I got all excited and went to test it out.... google gave me much more relevant pages every time.
That might be because (according to the article) the new functionality will only be "available beginning at 5 p.m. PST Monday"
I'm not too certain about the timezones (particularly with daylight savings thrown into the mix; and no, I can't be bothered to look up a worldclock right now), but I think PST time right now is something like 2 a.m.
So we still have a goodly while to go before we can really see what this search engine is capable of.
Not that I think this thing can actually beat Google, but at least wait with judging until you've seen the new and improved version of the engine, not what they have now...
Since it's commented out, it suggests they once showed that notice to Netscape 6 users, but have stopped doing so. Which in turn suggests they are no longer even trying...
As 'a few' people have already noted before now, non IE and NS 4.x browsers are being turned away. A "tech evangelism" bug for Mozilla has just been filed. (bug 134431 - ooh, palindrime bug).
Guess the evangelism guys will soon tear into Sharp and get them to fix this.:)
Here's a golden rule: NEVER EVER RECOMMEND MOZILLA TO ANY NON-GEEK!
I've been doing almost nothing but recommending Mozilla to non-geeks. Well, admittedly these people usually are less clueless than your average IE user, but at least I wouldn't call most of them geeks.
But the words "without all that AOL crap" work wonders, and then there's always "several thousand bugfixes ahead", not to mention that Mozilla has all the real killer features like tabbed browsing and the like which are still missing from netscape 6 (as far as I'm aware).
Depending on which functionality will be added to Mozilla in the time between 1.0 and the release of Netscape 6.5 I'll probably continue doing just this.
Netscape is something I only recommend to the totally clueless. For everyone else I continuously have the hope they'll look beyond and even become somewhat interested in the geek features of Mozilla. These people will never contribute any code (not that I do either, but time is the limiting factor for me), but who knows... they just might turn in a bug report somewhere along the way, or at least contribute some talkback data.
If a site doesn't work in Mozilla, create a "tech evangelism" bug in bugzilla and watch the pro's tear into the people who designed that website.
These people have been amazingly succesful in getting websites standards-compliant (which has the result that they'll work right in Mozilla as well).
Re:Thank Goodness the damned thing didn't win BP!
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 1
This was not a Journey. --I did not get the idea at all in the film that any significant time had passed from beginning to end.
I agree with you here. Particularly the time spent in Lothlorien totally didn't come across in the movie. If I remember correctly the party spent three or four months (!) in Lothlorien. In the movie it barely seems three to four days.
Sorry, but Tolkien would have hated it. This is NOT what he intended.
This, however, I strongly disagree with. Tolkien was never an author. (He was a linguist, and through that somebody who painstakingly created one of the most magical worlds ever conceived.) The pace of the story was almost accidental. In my opinion the only reason the books had that slow, languid pace because that was how Tolkien could best portray his world and the magic in it.
And the one thing Peter Jackson definitely did was show Tolkien's world. The magic was there, no matter how many deviations from the story occurred. Right from the very start, with the first glimpses of the Shire, Tolkien was along for the ride, taking us by the hand, showing us true magic.
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 1
They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.
You know what, that's actually true. I never really realized it, but a large part of the attraction of slashdot is the fact that it is opinionated. This isn't just a bland listing of news, but a view on the world from people who often are surprisingly (?) alike to most of us. And because that's showing through, we keep coming back.
-- Good thing there's no -1 sycophant.:)
Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?
And would that really be all that terrible? Shouldn't this be about which movie is best? If LotR is the best for three years in a row, than it should get that award three years in a row. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Might mean that other movies would strive a bit harder for the next two years.
I'd like that. Might see us some real quality instead of the usual drivel...
The DOS version has actually had the possibility of a 'real' graphical interface for quite some time already. And according to that page, now even the windows version has it.
Ah yes, progress... not like in the old days anymore...:)
*grins* pointing to the FAQ hasn't stopped requests like these being made. Sure, my reply won't accomplish that either, but I tried to show thought processes in my reply that could be followed without needing any other input, not even something as obvious as a FAQ. Thought processes you'd expect people who posts here at slashdot to be able to recreate on their own - preferably even before posting.
