large hole on mars, as in underground, and it melts...
well - water expands when it freezes, so the ice must then shrink. But hey! then it doesn't even fill up the whole in the ground the ice occupied, and certainly not cover the entire surface with 500 metres of water...
So unless you assume that the entire hole colapses in, which must be quite a large chunk of the planet, this could never happen.
And does that even sound like a good idea? - making half the planet collapse in on itself?