What's the problem with cars changing lanes between you and the car in front of you? I notice many times people trying to keep me from changing lanes, even when I need to in order to perform a necessary merge or get to an offramp. I think you need to loosen up a bit and not hog the road. It's perfectly okay and even necessary for cars to change lanes. Driving isn't a race.
When I don't tailgate, the drivers behind me do often try to pass me on the right. That almost never works, because the reason I'm in the left lane is because I'm going faster than those on the right. If the driver behind me switches lanes, they need to slow down.
Drivers regularly tailgate me even when I'm passing and cannot possibly go any faster because I'm already going as fast as the car ahead of me. I guess they're peeved that I'm driving a full three seconds behind the car ahead of me. I do this because the drivers ahead of me often stop quickly because they're tailing the cars ahead of them, and also people regularly tail me so that I need to make sure I brake slowly so they won't run into me. If everyone stops tailing, we can all drive faster and in addition I can follow more closely.
Drivers regularly tailgate me when I'm driving the same speed as the car in front of me and passing cars to the right of me. I'm usually going above the speed limit and paying full attention to my driving. What's up with that? Do they think they're magically going to speed me up by tailing me? I guess so, because they often try to pass my on the right, and of course fail because the cars in that lane are going slower.
This is the great danger that intelligent design poses to the U.S., according to Ken Miller. By trying to put the supernatural into science, it turns all of science into just another belief system, causing many to call evolution and global warming a "religion".
Our galaxy will continue to merge with other galaxies around us, as has happened for the past several billion years. The expansion of space will push all other galaxies out beyond the limit of the observable universe. Hundreds of billions of years from now, astronomers in our galaxy will see only our galaxy and no others. Astronomers in other galaxies would similarly see only their galaxy. Scientific American had an article on this exact topic a few months ago.
Actually, CMB is not from the Big Bang, but from the "recombination" event about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That's when the universe changed from cloudy to clear, and the light in the universe was suddenly free to travel in straight lines. But again, this event took place all over the universe at the same time, therefore we see the radiation coming from all directions. At this time, the universe was nearly uniform (to one part in 100,000), so the radiation is nearly uniform in all directions.
Your mistake is thinking that time and space are constants. They are not. They are relative to your reference frame. Hence the name relativity. After one hour, the two people are two light hours apart from each other from your reference frame. From their reference frame, time is going slower and distances in the directions they are traveling are shorter, so they would not measure themselves as being two light hours apart. They would measure themselves as being no more than one light hour apart, although from your reference frame it would be many billions of years in the future at that time.
As the article says, there will be cooler years and warmer years, part of the normal variability of Earth's climate. You should look at the trends over a long period, and ten years is not long. As the quote at end of that article says, "There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
You're confusing science with religion, as the creationists do. You're also confusing solar activity (the number of sunspots on the sun) with solar output (the amount of energy given out by the sun). I would agree that we should leave emotions out of the discussion. Read what the majority of unemotional scientists have to say, and not the sensationalist media, or the extremist scientists.
Konqueror is using 33% less memory than Firefox after one page is loaded. I think you'll see that advantage drop as you continue to load pages. Be sure to load the same pages in both browsers for a fair comparison. It's only after you actually start using the browsers that you notice the memory improvements in Firefox. And that's the memory use that matters, not memory use after loading just one page.
512 MB of RAM is simply not enough to comfortably run Windows XP, Outlook, Powerpoint, Word, Excel, Visio, and two different browsers. 512 MB of RAM is the minimum needed to run Windows XP and a few light applications. For a heavy user such as yourself, 1 GB is needed if you don't want it swapping to death.
This has been always. Everything (Gecko, Mozilla, SeaMonkey, Camino, Thunderbird, etc.) is all developed on the same branch or all on the trunk. There are different branches for different versions, but each branch contains everything.
I would be very surprised if a full-featured, modern browser used significantly less memory or was significantly faster than Firefox 3. Maybe Dillo and Links, but not Konqueror.
Firefox will not crash due to a badly implemented web site. Firefox will crash only due to a bug in Firefox or software that is running inside the Firefox process that you have installed on your computer, such as an extension, plugin, driver, or the operating system itself, or in some circumstances, a hardware problem. Is Firefox crashing often for you? If so, follow this advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that was a typo. Yes, of course the chances change from 1/3 to 2/3. Did I type it right this time?
They can't move the goats or car during the game. Therefore, changing your door choice will change your chances of winning from 1/2 to 2/3.
What's the problem with cars changing lanes between you and the car in front of you? I notice many times people trying to keep me from changing lanes, even when I need to in order to perform a necessary merge or get to an offramp. I think you need to loosen up a bit and not hog the road. It's perfectly okay and even necessary for cars to change lanes. Driving isn't a race.
Care to elaborate?