*adds a big fat wink to the person who'd posted the original request here* - not meaning to slam you... merely poking a bit of harmless fun perhaps...
I don't think I've seen more than a handful of articles on slashdot in recent months that didn't have this request. Usually the posts are modded up quite highly as well.
Now, assuming CmdrTaco and the other powers that be are not completely oblivious to what's happening here, they've seen the request. And despite a general theme of labeling all anti-micorosoft news as interesting, I assume they're somewhat open-minded as well.
So I figure they've either looked into things, or are still doing so. The problems I can see are (1) huge increase of bandwidth for slashdot itself because of the cache, (2) legal problems, and (3) technical problems with actually doing this.
Since Google is caching websites as well, I assume (2) and (3) should not be too much of a problem. Oh sure, it might take some time to really talk things through with lawyers and the like, and perhaps this is still happening, but eventually it shouldn't be a barrier. Likewise, slashdot employs some people who're tech-savvy enough that (3) shouldn't be a problem for very long as well.
Bandwidth however definitely could be a problem. I imagine caching linked to pages, even if it's only the first page directly behind the link, would increase bandwidth use by 50%-150% (remember, only 75% of al statistics are made up on the spot);)
Unfortunately bandwidth costs money. So if this is not something still in development (considering how long these requests have existed, I'd say that is slightly unlikely at this point), they've looked at it, and decided that it's not worth the money. Maybe, perhaps, they'd be willing to reconsider if the subscriptions are succesful enough, but I personally don't count on that ever happening.
The other possibility is linking to the google cache of the linked to pages directly from the article. It's extra effort that's not worth the time since there are plenty of karma whores who will do the same almost as soon as the article's up anyway.
But basically, I think there's really no use in continuing with these requests. Everything that can be said about it has been said more than once. The powers that be have undoubtedly seen it all. There's little more for us to do than wait and see, or most likely don't see.
Somehow, I doubt the government's good intentions.
I actually am serious about the following. I've seen more people here express the same sentiment. Do you people really not trust government in general that much? I know I don't trust the American goverment either, but here in Europe we don't have the feeling we need something like a right to bear arms to defend ourselves from the government. The government still consists of people. People we choose, and people who work for us, the people. Sure, politicians are politicians, no matter where they are, but there are enough checks and balances that I don't think anyone in Europe seriously thinks the government is working more for its own good, rather than for that of the people it's serving.
Yet from what I observe, there are very few people anywhere in the world who believe the government of the USA to do the same.
Now I wonder... Does this make people believe that Europeans are naive, that our governments are just as bad? Or do you actually trust the American government after all? (And if not, doesn't that say something very significant about that government?)
Or did you never realize a government can actually work for the good of the people, providing them security not only from itself, but also from other governments which aren't to be trusted as much (Echelon, Carnivore,...)?
I'm trying to ask this as non-offensively as possible, while still pointing to where I think the differences can be found. If you are offended, please, realize that was not the intent of this post. I simply really wonder about how you people from across the pond look at trusting both your own government and other governments.
Oh, so that must be why for example the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia, legalized softdrugs, legalized abortion, etc, etc. (And the lowest rates of problems because of it anywhere in the world.) There's freedom and freedom, you know. Personally I'd prefer living in a country where citizens are trusted with freedom to make their own choices, rather than living in a country where freedom consists of being allowed to have the feeling you can defend yourself from your government.
A silly law like being forced to lock your car doesn't change that. As for the protectionism of small businesses - a lot has changed with the European Union solidifying. I think you're a wee bit too hasty with judging and entire continent based on a very narrow view you had a long time ago.
When Microsoft wants to hide an exploit, we all cry foul.
Not quite true. Microsoft gets the same long month everyone usually gets after a major security hole has been discovered. It's the way the business works.
Only if after two months the problem still isn't fixed, and they still want to keep it a secret... well, that's where the difference can be found.
The way this particular behaviour works first appeared in 0.9.4, but earlier versions of not allowing windows to open on their own existed before that. Information like this on how to set certain options in your prefs.js is always the main reason for me to read the release notes. Some true gems in there every now and then.
