When you say only negative things, you are much less powerful than if you provide solutions.
You said, "Stop complaining about every little thing Mozilla does that you don't like..." The memory-hogging instability of Firefox is not a "little thing". It's rough on people like myself who do a lot of research. The memory-hogging causes Firefox crashes, for example. Sometimes it makes Windows unstable. It is not always obvious that Windows is unstable, so it is necessary to re-start Windows and lose all other programs and the placements within those programs. Mozilla Foundation has ignored the memory-hogging instability of Firefox for perhaps 10 years. (The memory-hogging instability was there in Firefox version 1.0.5, 9 years ago.)
Also, consider the sociology of Mozilla Foundation. The direction things are being taken seems to be because of managers who have NO interest or knowledge of technology. That, to me, is scary. I'm not the only one who worries. See this article, published 2 days ago: Why Brendan Eich had to go. Look what the author says about Pale Moon.
I agree that Mozilla Foundation is, at present, in control of Firefox. The question is, how bad will things get? Is it possible that, if the money shifts, Mozilla Foundation will lose control?
"... the binary blob won't be included, and won't be downloaded without the user's consent."
Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer? At present, that configuration can be changed back to avoid that control, but understanding how to re-configure Firefox to avoid constant outside control is not something most users understand.
To me, the direction Mozilla Foundation is going is scary. Maybe there is "user consent" now, but won't be later. Maybe "user consent" will be available only to technically-knowledgeable people.
Mimicking Google's rapid release of new versions of the Chrome browser with new major version numbers, causing add-ons to fail.
Mimicking the Google Chrome user interface.
Avoiding fixing a MAJOR flaw in Firefox. As I said above, the memory-hogging
flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting
Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons.
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon
uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in
page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case"
buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see
if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself,
as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.
3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging
flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting
Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox?Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe.01 cent? It's easy money, pai
At present yours is the 4th comment and the 4th extremely skeptical comment.
Quote from the article:
Power Japan says a Ryden cell barely heats up during charge and discharge--it "experiences minimal thermal change"...
That means there is little electrical resistance, which seems impossible if both electrodes are made of carbon. Metal has low electrical resistance. The electrical resistance of carbon is much higher.
A 2nd quote:
... an electric car's battery would hold its full energy over 10 years or more,...
That's another statement about electrical resistance. It says that there is effectively an open circuit between the battery terminals, a very high resistance. The battery would not drain itself. Seems impossible to me.
The writer has a lack of understanding of technology:
And equally important for practicality, the new dual-carbon anode and cathode can both be produced by existing cell manufacturing processes--and require essentially just a single material as input: carbon.
That reduces the number of materials that must be procured for the supply chain, simplifying the entire production process.
The BIG issue is that the battery would not use an expensive, scarce metal: Lithium. The fact that the author doesn't mention that indicates he understands extremely little.
This is even more weird:
Separate from the announcement of the Ryden battery, Power Japan Plus is also working on a new form of carbon that is entirely organic.
The material, known as Carbon Complex, which is made using naturally-grown organic cotton that is then processed using special techniques to control the size of the carbon crystals formed during production.
Early test cells are not produced with the organic carbon, but the company's goal is to create a battery cell that is not only competitive with today's lithium-ion cells but uses entirely organic input materials that can be fully recycled at the end of their life.
That is so confused I decided not to comment on the confusion.
Maybe the entire reason for the article is to find amazingly ignorant investors:
Meanwhile, Power Japan Plus--which has been internally funded until now--is seeking its first investments of private funds.
1) That tries to create an adversarial issue when there isn't one. Slashdot comments are not complete examinations of all usage cases. It's a fact that most people use Windows, by far. So, not all comments consider the less common cases.
