Of course, it won't matter. Only Apple would put forth a "revolutionary" new product which offers a measly 2x improvement.
What about the 100m range? I think that it's the copper that is only twice as fast. I think the fiber was quite a lot more. Why not take a look for yourself?
But Joe Yeah-i-did-backups-last-year User might not even understand what beta means. There should be a large warning on this page.
Atleast it isn't as bad as when iTunes could wipe an entire partition.
Why is it that these things keep on happening? Is it because it's OS X is UNIX? Apple just still having a few teething probelms?
I've never had anything like this happen with Windows...Sure, it's stuffed up more than it fair share of installations to the point where they don't boot and need to be re-formated. But I've never lost any data.
The point of a browser is to browse, not deal with the browser.
But to browse, you have to deal with the browser;)
The better the dealing, the better the browsing.
I'm still keeping my hopes on Chimera at the moment. But will watch Safari with interest aswell.
As for IE, I'd still keep it "just in case" if I didn't already need it as a web-designer for testing. But I certainly won't be using for daily browsing anymore.
So what? who cares. get a better job. the future of tomorrow is customers ordering from a computer in a fast food restraunt while machines assemble your order. no need for worker slaves anymore. you should be happy that minimum wage jobs will disappear. ACT HAPPY! NOW!
Unfortunatly, that isn't that case. Corporations will go with what ever is cheapest. At the moment, employing poor people in 2rd and 3rd world contries seems to be the cheapest.
Unless you're planning on ridding the earth of capitalism or something, there will always be minimum wage.
Besides, for people over in the sweatshops, there are no other jobs that pay as well, that's how the coporations can pay them so little...Alot have nowhere else to go.
Not to mention that they will cost several times more than their so-called "labor-intensive" counterparts.
Have you any idea how much it costs to do ones-offs? Getting the mold for the plastic parts along would probably cost you over $10,000 (IIRC).
The only way things are as cheap as they are today is due to mass production. If you want to do a small run, it will cost you an insane amount of money. That's where this printer will pay off.
And how is it you know that it will always be expensive to produce it this way? Costs will decrease the more it's used, and as the technlogy improves. I thought that it was common knowledge that new technology can be more expensive at first.
Sometimes I really can't understand the attitude of some people on/.. Here is this really amazing technology...Printing real 3D electronic devices for f's sake. And all you can think up is some poor comment on about how expensive it will be? *sigh*
I think the idea is that what Safari renders, it renders just like Gecko...
I hope that's not the idea, because they should be making it render how the standards say, not another browser (with the exception of quirks mode).
Of course, since Gecko supports the standards well, it wouldn't matter too much I spose. But a copy of a copy will always loose something if you know what I mean.
On a different note. The main issue with browsers not supporting CSS or whatever, isn't the fact that they don't support them, but that they don't support them properly. It's OK to not support CSS2, but it's very bad to only support some of it.
LOL do these articles take into account the IE/IIS "secret love handshake(tm)"? There are lies then there is microsoft. p.s. I am using mozilla build id: 2002121216 on my 1ghz TiBook and this browser absolutely smokes. I would really like to know how "fast" is measured in a browser to see how this stacks up.
That's a different issue. All the browsers I use in my PC feel much faster than any on my Mac. Maybe if you own a TiBook you won't notice it, but get you hands on someones iBook and the difference will be noticable. Infact, I'm posting this right now from Safari, and it's still slow. Maybe slightly faster than Chimera, but still slow over all compared to my PC or when I'm in OS 9.
Why not let Apple choose KHTML? If we wake up one day and find that only Gecko is out there, IE died and Konqueror is "that other browser" (Like Opera and Mozilla are considered today, in the mainstream, although both are gaining considerable acceptance), where would we have gotten? Except for the fact it's open source, it'll be no different than IE.
Your agrument is flawed in the fact that Mozilla and other browsers don't have a whole lot of non-standards features built into them.
Who cares if a few other HTML engines die off and only Gecko based browsers are around. As long as they're standards complient, it doesn't matter. It would be completly different from the current situation with IE.
The only reason IE is pain in terms of people writing only for IE, is because IE dosn't support the standards as well as Mozilla, and it has it own little extentions the exclude other browsers.
A better question would be: Why re-invent the wheel? What is it that progammers say? Never write the same code twice?
