I just wrote them a lengthy letter asking them to consider supporting browsers other than IE. I suggest other people do the same
There's no need to. The problems with the bmwusa.com site are filed as Tech Evangelism bug 92514 in Bugzilla. A better use of your time might be to vote for that bug to encourage Mozilla evangelists to contact the site author.
There are goggles that blink a few times to indicate that the dreamer has entered the REM stage of sleep. When the dreamer sees the blinking in the dream, it's a reminder that it's a dream and it serves as a cue to have a lucid dream. But that's not what the poster is referring to.
The poster is referring to "light and sound machines", which can induce brainwaves using blinking lights and beeping. They're great for helping to induce a hypnotic state and also to induce sleep. Do a Google search to find out more...
Mozilla 1.0 has a setting for automatic software update notifications, which I have enabled. Why wasn't I notified of this?!
The options for Update Notifications are weekly or monthly. If you select the option to check for updates on a weekly basis, of course there can be up to a one week delay until you are notified of a new release.
The feature is more for clueless users who don't know to check for updates, so the default is to check on a weekly basis. If this feature didn't exist, there would be many users running years-old versions of Mozilla.
since the A constructor and destructor will be called fewer times, and they may have side effects.
You mean without the optimization, A's copy constructor is called when returning the value, and with the optimization, it isn't? I thought the optimization was just assigning the register that the value a is stored in so the return statement did not require a move instruction. If so, they should have been more explicit in describing the optimization!
I think part of that problem is the rate at which such information changes in this field, compared with the time it takes for a publishing cycle.
That doesn't explain my comments about CSS Pocket Reference. Why publish the book right before IE6 is released, and why completely leave out CSS2? It sounds more like bad planning than a rapid rate of changing information.
Meanwhile, as your links show, you can always check the book's web page on the O'Reilly site for errata. Just print that page out and keep it with the book (or even go through and make the corrections by hand). Beats paying for a new edition.
First of all, that assumes that the errata entered by customers is complete and accurate. Sometimes customers will send in what's incorrect or missing, but not give the correct information. Sometimes they think the information in the book is wrong when in fact it's correct. Second, even small books have such a long errata list, such as HTML Pocket Reference, 2nd Edition, that a new printing is the only practical way to fix the problems. That small 96 page book has dozens of errors and omissions, some major. Finally, O'Reilly does not publish changes between editions. They used to publish changes between printings, but no more!
The editing of O'Reilly books has for some reason suffered over the past few years. The most obvious symptom is that O'Reilly used to correct mistakes with nearly every new printing, about twice a year for an average O'Reilly book. However, now I cannot find a single O'Reilly title that has corrected printings for the last year. For example, compare the printings of JS: TNG3 (10 reprints in 3 years) vs. JS: TNG3 (0 reprints in 9 months). Another example is HTML: The Definitive Guide, 3rd edition (4 reprints in 2 years) vs. HTML: The Definitive Guide, 4th edition (2 reprints in 2 years). Can you find a corrected reprint that has happened within the past year?
Another disturbing trend is that new books don't contain information that is as up-to-date as before. An obvious example is CSS Pocket Reference. Even though it was published last year, it doesn't cover any of CSS2. For some odd reason, the book was published right before IE6 was released, and so doesn't have any information about what will become the most popular browser in the world this year. And don't expect a corrected printing any time soon!
It used to be the case that you could count an O'Reilly books having the most accurate and up-to-date information. Nowadays, that isn't true any more.
Sheesh! Any economist will tell you that frictional unemployment is 6%! What that means is if you have 100 workers and 100 jobs, at any given moment 6 of them will be unemployed (going to school, bumming around Europe, dropping a kid, "finding themselves", or just jerking off). Anything less than 6% indicates a shortage of workers!
Any economist will also tell you that people going to school or bumming around Europe are not considered "unemployed." Only people actively looking for work are considered unemployed. See this definition of unemployment rate. A 4-6% unemployment rate is healthy, but around 2% is reachable.
You can probably get help on the IRC channels. Read the article on IRC at MozillaNews.org to get you started. Once you can get into the Mozilla newsgroups, you can get futher support there.
The development rooadmap for Mozilla implies that the final version of the 1.1 branch should be out in july 31st.
It never ceases to amaze me how people misread the roadmap. No, the final version Mozilla 1.1 will not be available on July 31.
The roadmap says that the tree will freeze for 1.1 on July 31. All that means is that checkins will require an extra approval step to avoid risky changes after that date.
The tree will then branch on August 2. This means that developers can checkin changes to the trunk without approval, but checkins for 1.1 will still require approval.
Ideally, the final version Mozilla 1.1 will be released on August 9. That means that August 9 is the earliest possible date you should expect it to be ready. It might take a week or two longer than that.
I've been running the nightly builds on Windows 98SE since before Mozilla 1.0 and it crashes less than once per week for me. If crashes are bothering you, download the alpha and beta releases as soon as they become available and send in talkback reports. This will help get the crashes you experience fixed more quickly.