2) "Minor oddities in the UI do not make a drastic difference in how the feature works..." That misses an important point. Someone at Mozilla Foundation made a mistake. That in itself is not a big issue. What is a big issue is that there are numerous managerial and coding mistakes: a) When Google began pouring a huge amount of money, Mozilla Foundation announced that it would not continue improving its Thunderbird email client. b) In the last 2 years, Firefox has seemed to become less stable. c) See the first comment in this Slashdot story. Quoting: That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful) laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community". We need a new Firefox...
"3) Why should Mozilla focus on making a backup solution? That's not their business." What is their business? See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox in ONE year? Where does the money go? Who gets the money?
Again, the problem is not one issue. The problem is that there are a lot of issues.
"4) Yes, they would have to be crashier if Mozilla wants to replace the problematic parts of Firefox. You have to remember that Mozilla are the ones doing the real hard work in the trenches, we're just complaining about them not doing it perfectly."
That's an interesting point. Mozilla Foundation is doing hard work. However, couldn't there be better management for $311,000,000 in a year? Couldn't someone at Mozilla Foundation do better checks of the code?
"5) My point is that Pale Moon NEEDS Firefox to survive."
I agree. That's true at present. However, suppose Pale Moon eventually has 10% of the users? Will Google pay Pale Moon 10% of the money? Little by little, couldn't it happen that Pale Moon is the world's favorite browser and Mozilla Foundation slowly dies?
Why Firefox? A major reason Firefox is popular is not because it is Firefox, but because there are so many extensions. For example, consider the rapid adoption of Google's Chrome browser.
"1) There are 64-bit versions of Firefox, they're just not releasing an official WINDOWS version in 64-bits yet."
That means there are no 64-bit versions of Firefox for Windows available from Mozilla Foundation, which is what I said. Also, in the past, when I ran 32-bit versions of the Windows OS, opening lots of windows and tabs caused Firefox to crash when memory usage was enough to require swapping to disk. I've been hoping that a 64-bit version of Firefox would be different with a 64-bit version of Windows.
Remember, this is just a discussion. I hoping to learn from those who comment. I'm not saying I know everything.
"2) This is the most inane BS I've ever read."
Sounds like Steve Jobs. Is it you, Steve? Are you back from the dead?
The underlying point is that, for some weird reason, Mozilla Foundation moved apart items that belong together. That's not huge in itself, but it shows that people who have no clue are in charge. That's scary. It's nice to know that there is becoming another option.
3) To me, it seems weird that Firefox has no specialized software for making backups. That seems to me to be indicative of Mozilla Foundation management focusing on non-technical issues, whatever they are.
4) You seem to agree that later versions of Firefox are crashier. That has been my experience and is scary to me. I'm hoping there will be an option that moves in a sensible direction.
"5) So you're saying that if Mozilla dies, Pale Moon will pick up the slack and continue being it's own thing?"
See my comment above titled "The Pale Moon FAQs help." Somehow Mozilla Foundation is making $311 million per year! So, if Pale Moon takes away 1% of Firefox's users, will Pale Moon make $3.11 million? I know people who feel they could scrape by on $3 million per year.
Good questions. I'm not certain of the answers. I have only just begun to use Pale Moon because I have complained about the Firefox memory-hogging for several years, and nothing has been done. I plan to run tests on Pale Moon using Session Manager add-on sessions that cause Firefox to crash.
The Pale Moon site owner says that there have been considerable changes. See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser - having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Firefox managers are apparently poor communicators and very poor managers. The subject of this Slashdot story is one example. Maybe the money Google gives Mozilla Foundation has corrupted the entire company.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe.001 cent? It's easy money, from a company that makes money from having Firefox use Google as its default search engine.
I would be very interested to know who gets the money, and how it is spent.
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon
uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual
add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find
in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and
"Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together
so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.
4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
True, except I think that ignores an important underlying piece of evidence.
I didn't express myself fully or carefully enough; it was a Slashdot comment and I was very busy. I certainly did not expect off-topic support for the wacky idea that women can't be criticized but it is okay to be extremely hostile toward a man.
