Isn't Gecko supposed to be the new 100% HTML standards compatible engine? I went to the test page for the new standards, and it failed miserably. It looked NOTHING like what it was supposed to. Granted, it did come out looking better than Netscape Communicator 4.5, but it is still wrong. That seems truely odd, as I tried the tests of the Mozilla engine that I got directly from Netscape the other day, and it rendered correctly! Perhaps I'm missing something here. Are these two seperate engines? Is Gecko not the same engine as what is being used with the test Mozilla?
On a side note, I do like the interface. It's about time someone made an attempt to make their software look nice. It's almost as good as the customizable interfaces from X (not quite, but it's a nice start). I'm interested to see just what this company is going to produce in the future. Worth a looksee.
The only time that I've ever seen the inside of CompUSA was when I was looking for an audio cable for my CD-ROM to sound card. I found one, but didn't buy it. They were asking $22.
From some of the posts that I've read, people are missing the point. This is NOT a newbie user asking for help. On the contrary, it is instead a user writing an editorial on the whole Linux experience. Had this article been posted at any other new site on the net, Rob and the gang would be receiving many a submission email for it. At the point that they would post said link, others would post their comments on it including the inevitable "I'm insulted that he refers to us as GEEKS" or "Why are his Quote marks screwed?"
However, while this is a "professional writer", Jon does not seem to afford his Slashdot articles the same attention that he would other pieces of work. There were several places that were rough at best. This would earn an automatic C if I turned it in to any college level course. Fragments, the infamous typing of the same words two times in a row, and many misspellings such as Trinotron which to the rest of the world is Trinitron.
All in all, I thought it was a good article. It's the type of thing that I actually read when published in PC Computing, PC Week, or any of the hundreds of other PC [fill in the blank] publications that line every supermarket aisle in the United States.
No, I was just commenting that we have had a reactor that could use plutonium as its fuel for a while. I'm not sure why these other breeder reactors aren't used for this same purpose. probably because its too damn expensive to transport the relatively unstable plutonium. People are worried about hijacks, train wrecks, car crashes, terrorist activity, radiation leakage and lots of other things that may or may not be realistic. If they can use these in a standard reactor, though, that is probably very different from the way they are used in a breeder. I just claim what I learned in Physics 101 Energy and the Environment, and that was just a side note.
We've been able to do this for quite some time. They're called Breeder reactors. They produce Plutonium as a byproduct of a slightly altered reaction. This plutonium can then be used in the reactor for power.
The next advance in nuclear power will be shrinking the reactors to the point that it wouldn't matter even if they did melt down because they would simply use up all of their own power in this melting. No excess energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't Gecko supposed to be the new 100% HTML standards compatible engine? I went to the test page for the new standards, and it failed miserably. It looked NOTHING like what it was supposed to. Granted, it did come out looking better than Netscape Communicator 4.5, but it is still wrong. That seems truely odd, as I tried the tests of the Mozilla engine that I got directly from Netscape the other day, and it rendered correctly! Perhaps I'm missing something here. Are these two seperate engines? Is Gecko not the same engine as what is being used with the test Mozilla?
On a side note, I do like the interface. It's about time someone made an attempt to make their software look nice. It's almost as good as the customizable interfaces from X (not quite, but it's a nice start). I'm interested to see just what this company is going to produce in the future. Worth a looksee.
They comment about this on their home page. Just go to the downloads page and there's info there.
The only time that I've ever seen the inside of CompUSA was when I was looking for an audio cable for my CD-ROM to sound card. I found one, but didn't buy it. They were asking $22.
From some of the posts that I've read, people are missing the point. This is NOT a newbie user asking for help. On the contrary, it is instead a user writing an editorial on the whole Linux experience. Had this article been posted at any other new site on the net, Rob and the gang would be receiving many a submission email for it. At the point that they would post said link, others would post their comments on it including the inevitable "I'm insulted that he refers to us as GEEKS" or "Why are his Quote marks screwed?"
However, while this is a "professional writer", Jon does not seem to afford his Slashdot articles the same attention that he would other pieces of work. There were several places that were rough at best. This would earn an automatic C if I turned it in to any college level course. Fragments, the infamous typing of the same words two times in a row, and many misspellings such as Trinotron which to the rest of the world is Trinitron.
All in all, I thought it was a good article. It's the type of thing that I actually read when published in PC Computing, PC Week, or any of the hundreds of other PC [fill in the blank] publications that line every supermarket aisle in the United States.
Pi is 3.14159 -- not 3.1459
No, I was just commenting that we have had a reactor that could use plutonium as its fuel for a while. I'm not sure why these other breeder reactors aren't used for this same purpose. probably because its too damn expensive to transport the relatively unstable plutonium. People are worried about hijacks, train wrecks, car crashes, terrorist activity, radiation leakage and lots of other things that may or may not be realistic. If they can use these in a standard reactor, though, that is probably very different from the way they are used in a breeder. I just claim what I learned in Physics 101 Energy and the Environment, and that was just a side note.
We've been able to do this for quite some time. They're called Breeder reactors. They produce Plutonium as a byproduct of a slightly altered reaction. This plutonium can then be used in the reactor for power.
The next advance in nuclear power will be shrinking the reactors to the point that it wouldn't matter even if they did melt down because they would simply use up all of their own power in this melting. No excess energy.