When I don't tailgate, the drivers behind me do often try to pass me on the right. That almost never works, because the reason I'm in the left lane is because I'm going faster than those on the right. If the driver behind me switches lanes, they need to slow down.
I don't know where you live, but in New Jersey, tailgating is a serious offense that can land you in jail for 15 days. It's pretty dangerous anyway, so I can't understand why anyone would want to follow too closely. Why run the risk of a serious and possibly fatal accident to get where you're going a few seconds faster?
Drivers regularly tailgate me even when I'm passing and cannot possibly go any faster because I'm already going as fast as the car ahead of me. I guess they're peeved that I'm driving a full three seconds behind the car ahead of me. I do this because the drivers ahead of me often stop quickly because they're tailing the cars ahead of them, and also people regularly tail me so that I need to make sure I brake slowly so they won't run into me. If everyone stops tailing, we can all drive faster and in addition I can follow more closely.
Drivers regularly tailgate me when I'm driving the same speed as the car in front of me and passing cars to the right of me. I'm usually going above the speed limit and paying full attention to my driving. What's up with that? Do they think they're magically going to speed me up by tailing me? I guess so, because they often try to pass my on the right, and of course fail because the cars in that lane are going slower.
This is the great danger that intelligent design poses to the U.S., according to Ken Miller. By trying to put the supernatural into science, it turns all of science into just another belief system, causing many to call evolution and global warming a "religion".
If gravity always wins, then why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Our galaxy will continue to merge with other galaxies around us, as has happened for the past several billion years. The expansion of space will push all other galaxies out beyond the limit of the observable universe. Hundreds of billions of years from now, astronomers in our galaxy will see only our galaxy and no others. Astronomers in other galaxies would similarly see only their galaxy. Scientific American had an article on this exact topic a few months ago.
If you believe science and religion are in conflict, you are either taking you religion far too literally or not understanding science.
Actually, CMB is not from the Big Bang, but from the "recombination" event about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. That's when the universe changed from cloudy to clear, and the light in the universe was suddenly free to travel in straight lines. But again, this event took place all over the universe at the same time, therefore we see the radiation coming from all directions. At this time, the universe was nearly uniform (to one part in 100,000), so the radiation is nearly uniform in all directions.
Your mistake is thinking that time and space are constants. They are not. They are relative to your reference frame. Hence the name relativity. After one hour, the two people are two light hours apart from each other from your reference frame. From their reference frame, time is going slower and distances in the directions they are traveling are shorter, so they would not measure themselves as being two light hours apart. They would measure themselves as being no more than one light hour apart, although from your reference frame it would be many billions of years in the future at that time.
As the article says, there will be cooler years and warmer years, part of the normal variability of Earth's climate. You should look at the trends over a long period, and ten years is not long. As the quote at end of that article says, "There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
You're confusing science with religion, as the creationists do. You're also confusing solar activity (the number of sunspots on the sun) with solar output (the amount of energy given out by the sun). I would agree that we should leave emotions out of the discussion. Read what the majority of unemotional scientists have to say, and not the sensationalist media, or the extremist scientists.
What? Nitrogen gas constitutes 78 per cent of the atmosphere and it has no direct greenhouse effect..
Uh, what? Where is the part about the sun's output not affecting global temperatures? Could you post some links to these predictions you mention?
You are correct that scientists are split in their opinion about the next solar cycle. Some say it will be more intense than the last one, and others say it will be less intense. But it doesn't have anything to do with any global warming debate.
Konqueror is using 33% less memory than Firefox after one page is loaded. I think you'll see that advantage drop as you continue to load pages. Be sure to load the same pages in both browsers for a fair comparison. It's only after you actually start using the browsers that you notice the memory improvements in Firefox. And that's the memory use that matters, not memory use after loading just one page.
So... it's faster for the vast majority of users that don't tweak those settings. That is new for beta 5.
512 MB of RAM is simply not enough to comfortably run Windows XP, Outlook, Powerpoint, Word, Excel, Visio, and two different browsers. 512 MB of RAM is the minimum needed to run Windows XP and a few light applications. For a heavy user such as yourself, 1 GB is needed if you don't want it swapping to death.
This has been always. Everything (Gecko, Mozilla, SeaMonkey, Camino, Thunderbird, etc.) is all developed on the same branch or all on the trunk. There are different branches for different versions, but each branch contains everything.
I would be very surprised if a full-featured, modern browser used significantly less memory or was significantly faster than Firefox 3. Maybe Dillo and Links, but not Konqueror.
Firefox will not crash due to a badly implemented web site. Firefox will crash only due to a bug in Firefox or software that is running inside the Firefox process that you have installed on your computer, such as an extension, plugin, driver, or the operating system itself, or in some circumstances, a hardware problem. Is Firefox crashing often for you? If so, follow this advice.