My underlying idea is on-topic. How could the top management of Dice Holdings fail to see the mistakes made on the Dice Holdings web site? What is the sociology behind that? I try to make theories that are supported by the information available.
(This issue is also relevant to this Slashdot story about the EFF Privacy Badger browser add-on. Notice that the EFF Privacy Badger web page nests DIV tags 5 levels deep. Maybe there is some reason for that I don't understand, but it seems to me to be poor design. I list 7 other problems below.)
This subject is extremely important because Dice Holdings may destroy Slashdot and thereby may cause severe damage to its other businesses. The new format for Slashdot called "Slashdot beta" is an amazing example of Dice Holdings management being extremely out of touch. The main business of Dice Holdings is job listings for technology companies. Imagine the business impact of thousands of Slashdot readers saying extremely negative things about the new Slashdot. Wouldn't that tend to severely limit acceptance of anything Dice Holdings does?
Slashdot readers are very verbal. They like to communicate; that's shown by the fact that they spend time commenting on Slashdot. If they are unhappy with Dice Holdings they will definitely make that known throughout their companies.
My theory is that whoever writes HTML for Dice Holdings must be extremely socially disconnected from management. A 30-year-old inexperienced male would likely be noticed by management and evaluated, possibly leading to management noticing the man's lack of ability. A 30-year-old male might want to move up in the company and want to become known to management.
So, whoever does HTML for Dice Holdings is apparently distant from socializing with management. I try to theorize what kind of person that could be. I guess, and it is just a guess based on my experience, it is a young woman who has no interest in being part of the company, but who just wants to experiment with HTML and learn more about what interests her. She definitely isn't interested in good communication; apparently she is interested only in her own vision of graphic appeal.
Why put so much time thinking about this? Because the problem of being out of touch with technology is so extreme that top managers are willing to risk losing their companies or their jobs. It isn't just the managers of Dice Holdings. I see the same issues with other companies, also.
Also, I depend on Slashdot for news about technology. I don't want anything bad to happen to Slashdot, even though the online conversations are sometimes very disfunctional.
Back to the off-topic issue: My experience is that, when I give women thoughtful, understanding criticism, that increases their interest in me. When was the last time I criticized a woman? Yesterday evening. She referred to herself as a "girl". I said, "You're a woman." That got a smile.
Last month in an email I told a woman who is an artist, a dancer, ways in which she could be more serious about her art. When I saw her, just before a performance started, she hugged me and said thank you for the suggestions.
I don't currently spend much time with young women who design web sites, but more than 10 years ago I did. One of them was extraordinarily professional. She and I often talked about other female graphic artists not being professional.
Even though this comment is lengthy, it is still only a very brief survey of important issues. Nothing is decided in this comment; it is only theories.
Angry, disrespectful women teach men to give unthinking reactions. If you allow yourself to be manipulated, do you think they will become respectful? No. They will just note that you are easily manipulated.
Women are far more attracted to men who feel comfortable criticizing them in a sensible manner. Women are sexually attracted to men who have inner strength. They avoid men who seem weak when pushed.
Yesterday I watched a dance competition. I criticized that particular competition as putting pressure on young women to be alike. The woman to whom I mentioned that idea is one of the most attractive women I have ever met. She agreed. I mentioned to her how much I was attracted to her because of the fact that she is strong enough to make her own choices.
When I said, "... most web sites are made by young women who fancy themselves to be graphic designers who use junk Javascript they found somewhere", that was a criticism I first heard from a woman who is an excellent graphic designer. Over many years I saw evidence that she is correct.
Women are people and want to be treated as people.
I'm amazed at your response. I suppose you are a man who thinks he is being pro-woman. You aren't. You are just being angry. (A woman would not call herself "Pope Ratzo".)
It's a fact, I think, that most of the people who choose to become good programmers are men. It requires a good programmer to use Javascript wisely. (It seemed to me that Javascript was usually used un-wisely until I saw the way it was used by Google in the early days of GMail.)