How about voting for fixing the bugs like number 55583 before voting up new features. The inability to view source of non-static pages is IMHO a showstopper bug, at least for anybody who actually wants to develop websites using Moz...
Agreed. It's not to say that I don't want to see a lot of those other features, yesterday rather than today, but not being able to view the generated source of any page that is created with information from a submitted form is highly annoying.
And I personally still haven't figured out what is the least worse of the workarounds... saving the page and looking at that source, or actually opening Netscape 4.x for testing. (The only time I ever open another browser other than during the final testing of whatever site I've just created.)
I am missing something ?
could someone explain the "big" plus of tab-browsing...
The thing I personally find most useful is something that comes along with tabbed browsing. "load links in the background"
This means that you can now middle-click a link, and have a new tab opened for it without your current window losing focus. So read an interesting article, and middle-click any link you're even vaguely interested in. Once you're done reading the article, all those links will have been loaded in the other tabs and can be accessed with a simple Ctrl-PgDn
I get the feeling he's pretty relaxed about sharing copies on a small scale though
I wouldn't say that. Rather, as you also mention, he's simply realistic and knows that no matter how much he might hate it, it'll happen.
Though I don't actually think it happens all _that_ much. Perhaps a few copies between friends, but I've just searched in various places and haven't found any mention of the episodes so far. Then again, I probably don't have a clue where to look anyway.:)
I may even subscribe - think I'll read the free chapters first though.
Always a good idea.:) Two things I'd like to add though.
1) Don't be put off immediately by the present tense used in the story. Yes, it makes for quite strange reading at first, but you'll grow used to it, and it adds a great sense of immediacy.
2) Something I hope you'll be willing to take my word for (and for that matter, I hope people here are willing to forgive me for going slightly offtopic like this), the first five episodes do not do justice to the story. They're great for introducing the world and the characters, and showing a bit of the magic in the world, but after having read only the first five episodes I was fearing the story itself would be somewhat mediocre and cliche. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that only becomes apparent after those first few episodes.
Luckily they should be able to convince most people to want to read further anyway, but if after having read them you're doubting whether or not to subscribe, and the quality of the story is a major part of that, then you know now there's at least one person:) who thinks the story has far more promise later on.
*ponders* Hmm, maybe I should write a full fledged review for Shadowmarch for use here at slashdot... 's kinda hard with the project still running though. Hmm, I'll have to think about that.
Are you aware of Tad Williams' Shadowmarch? (Also see slashdot story 1 and 2)
It's his latest fantasy story, but he's publishing it online - completely on his own, no publishers involved. ($18 for a subscription of a year (first 5 episodes can be read for free), for which instead of proprietary formats used by far too many epublishing projects, you get regular HTML files - it's so good to be able to grep through your local copies to quickly find other references to characters or events.)
And although he's making far less money with it than with regular books, from what I know the site should be paying for itself. Which makes this a very interesting development for all authors wanting to do without publishers. Once you're a big name author, it is possible.:)
And I'm thinking, the more projects like this that will actually be somewhat succesful, the sooner people will be willing to give less known authors a try as well. Every satisfying experience will create more demand for similar projects, and will make other authors consider doing this sort of thing as well. Who knows, we might just not be doomed to eBooks after all...:)
As you also mentioned, the almost immediate reader feedback on what he writes was one of the major reasons to start this project. And I as a reader just love seeing how remarks and suggestions made about previous episodes have a noticeable impact on new episodes.
I hate to say this, but that Windows isn't on the list doesn't mean quite that much. From the FAQ about uptimes there:
Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
<snip>
* NT3/Windows 95
* NT4/Windows 98
The only Windows for which netcraft can track uptime is Windows 2000. Now if only windows 2000 had already existed for long enough to be able to appear in the list...
Oh well... Go linux!;) Er.. no, wait... can't say that either... Uhm, *hesitates* go BSD? *winces*;)
Slashdot Mirror
I got all excited and went to test it out. ... google gave me much more relevant pages every time.
That might be because (according to the article) the new functionality will only be "available beginning at 5 p.m. PST Monday"
I'm not too certain about the timezones (particularly with daylight savings thrown into the mix; and no, I can't be bothered to look up a worldclock right now), but I think PST time right now is something like 2 a.m.