I think Apple would have been better off working with the Gecko engine and making improvments to that. After all, it is generally accepted that it's a better engine in terms of supporting the standards compared to KHTML.
designers will have no choice but to stick to open standards instead of writing to one specific browser.
Wrong. Now instead of writing to the standards, which Gecko supports very well, they'll have to go back to browser sniffing and serving up something that the KHTML engine can render.
It sucks, it's a pain in the ass, it won't help designers make standards complient sites. It will create more hacks if anything.
AFAIK, Gecko doesn't have any non-standards components anyway. If you were talking about IE's rendering engine, then you would have a valid point.
Apple know that browsing speeds on OS X are much slower in general than Win at the moment. There have even been articals on the issue.
Maybe they're getting a browser that is fast out the door while they're working on a better Gecko based browser? After all, that did hire that guy who worked on Chimera and Mozilla (one or the either, or both).
I've tried Safari on some of my sites, and it doesn't come close to rendering them as well as Mozilla and brethern.
AAARRRRRHHHHHHH!!!
This is exactly what I was afraid of. I didn't mind if they used something other than Gecko, as long as it rendered as well as Gecko.
The last thing we need is another browser with a different level of support of CSS.
Now we have to balance between 4 browsers/rendering engines: IE6, Opera 7, Gecko, and Safari/KHTML.
Hopefully the story will change once it's out of beta.
And forget Photoshop Elements -- while the GIMP will never knock off Photoshop, its little brother will be toast in short order.
Only if you're a Linux/UNIX nut. Your average user, or even experience graphics designer or photographer is going to find GIMP hard to use. Sorry, but it's the truth, the GIMP GUI needs some serious work if it's to compete with Photoshop and the likes. It's not just a case of learning the GIMP properly because it does things differently.
You mean, they don't have an option to hook two hoses up to one hole in the wall? Seems like they just want to prey on their customers and stupid people. But I repeat myself.
Lets be a bit realistic here. It's basicly a tube, a wall mount, and a fan mount. Is it really worth their time and money designing a 2->1 tube adaptor or 2 hole wall mount for a few people when it's probably just as easy to have two "systems"? I doubt the cost would be that different.
Also, it's looks like a standard size wall mount, I doubt you could fit two on there anyway.
iVideoPod would be a good place to put those recorded videos your girlfriend sent you on your v-phone while you were away in Iraq bombing nazi's^H^H^H^H^H^Hiraqi's^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsheep...
Organic free-range does not equal wild. It's the sam genetic stock that the feedlots use, it's just kept differently.
I know that. My point was more the conditions they live in are much better. Anyway, they do taste different. Not as different as wild of course. But still different.
It's Amazing how many people on this site worship Google through the roof and laugh at sites that are honestly trying to compete. Does monopoly laws not apply to search engines?
No. Firstly, because I don't think Google even qualifies as a monopoly.
Secondly, Google didn't con and cheat it's way to the top. People use it because they prefer to use it. They simply have a better product/service.
...pop-ups are more visible (read as: annoying)...
They've not very visible when they're sitting behinde the page the person is reading. And they've not visible for very long when the person see the pop-up and reaches for the close button, that's if they get a chance to load.
I've never click on a pop-up, I occationaly click on a banner.
I cynically suspect they left out "and a heaping crapload of pop-ups."
Well, the point is moot since they don't use pop-ups anyway (well, I didn't get any).
What are you talking about? They aren't restricting anything. Go there youself and do a search, they list the sponsored results seperatly, and yes the other results are still there in full. Google already does this.
It makes much more sence to have sponors that may be of value to the user instead of annoying adds. They have to make money somehow.
Sigh. A company does somethign sensible, then they get ripped to shreads by uninformed meaningless/. poster babble.
You think animals are bred to be tasty? Hell no. They are bread to have a lot of meat. Have you ever raised your own food? It tasts much better when animals get fresh air and actually have a chance to live past 3 months old.
...And not pumped full of drugs and not crammed into crewl conditions like people in a nazi concentration camp. I oftern wonder how many people would become vegans once they knew what really went on in the livestock industry.
I had organic, free-range pork sausages once. You could just smell the difference when they were cooking.
Conceptually, it exists in multiple places, in reality in the techical side, it doesn't of course. But I think it would be obvious that were talking conceptually here, since the techical side is irrelivant from the users perspective.