My comment is based on my experiences with women I've known. I've had close relationships with them. My experience is that women who are skilled at graphic arts would agree that often unskilled graphic artists are young women, that unskilled graphic artists almost always borrow Javascript rather than write it themselves, and that the borrowing often doesn't show insight into the way it is used.
If something is generally true, it is okay to say it is generally true.
Anyhow, my comment agrees with the comment to which I replied that Javascript is often used unwisely, and gives the owners of Slashdot as an example.
Whether or not my experience shows insight into why the Javascript computer language is used foolishly, that is a social problem that needs to be understood. We need to gather information. We need to make theories that fit the information and test those theories.
I'm interested to know what theories other people have about the poor use of Javascript.
A company called Dice Holdings now owns Slashdot. Whoever wrote the code for the corporate
governance part of the Dice Holdings web site borrowed some
JavaScript from a web site called dynamicdrive.com. That
unnecessarily complicated code displays very poorly in some browsers
and browser configurations, including the ones I normally use.
I'm guessing that most web sites are made by young women who fancy themselves to be graphic designers who use junk Javascript they found somewhere. Or, made by people who want to use company time to practice using Javascript so they can get a job as some place at which they would actually like to work.
Anyhow, many web sites are amazingly complicated. I would like to understand the sociology of how that happens. Obviously, the top managers are not providing managerial overview. I'm guessing that they have no knowledge of HTML or Javascript, and just let things happen.
Pale Moon: Firefox with adult supervision.
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I forgot to mention Pale Moon, an interesting version of Firefox. It has adult supervision! What! Where did they find an adult?
Two examples: In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; no problem there except with some unusual add-ons.
Memory hogging: Add-ons for re-starting Firefox
on
Firefox 29: Redesign
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"... a future dominated by retards." I think retards may rise in protest: "We may be retards, but we're not dumb!"
Let me guess: The new version of Firefox will be even less stable. The memory-hogging flaws have not been fixed. The memory-hogging flaws are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
Please no obvious replies to this. Please don't make it necessary to post my list of 22 excuses for not fixing the Firefox memory hogging again.
I'm having another problem with the latest version of Firefox. The toolbar icons change back to the default. I have to go to View > Toolbars > Customize and take away the ones I don't want and put back the ones I want.
Also, when I log into Slashdot, I'm recognized as my user name. However, often when I open a tab for a Slashdot story, the story shows that I am not logged in, and logging in at that tab does nothing. Re-starting Firefox fixes that problem for a while.
Mod parent up to +10. A CEO of a technological company should have technical knowledge.
Not like Steve Ballmer, fired from Microsoft. (The paragraphs about Steve Ballmer link to a BusinessWeek magazine cover that calls Mr. Ballmer "Monkey Boy", an article that says he was the "worst CEO", and an article about Ballmer's "temper tantrums".)
Not like Paul Otellini, fired from Intel. Quote from that Wikipedia article: "Otellini was considered a departure from the norm when he was promoted to CEO because he was not formally trained as an engineer."
Google is on the way down, sadly. Part of the URL for Ghostery for Chrome is: mlomiejdfkolichcflejclcbmpeaniij
This Slashdot story is about Google, but the linked story only gives "facts" that are apparent on the surface. Below the surface, Google is going the way of Hewlett-Packard, Fairchild Semiconductor, and Tektronix: Slow and sometimes fast degradation. Yes, I feel I am qualified to make that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say only negative things, you are much less powerful than if you provide solutions.
You said, "Stop complaining about every little thing Mozilla does that you don't like..." The memory-hogging instability of Firefox is not a "little thing". It's rough on people like myself who do a lot of research. The memory-hogging causes Firefox crashes, for example. Sometimes it makes Windows unstable. It is not always obvious that Windows is unstable, so it is necessary to re-start Windows and lose all other programs and the placements within those programs. Mozilla Foundation has ignored the memory-hogging instability of Firefox for perhaps 10 years. (The memory-hogging instability was there in Firefox version 1.0.5, 9 years ago.)