So we still have a goodly while to go before we can really see what this search engine is capable of.
Not that I think this thing can actually beat Google, but at least wait with judging until you've seen the new and improved version of the engine, not what they have now...
Since it's commented out, it suggests they once showed that notice to Netscape 6 users, but have stopped doing so. Which in turn suggests they are no longer even trying...
As 'a few' people have already noted before now, non IE and NS 4.x browsers are being turned away. A "tech evangelism" bug for Mozilla has just been filed. (bug 134431 - ooh, palindrime bug). :)
Guess the evangelism guys will soon tear into Sharp and get them to fix this.
Here's a golden rule: NEVER EVER RECOMMEND MOZILLA TO ANY NON-GEEK!
I've been doing almost nothing but recommending Mozilla to non-geeks. Well, admittedly these people usually are less clueless than your average IE user, but at least I wouldn't call most of them geeks.
But the words "without all that AOL crap" work wonders, and then there's always "several thousand bugfixes ahead", not to mention that Mozilla has all the real killer features like tabbed browsing and the like which are still missing from netscape 6 (as far as I'm aware).
Depending on which functionality will be added to Mozilla in the time between 1.0 and the release of Netscape 6.5 I'll probably continue doing just this.
Netscape is something I only recommend to the totally clueless. For everyone else I continuously have the hope they'll look beyond and even become somewhat interested in the geek features of Mozilla. These people will never contribute any code (not that I do either, but time is the limiting factor for me), but who knows... they just might turn in a bug report somewhere along the way, or at least contribute some talkback data.
If a site doesn't work in Mozilla, create a "tech evangelism" bug in bugzilla and watch the pro's tear into the people who designed that website.
These people have been amazingly succesful in getting websites standards-compliant (which has the result that they'll work right in Mozilla as well).
This was not a Journey. --I did not get the idea at all in the film that any significant time had passed from beginning to end.
I agree with you here. Particularly the time spent in Lothlorien totally didn't come across in the movie. If I remember correctly the party spent three or four months (!) in Lothlorien. In the movie it barely seems three to four days.
Sorry, but Tolkien would have hated it. This is NOT what he intended.
This, however, I strongly disagree with. Tolkien was never an author. (He was a linguist, and through that somebody who painstakingly created one of the most magical worlds ever conceived.) The pace of the story was almost accidental. In my opinion the only reason the books had that slow, languid pace because that was how Tolkien could best portray his world and the magic in it.
And the one thing Peter Jackson definitely did was show Tolkien's world. The magic was there, no matter how many deviations from the story occurred. Right from the very start, with the first glimpses of the Shire, Tolkien was along for the ride, taking us by the hand, showing us true magic.
They just publish what they like. This place has character. Unlike most media.
:)
You know what, that's actually true. I never really realized it, but a large part of the attraction of slashdot is the fact that it is opinionated. This isn't just a bland listing of news, but a view on the world from people who often are surprisingly (?) alike to most of us. And because that's showing through, we keep coming back.
-- Good thing there's no -1 sycophant.
Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?
And would that really be all that terrible? Shouldn't this be about which movie is best? If LotR is the best for three years in a row, than it should get that award three years in a row. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Might mean that other movies would strive a bit harder for the next two years.
I'd like that. Might see us some real quality instead of the usual drivel...
The DOS version has actually had the possibility of a 'real' graphical interface for quite some time already. And according to that page, now even the windows version has it.
:)
Ah yes, progress... not like in the old days anymore...
See? Reverse psychology does work...
;)
uhm...
*grins* pointing to the FAQ hasn't stopped requests like these being made. Sure, my reply won't accomplish that either, but I tried to show thought processes in my reply that could be followed without needing any other input, not even something as obvious as a FAQ. Thought processes you'd expect people who posts here at slashdot to be able to recreate on their own - preferably even before posting.
*adds a big fat wink to the person who'd posted the original request here* - not meaning to slam you... merely poking a bit of harmless fun perhaps...
I don't think I've seen more than a handful of articles on slashdot in recent months that didn't have this request. Usually the posts are modded up quite highly as well.