If you don't already, try the installer builds and uninstall the previous version before installing a new version. This way of updating has been more stable for me than the zip builds.
Re:Windows XP reason we need more than 4GB?
on
AMD's 64-Bit Chip
·
· Score: 1
Dude, 4Gb of RAM isn't that much.
Dude, I didn't say that it was. I just asked a simple question.
Re:Windows XP reason we need more than 4GB?
on
AMD's 64-Bit Chip
·
· Score: 1
Gimme a break! The reason has nothing to do with Windows XP. It has to do with databases more than anything. Crikey.
Many databases need more than 4 GB of disk space, but which ones need more than 4 GB of RAM?
Without doing a formal proof, I'm still fairly certain that positive and negative look-behind are still equivilant to classical regular expressions.
Still, these are new features that have been added to regexes in the past few years. Even if they don't offer any additional power, they at least make regexes easier to read in practive.
Here's a challenge -- post a Perl regexp that is not a classical regular expression.
Easy!/(a*)b\1/ It matches strings with an equal number of a's after the b as come before the b. For example, b, aba, aabaa, aaabaaa, etc.
You can't do that with a classical regular expression, because they can have only a bounded amount of "memory". The capturing parens work around this limitation by storing an unbounded amount of substring.
In classical regular expressions, determinitic and non-deterministic finite state machines are equivalent. In regexes, however, deterministic and non-deterministic engines work differently, and it's often important to know which kind you're using.
Regular expressions haven't changed since the seventies, at the latest.
You're wrong. Regular expressions have gained new features over the years. Positive and negative look-behind are two features that come to mind.
Perhaps you're thinking of the classical computer-science "regular expession" that really hasn't changed. The book and article cover another type of regular expression that is more powerful than this classical concept. It's unfortunate that two closely related but different concepts share the same term.
No, you cannot even tell if XML is well-formed with a regex. The reason is that it takes an unbounded amount of memory to remember which tags are still open, but regexs have only a bounded amount of memory.
One of the important aspects of using regexes is to know their limits and not try to use them outside of those limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, isn't that three complaints?
Adding support for Ogg Vorbis and Tarkin is bug 4499904 in the Bug Parade. This seems like a good time to vote for the bug and add your comments.
The poster is referring to "light and sound machines", which can induce brainwaves using blinking lights and beeping. They're great for helping to induce a hypnotic state and also to induce sleep. Do a Google search to find out more...
The feature is more for clueless users who don't know to check for updates, so the default is to check on a weekly basis. If this feature didn't exist, there would be many users running years-old versions of Mozilla.
Why would it go against the spec? It's just an optimization. This means it affects the speed of the generated code, but not the behavior.
Another disturbing trend is that new books don't contain information that is as up-to-date as before. An obvious example is CSS Pocket Reference. Even though it was published last year, it doesn't cover any of CSS2. For some odd reason, the book was published right before IE6 was released, and so doesn't have any information about what will become the most popular browser in the world this year. And don't expect a corrected printing any time soon!
It used to be the case that you could count an O'Reilly books having the most accurate and up-to-date information. Nowadays, that isn't true any more.
The fact that you somehow got moderated up means there are a lot of Slashdot readers smoking crack!
You can probably get help on the IRC channels. Read the article on IRC at MozillaNews.org to get you started. Once you can get into the Mozilla newsgroups, you can get futher support there.
If you tell me the bug number, I'll vote for it and consider nominating it to be fixed for Mozilla 1.2.
The roadmap says that the tree will freeze for 1.1 on July 31. All that means is that checkins will require an extra approval step to avoid risky changes after that date.
The tree will then branch on August 2. This means that developers can checkin changes to the trunk without approval, but checkins for 1.1 will still require approval.
Ideally, the final version Mozilla 1.1 will be released on August 9. That means that August 9 is the earliest possible date you should expect it to be ready. It might take a week or two longer than that.
If you don't already, try the installer builds and uninstall the previous version before installing a new version. This way of updating has been more stable for me than the zip builds.
2^64 is about 10^20 (because 2^3 is less than 10), and there are 6.02 x 10^23 (Avogadro's number) atoms in just 12 grams of carbon.
The 386 actually came out around 1985, not 1995, so Motorola was only about a year ahead of Intel.
It matches strings with an equal number of a's after the b as come before the b. For example, b, aba, aabaa, aaabaaa, etc.
You can't do that with a classical regular expression, because they can have only a bounded amount of "memory". The capturing parens work around this limitation by storing an unbounded amount of substring.
In classical regular expressions, determinitic and non-deterministic finite state machines are equivalent. In regexes, however, deterministic and non-deterministic engines work differently, and it's often important to know which kind you're using.
Perhaps you're thinking of the classical computer-science "regular expession" that really hasn't changed. The book and article cover another type of regular expression that is more powerful than this classical concept. It's unfortunate that two closely related but different concepts share the same term.
One of the important aspects of using regexes is to know their limits and not try to use them outside of those limits.