Also, consider the sociology of Mozilla Foundation. The direction things are being taken seems to be because of managers who have NO interest or knowledge of technology. That, to me, is scary. I'm not the only one who worries. See this article, published 2 days ago: Why Brendan Eich had to go. Look what the author says about Pale Moon.
I agree that Mozilla Foundation is, at present, in control of Firefox. The question is, how bad will things get? Is it possible that, if the money shifts, Mozilla Foundation will lose control?
We need a 64-bit version we can give to staff and customers.
Also, when I do a search on the information you gave, all I find is links to discussion of problems.
"... the binary blob won't be included, and won't be downloaded without the user's consent."
Do you realize that every time anyone installs a new version of Firefox, the former configuration is over-written to include a maintenance service that gives Mozilla Foundation control over the user's computer? At present, that configuration can be changed back to avoid that control, but understanding how to re-configure Firefox to avoid constant outside control is not something most users understand.
To me, the direction Mozilla Foundation is going is scary. Maybe there is "user consent" now, but won't be later. Maybe "user consent" will be available only to technically-knowledgeable people.
"How long will it take to crack this DRM? 6 months at most. Probably more like 6 days. Why are we pretending like this is even remotely a big deal?"
The most important issue seems to be the overall direction Mozilla Foundation is going, not any one of these management issues alone:
Considering doing things against the interests of users. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans
Mimicking Google's rapid release of new versions of the Chrome browser with new major version numbers, causing add-ons to fail.
Mimicking the Google Chrome user interface.
Avoiding fixing a MAJOR flaw in Firefox. As I said above, the memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons.
Mis-handling of public relations.
The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.
.01 cent? It's easy money, pai
Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version
Here are some of the advantages:
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.
3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.
Questions about Firefox:
The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox discusses another example.
Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe
Graphene is one atom thick. Probably not used in car batteries.
Thank you for saying that. It was so crazy I didn't know what to say.
Could you provide more information? A search says that Lithium costs $300 per pound, not as high as I would have guessed. What other metals?
Quote from the article:
Power Japan says a Ryden cell barely heats up during charge and discharge--it "experiences minimal thermal change" ...
That means there is little electrical resistance, which seems impossible if both electrodes are made of carbon. Metal has low electrical resistance. The electrical resistance of carbon is much higher.
A 2nd quote:
That's another statement about electrical resistance. It says that there is effectively an open circuit between the battery terminals, a very high resistance. The battery would not drain itself. Seems impossible to me.
The writer has a lack of understanding of technology:
And equally important for practicality, the new dual-carbon anode and cathode can both be produced by existing cell manufacturing processes--and require essentially just a single material as input: carbon.
That reduces the number of materials that must be procured for the supply chain, simplifying the entire production process.
The BIG issue is that the battery would not use an expensive, scarce metal: Lithium. The fact that the author doesn't mention that indicates he understands extremely little.
This is even more weird:
Separate from the announcement of the Ryden battery, Power Japan Plus is also working on a new form of carbon that is entirely organic.
The material, known as Carbon Complex, which is made using naturally-grown organic cotton that is then processed using special techniques to control the size of the carbon crystals formed during production.
Early test cells are not produced with the organic carbon, but the company's goal is to create a battery cell that is not only competitive with today's lithium-ion cells but uses entirely organic input materials that can be fully recycled at the end of their life.
That is so confused I decided not to comment on the confusion.
Maybe the entire reason for the article is to find amazingly ignorant investors:
Meanwhile, Power Japan Plus--which has been internally funded until now--is seeking its first investments of private funds.
1) That tries to create an adversarial issue when there isn't one. Slashdot comments are not complete examinations of all usage cases. It's a fact that most people use Windows, by far. So, not all comments consider the less common cases.