;)
Now, assuming CmdrTaco and the other powers that be are not completely oblivious to what's happening here, they've seen the request. And despite a general theme of labeling all anti-micorosoft news as interesting, I assume they're somewhat open-minded as well.
So I figure they've either looked into things, or are still doing so. The problems I can see are (1) huge increase of bandwidth for slashdot itself because of the cache, (2) legal problems, and (3) technical problems with actually doing this.
Since Google is caching websites as well, I assume (2) and (3) should not be too much of a problem. Oh sure, it might take some time to really talk things through with lawyers and the like, and perhaps this is still happening, but eventually it shouldn't be a barrier. Likewise, slashdot employs some people who're tech-savvy enough that (3) shouldn't be a problem for very long as well.
Bandwidth however definitely could be a problem. I imagine caching linked to pages, even if it's only the first page directly behind the link, would increase bandwidth use by 50%-150% (remember, only 75% of al statistics are made up on the spot)
Unfortunately bandwidth costs money. So if this is not something still in development (considering how long these requests have existed, I'd say that is slightly unlikely at this point), they've looked at it, and decided that it's not worth the money.
Maybe, perhaps, they'd be willing to reconsider if the subscriptions are succesful enough, but I personally don't count on that ever happening.
The other possibility is linking to the google cache of the linked to pages directly from the article. It's extra effort that's not worth the time since there are plenty of karma whores who will do the same almost as soon as the article's up anyway.
But basically, I think there's really no use in continuing with these requests. Everything that can be said about it has been said more than once. The powers that be have undoubtedly seen it all. There's little more for us to do than wait and see, or most likely don't see.
Somehow, I doubt the government's good intentions.
...)?
I actually am serious about the following. I've seen more people here express the same sentiment. Do you people really not trust government in general that much? I know I don't trust the American goverment either, but here in Europe we don't have the feeling we need something like a right to bear arms to defend ourselves from the government. The government still consists of people. People we choose, and people who work for us, the people. Sure, politicians are politicians, no matter where they are, but there are enough checks and balances that I don't think anyone in Europe seriously thinks the government is working more for its own good, rather than for that of the people it's serving.
Yet from what I observe, there are very few people anywhere in the world who believe the government of the USA to do the same.
Now I wonder... Does this make people believe that Europeans are naive, that our governments are just as bad? Or do you actually trust the American government after all? (And if not, doesn't that say something very significant about that government?) Or did you never realize a government can actually work for the good of the people, providing them security not only from itself, but also from other governments which aren't to be trusted as much (Echelon, Carnivore,
I'm trying to ask this as non-offensively as possible, while still pointing to where I think the differences can be found. If you are offended, please, realize that was not the intent of this post. I simply really wonder about how you people from across the pond look at trusting both your own government and other governments.
They have absolutely no concept of freedom.
Oh, so that must be why for example the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia, legalized softdrugs, legalized abortion, etc, etc. (And the lowest rates of problems because of it anywhere in the world.) There's freedom and freedom, you know. Personally I'd prefer living in a country where citizens are trusted with freedom to make their own choices, rather than living in a country where freedom consists of being allowed to have the feeling you can defend yourself from your government.
A silly law like being forced to lock your car doesn't change that. As for the protectionism of small businesses - a lot has changed with the European Union solidifying. I think you're a wee bit too hasty with judging and entire continent based on a very narrow view you had a long time ago.
You mean "write once" actually did mean "write once" for you? Heh, that'll be quite a shock to java bashers... :)
When Microsoft wants to hide an exploit, we all cry foul.
Not quite true. Microsoft gets the same long month everyone usually gets after a major security hole has been discovered. It's the way the business works.
Only if after two months the problem still isn't fixed, and they still want to keep it a secret... well, that's where the difference can be found.
Way before that actually...
The way this particular behaviour works first appeared in 0.9.4, but earlier versions of not allowing windows to open on their own existed before that. Information like this on how to set certain options in your prefs.js is always the main reason for me to read the release notes. Some true gems in there every now and then.
How about voting for fixing the bugs like number 55583 before voting up new features. The inability to view source of non-static pages is IMHO a showstopper bug, at least for anybody who actually wants to develop websites using Moz...