So why shouldn't there be a proper implementation of a messy filesystem:-)
Mac OS 9 was pretty close. That's the idea it was based on--Spatial orientation. The mind remembers where (in a physical place sence) it was.
You could have the file orginisation skills of a circus animal, and still find last weeks report, becasue it would be same as where you last left it....No metadata needed (not implying metadata is useless of course, just highlighting the usefulness of spatial orientaion).
The "cool" touch-sensitive power button (using, I assume, the same technology as laptop trackpads) is, like those laptop trackpads, more trouble than it's worth. You have to be EXTREMELY careful when moving it around, because any light touch will send the machine into sleep mode immediately...
Ah yes. I encounted one of them. Definitly "cool" the first few times before the novelty wears off. First thing that came to mine was "gezz, wonder how many times she accidently puts it to sleep".
I don't think they use the same tech as trackpads (same principle? maybe), touch pads have been around for quite a while, my very very old alarm clock has a touch-sensitive snooze button.
Of course, the biggest problem with those touch buttons is: How are the androids going to use them? Maybe they'll have to train their cats? Now that would be impressive.
Hmmm....Lets see....They have the word "forever" in it's name, and the abbreviation is the same as "did not finish" and they've taken the number one vaporware award 2 years in a row and their CEO admits it's taking a long time, and says it will be done when it's done.
Things don't look too good for ol' Duke Nukem.
Wait a minute....and it's name has "Nukem" in it, maybe they're refering to what happened to their development team?:p
Slashdot Mirror
Would you like a gin and tonic, or a tonic and gin?
What about the 100m range? I think that it's the copper that is only twice as fast. I think the fiber was quite a lot more. Why not take a look for yourself?
Atleast it isn't as bad as when iTunes could wipe an entire partition.
Why is it that these things keep on happening? Is it because it's OS X is UNIX? Apple just still having a few teething probelms?
I've never had anything like this happen with Windows...Sure, it's stuffed up more than it fair share of installations to the point where they don't boot and need to be re-formated. But I've never lost any data.
But to browse, you have to deal with the browser ;)
The better the dealing, the better the browsing.
I'm still keeping my hopes on Chimera at the moment. But will watch Safari with interest aswell.
As for IE, I'd still keep it "just in case" if I didn't already need it as a web-designer for testing. But I certainly won't be using for daily browsing anymore.
Unfortunatly, that isn't that case. Corporations will go with what ever is cheapest. At the moment, employing poor people in 2rd and 3rd world contries seems to be the cheapest.
Unless you're planning on ridding the earth of capitalism or something, there will always be minimum wage.
Besides, for people over in the sweatshops, there are no other jobs that pay as well, that's how the coporations can pay them so little...Alot have nowhere else to go.
Have you any idea how much it costs to do ones-offs? Getting the mold for the plastic parts along would probably cost you over $10,000 (IIRC).
The only way things are as cheap as they are today is due to mass production. If you want to do a small run, it will cost you an insane amount of money. That's where this printer will pay off.
And how is it you know that it will always be expensive to produce it this way? Costs will decrease the more it's used, and as the technlogy improves. I thought that it was common knowledge that new technology can be more expensive at first.
Sometimes I really can't understand the attitude of some people on /.. Here is this really amazing technology...Printing real 3D electronic devices for f's sake. And all you can think up is some poor comment on about how expensive it will be? *sigh*
I hope that's not the idea, because they should be making it render how the standards say, not another browser (with the exception of quirks mode).
Of course, since Gecko supports the standards well, it wouldn't matter too much I spose. But a copy of a copy will always loose something if you know what I mean.
On a different note. The main issue with browsers not supporting CSS or whatever, isn't the fact that they don't support them, but that they don't support them properly. It's OK to not support CSS2, but it's very bad to only support some of it.
That's a different issue. All the browsers I use in my PC feel much faster than any on my Mac. Maybe if you own a TiBook you won't notice it, but get you hands on someones iBook and the difference will be noticable. Infact, I'm posting this right now from Safari, and it's still slow. Maybe slightly faster than Chimera, but still slow over all compared to my PC or when I'm in OS 9.
Your agrument is flawed in the fact that Mozilla and other browsers don't have a whole lot of non-standards features built into them.