2) "Minor oddities in the UI do not make a drastic difference in how the feature works..." That misses an important point. Someone at Mozilla Foundation made a mistake. That in itself is not a big issue. What is a big issue is that there are numerous managerial and coding mistakes: a) When Google began pouring a huge amount of money, Mozilla Foundation announced that it would not continue improving its Thunderbird email client. b) In the last 2 years, Firefox has seemed to become less stable. c) See the first comment in this Slashdot story. Quoting: That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful) laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community". We need a new Firefox...
"3) Why should Mozilla focus on making a backup solution? That's not their business." What is their business? See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011." Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox in ONE year? Where does the money go? Who gets the money?
Again, the problem is not one issue. The problem is that there are a lot of issues.
"4) Yes, they would have to be crashier if Mozilla wants to replace the problematic parts of Firefox. You have to remember that Mozilla are the ones doing the real hard work in the trenches, we're just complaining about them not doing it perfectly."
That's an interesting point. Mozilla Foundation is doing hard work. However, couldn't there be better management for $311,000,000 in a year? Couldn't someone at Mozilla Foundation do better checks of the code?
"5) My point is that Pale Moon NEEDS Firefox to survive."
I agree. That's true at present. However, suppose Pale Moon eventually has 10% of the users? Will Google pay Pale Moon 10% of the money? Little by little, couldn't it happen that Pale Moon is the world's favorite browser and Mozilla Foundation slowly dies?
Why Firefox? A major reason Firefox is popular is not because it is Firefox, but because there are so many extensions. For example, consider the rapid adoption of Google's Chrome browser.
"1) There are 64-bit versions of Firefox, they're just not releasing an official WINDOWS version in 64-bits yet."
That means there are no 64-bit versions of Firefox for Windows available from Mozilla Foundation, which is what I said. Also, in the past, when I ran 32-bit versions of the Windows OS, opening lots of windows and tabs caused Firefox to crash when memory usage was enough to require swapping to disk. I've been hoping that a 64-bit version of Firefox would be different with a 64-bit version of Windows.
Remember, this is just a discussion. I hoping to learn from those who comment. I'm not saying I know everything.
"2) This is the most inane BS I've ever read."
Sounds like Steve Jobs. Is it you, Steve? Are you back from the dead?
The underlying point is that, for some weird reason, Mozilla Foundation moved apart items that belong together. That's not huge in itself, but it shows that people who have no clue are in charge. That's scary. It's nice to know that there is becoming another option.
3) To me, it seems weird that Firefox has no specialized software for making backups. That seems to me to be indicative of Mozilla Foundation management focusing on non-technical issues, whatever they are.
4) You seem to agree that later versions of Firefox are crashier. That has been my experience and is scary to me. I'm hoping there will be an option that moves in a sensible direction.
"5) So you're saying that if Mozilla dies, Pale Moon will pick up the slack and continue being it's own thing?"
See my comment above titled "The Pale Moon FAQs help." Somehow Mozilla Foundation is making $311 million per year! So, if Pale Moon takes away 1% of Firefox's users, will Pale Moon make $3.11 million? I know people who feel they could scrape by on $3 million per year.
My records show that I used FEBE in 2009. I had problems with it. Maybe it is better now. I will try it.
Good questions. I'm not certain of the answers. I have only just begun to use Pale Moon because I have complained about the Firefox memory-hogging for several years, and nothing has been done. I plan to run tests on Pale Moon using Session Manager add-on sessions that cause Firefox to crash.
.001 cent? It's easy money, from a company that makes money from having Firefox use Google as its default search engine.
The Pale Moon site owner says that there have been considerable changes. See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser - having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."
Firefox managers are apparently poor communicators and very poor managers. The subject of this Slashdot story is one example. Maybe the money Google gives Mozilla Foundation has corrupted the entire company.
Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.
Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.
See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."
Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe
I would be very interested to know who gets the money, and how it is spent.
The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.
Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version
Here are some of the advantages:
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.
4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.
Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.
And... Will there be a patent on one-click photos?