Agreed. It's not to say that I don't want to see a lot of those other features, yesterday rather than today, but not being able to view the generated source of any page that is created with information from a submitted form is highly annoying.
And I personally still haven't figured out what is the least worse of the workarounds... saving the page and looking at that source, or actually opening Netscape 4.x for testing. (The only time I ever open another browser other than during the final testing of whatever site I've just created.)
I am missing something ?
could someone explain the "big" plus of tab-browsing...
The thing I personally find most useful is something that comes along with tabbed browsing. "load links in the background"
This means that you can now middle-click a link, and have a new tab opened for it without your current window losing focus. So read an interesting article, and middle-click any link you're even vaguely interested in. Once you're done reading the article, all those links will have been loaded in the other tabs and can be accessed with a simple Ctrl-PgDn
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ may be what you want.
Thank you for that. I've been looking for this. Any experiences to share on how it actually performs?
I get the feeling he's pretty relaxed about sharing copies on a small scale though
:)
:) Two things I'd like to add though. :) who thinks the story has far more promise later on.
I wouldn't say that. Rather, as you also mention, he's simply realistic and knows that no matter how much he might hate it, it'll happen.
Though I don't actually think it happens all _that_ much. Perhaps a few copies between friends, but I've just searched in various places and haven't found any mention of the episodes so far. Then again, I probably don't have a clue where to look anyway.
I may even subscribe - think I'll read the free chapters first though.
Always a good idea.
1) Don't be put off immediately by the present tense used in the story. Yes, it makes for quite strange reading at first, but you'll grow used to it, and it adds a great sense of immediacy.
2) Something I hope you'll be willing to take my word for (and for that matter, I hope people here are willing to forgive me for going slightly offtopic like this), the first five episodes do not do justice to the story. They're great for introducing the world and the characters, and showing a bit of the magic in the world, but after having read only the first five episodes I was fearing the story itself would be somewhat mediocre and cliche. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that only becomes apparent after those first few episodes.
Luckily they should be able to convince most people to want to read further anyway, but if after having read them you're doubting whether or not to subscribe, and the quality of the story is a major part of that, then you know now there's at least one person
*ponders* Hmm, maybe I should write a full fledged review for Shadowmarch for use here at slashdot... 's kinda hard with the project still running though. Hmm, I'll have to think about that.
Are you aware of Tad Williams' Shadowmarch? (Also see slashdot story 1 and 2) :) :)
It's his latest fantasy story, but he's publishing it online - completely on his own, no publishers involved. ($18 for a subscription of a year (first 5 episodes can be read for free), for which instead of proprietary formats used by far too many epublishing projects, you get regular HTML files - it's so good to be able to grep through your local copies to quickly find other references to characters or events.)
And although he's making far less money with it than with regular books, from what I know the site should be paying for itself. Which makes this a very interesting development for all authors wanting to do without publishers. Once you're a big name author, it is possible.
And I'm thinking, the more projects like this that will actually be somewhat succesful, the sooner people will be willing to give less known authors a try as well. Every satisfying experience will create more demand for similar projects, and will make other authors consider doing this sort of thing as well. Who knows, we might just not be doomed to eBooks after all...
As you also mentioned, the almost immediate reader feedback on what he writes was one of the major reasons to start this project. And I as a reader just love seeing how remarks and suggestions made about previous episodes have a noticeable impact on new episodes.
I hate to say this, but that Windows isn't on the list doesn't mean quite that much. From the FAQ about uptimes there:
;) Er.. no, wait... can't say that either... Uhm, *hesitates* go BSD? *winces* ;)
Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
<snip>
* NT3/Windows 95
* NT4/Windows 98
The only Windows for which netcraft can track uptime is Windows 2000. Now if only windows 2000 had already existed for long enough to be able to appear in the list...
Oh well... Go linux!
No is buildings. Is tomatoes, huh? Is peoples. Is dancing, is music, is potatoes. So, netscape 6 is peoples, ok?
;)
You might actually have bothered to make that a link for greater effect. Us be lazy after all. :)w .google.com/search?hl=en&q=aol+sucks
http://info.netscape.com/fwd/lksidus_gg/http://ww