Who cares if a few other HTML engines die off and only Gecko based browsers are around. As long as they're standards complient, it doesn't matter. It would be completly different from the current situation with IE.
The only reason IE is pain in terms of people writing only for IE, is because IE dosn't support the standards as well as Mozilla, and it has it own little extentions the exclude other browsers.
A better question would be: Why re-invent the wheel? What is it that progammers say? Never write the same code twice?
I think Apple would have been better off working with the Gecko engine and making improvments to that. After all, it is generally accepted that it's a better engine in terms of supporting the standards compared to KHTML.
Wrong. Now instead of writing to the standards, which Gecko supports very well, they'll have to go back to browser sniffing and serving up something that the KHTML engine can render.
It sucks, it's a pain in the ass, it won't help designers make standards complient sites. It will create more hacks if anything.
AFAIK, Gecko doesn't have any non-standards components anyway. If you were talking about IE's rendering engine, then you would have a valid point.
Maybe they're getting a browser that is fast out the door while they're working on a better Gecko based browser? After all, that did hire that guy who worked on Chimera and Mozilla (one or the either, or both).
AAARRRRRHHHHHHH!!!
This is exactly what I was afraid of. I didn't mind if they used something other than Gecko, as long as it rendered as well as Gecko.
The last thing we need is another browser with a different level of support of CSS.
Now we have to balance between 4 browsers/rendering engines: IE6, Opera 7, Gecko, and Safari/KHTML.
Hopefully the story will change once it's out of beta.
Only if you're a Linux/UNIX nut. Your average user, or even experience graphics designer or photographer is going to find GIMP hard to use.
Sorry, but it's the truth, the GIMP GUI needs some serious work if it's to compete with Photoshop and the likes. It's not just a case of learning the GIMP properly because it does things differently.
Lets be a bit realistic here. It's basicly a tube, a wall mount, and a fan mount. Is it really worth their time and money designing a 2->1 tube adaptor or 2 hole wall mount for a few people when it's probably just as easy to have two "systems"? I doubt the cost would be that different.
Also, it's looks like a standard size wall mount, I doubt you could fit two on there anyway.
I know that. My point was more the conditions they live in are much better. Anyway, they do taste different. Not as different as wild of course. But still different.
No. Firstly, because I don't think Google even qualifies as a monopoly.
Secondly, Google didn't con and cheat it's way to the top. People use it because they prefer to use it. They simply have a better product/service.
They've not very visible when they're sitting behinde the page the person is reading. And they've not visible for very long when the person see the pop-up and reaches for the close button, that's if they get a chance to load.
I've never click on a pop-up, I occationaly click on a banner.
I cynically suspect they left out "and a heaping crapload of pop-ups."
Well, the point is moot since they don't use pop-ups anyway (well, I didn't get any).
It makes much more sence to have sponors that may be of value to the user instead of annoying adds.
They have to make money somehow.
Sigh. A company does somethign sensible, then they get ripped to shreads by uninformed meaningless /. poster babble.
I had organic, free-range pork sausages once. You could just smell the difference when they were cooking.
You've completely lost me. Maybe you could re-phrase you original post?
Conceptually, it exists in multiple places, in reality in the techical side, it doesn't of course. But I think it would be obvious that were talking conceptually here, since the techical side is irrelivant from the users perspective.
Mac OS 9 was pretty close. That's the idea it was based on--Spatial orientation. The mind remembers where (in a physical place sence) it was.
You could have the file orginisation skills of a circus animal, and still find last weeks report, becasue it would be same as where you last left it....No metadata needed (not implying metadata is useless of course, just highlighting the usefulness of spatial orientaion).
Ah yes. I encounted one of them. Definitly "cool" the first few times before the novelty wears off. First thing that came to mine was "gezz, wonder how many times she accidently puts it to sleep".
I don't think they use the same tech as trackpads (same principle? maybe), touch pads have been around for quite a while, my very very old alarm clock has a touch-sensitive snooze button.
Of course, the biggest problem with those touch buttons is: How are the androids going to use them? Maybe they'll have to train their cats? Now that would be impressive.
Things don't look too good for ol' Duke Nukem.
Wait a minute....and it's name has "Nukem" in it, maybe they're refering to what happened to their development team? :p