True, except I think that ignores an important underlying piece of evidence.
I didn't express myself fully or carefully enough; it was a Slashdot comment and I was very busy. I certainly did not expect off-topic support for the wacky idea that women can't be criticized but it is okay to be extremely hostile toward a man.
My underlying idea is on-topic. How could the top management of Dice Holdings fail to see the mistakes made on the Dice Holdings web site? What is the sociology behind that? I try to make theories that are supported by the information available.
(This issue is also relevant to this Slashdot story about the EFF Privacy Badger browser add-on. Notice that the EFF Privacy Badger web page nests DIV tags 5 levels deep. Maybe there is some reason for that I don't understand, but it seems to me to be poor design. I list 7 other problems below.)
This subject is extremely important because Dice Holdings may destroy Slashdot and thereby may cause severe damage to its other businesses. The new format for Slashdot called "Slashdot beta" is an amazing example of Dice Holdings management being extremely out of touch. The main business of Dice Holdings is job listings for technology companies. Imagine the business impact of thousands of Slashdot readers saying extremely negative things about the new Slashdot. Wouldn't that tend to severely limit acceptance of anything Dice Holdings does?
Slashdot readers are very verbal. They like to communicate; that's shown by the fact that they spend time commenting on Slashdot. If they are unhappy with Dice Holdings they will definitely make that known throughout their companies.
My theory is that whoever writes HTML for Dice Holdings must be extremely socially disconnected from management. A 30-year-old inexperienced male would likely be noticed by management and evaluated, possibly leading to management noticing the man's lack of ability. A 30-year-old male might want to move up in the company and want to become known to management.
So, whoever does HTML for Dice Holdings is apparently distant from socializing with management. I try to theorize what kind of person that could be. I guess, and it is just a guess based on my experience, it is a young woman who has no interest in being part of the company, but who just wants to experiment with HTML and learn more about what interests her. She definitely isn't interested in good communication; apparently she is interested only in her own vision of graphic appeal.
Why put so much time thinking about this? Because the problem of being out of touch with technology is so extreme that top managers are willing to risk losing their companies or their jobs. It isn't just the managers of Dice Holdings. I see the same issues with other companies, also.
Also, I depend on Slashdot for news about technology. I don't want anything bad to happen to Slashdot, even though the online conversations are sometimes very disfunctional.
Back to the off-topic issue: My experience is that, when I give women thoughtful, understanding criticism, that increases their interest in me. When was the last time I criticized a woman? Yesterday evening. She referred to herself as a "girl". I said, "You're a woman." That got a smile.
Last month in an email I told a woman who is an artist, a dancer, ways in which she could be more serious about her art. When I saw her, just before a performance started, she hugged me and said thank you for the suggestions.
I don't currently spend much time with young women who design web sites, but more than 10 years ago I did. One of them was extraordinarily professional. She and I often talked about other female graphic artists not being professional.
Even though this comment is lengthy, it is still only a very brief survey of important issues. Nothing is decided in this comment; it is only theories.
Angry, disrespectful women teach men to give unthinking reactions. If you allow yourself to be manipulated, do you think they will become respectful? No. They will just note that you are easily manipulated.
Women are far more attracted to men who feel comfortable criticizing them in a sensible manner. Women are sexually attracted to men who have inner strength. They avoid men who seem weak when pushed.
Yesterday I watched a dance competition. I criticized that particular competition as putting pressure on young women to be alike. The woman to whom I mentioned that idea is one of the most attractive women I have ever met. She agreed. I mentioned to her how much I was attracted to her because of the fact that she is strong enough to make her own choices.
When I said, "... most web sites are made by young women who fancy themselves to be graphic designers who use junk Javascript they found somewhere", that was a criticism I first heard from a woman who is an excellent graphic designer. Over many years I saw evidence that she is correct.
Women are people and want to be treated as people.
I'm amazed at your response. I suppose you are a man who thinks he is being pro-woman. You aren't. You are just being angry. (A woman would not call herself "Pope Ratzo".)
It's a fact, I think, that most of the people who choose to become good programmers are men. It requires a good programmer to use Javascript wisely. (It seemed to me that Javascript was usually used un-wisely until I saw the way it was used by Google in the early days of GMail.)
My comment is based on my experiences with women I've known. I've had close relationships with them. My experience is that women who are skilled at graphic arts would agree that often unskilled graphic artists are young women, that unskilled graphic artists almost always borrow Javascript rather than write it themselves, and that the borrowing often doesn't show insight into the way it is used.
If something is generally true, it is okay to say it is generally true.
Anyhow, my comment agrees with the comment to which I replied that Javascript is often used unwisely, and gives the owners of Slashdot as an example.
Whether or not my experience shows insight into why the Javascript computer language is used foolishly, that is a social problem that needs to be understood. We need to gather information. We need to make theories that fit the information and test those theories.
I'm interested to know what theories other people have about the poor use of Javascript.
Here is an example of what you said:
A company called Dice Holdings now owns Slashdot. Whoever wrote the code for the corporate governance part of the Dice Holdings web site borrowed some JavaScript from a web site called dynamicdrive.com. That unnecessarily complicated code displays very poorly in some browsers and browser configurations, including the ones I normally use.
I'm guessing that most web sites are made by young women who fancy themselves to be graphic designers who use junk Javascript they found somewhere. Or, made by people who want to use company time to practice using Javascript so they can get a job as some place at which they would actually like to work.
Anyhow, many web sites are amazingly complicated. I would like to understand the sociology of how that happens. Obviously, the top managers are not providing managerial overview. I'm guessing that they have no knowledge of HTML or Javascript, and just let things happen.
I forgot to mention Pale Moon, an interesting version of Firefox. It has adult supervision! What! Where did they find an adult?
Two examples: In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; no problem there except with some unusual add-ons.
Pale Moon is completely independent. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation.
"... a future dominated by retards." I think retards may rise in protest: "We may be retards, but we're not dumb!"
Let me guess: The new version of Firefox will be even less stable. The memory-hogging flaws have not been fixed. The memory-hogging flaws are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.
Please no obvious replies to this. Please don't make it necessary to post my list of 22 excuses for not fixing the Firefox memory hogging again.
I'm having another problem with the latest version of Firefox. The toolbar icons change back to the default. I have to go to View > Toolbars > Customize and take away the ones I don't want and put back the ones I want.
Also, when I log into Slashdot, I'm recognized as my user name. However, often when I open a tab for a Slashdot story, the story shows that I am not logged in, and logging in at that tab does nothing. Re-starting Firefox fixes that problem for a while.
Not the FULL story, but quite complete: Microsoft Windows XP "end of life": What to do?. Short version: Microsoft makes more money if there are more vulnerabilities.
You missed the point. Yes Mr. Gates gives money away, but he also links those donations to schemes to make more money, it seems obvious to me.
Mod parent up to +10. A CEO of a technological company should have technical knowledge.
Not like Steve Ballmer, fired from Microsoft. (The paragraphs about Steve Ballmer link to a BusinessWeek magazine cover that calls Mr. Ballmer "Monkey Boy", an article that says he was the "worst CEO", and an article about Ballmer's "temper tantrums".)
Not like Paul Otellini, fired from Intel. Quote from that Wikipedia article: "Otellini was considered a departure from the norm when he was promoted to CEO because he was not formally trained as an engineer."
"... before I knew to block all those trackers..."
Ghostery for Firefox.
Ghostery for Chrome.
Google is on the way down, sadly. Part of the URL for Ghostery for Chrome is: mlomiejdfkolichcflejclcbmpeaniij
This Slashdot story is about Google, but the linked story only gives "facts" that are apparent on the surface. Below the surface, Google is going the way of Hewlett-Packard, Fairchild Semiconductor, and Tektronix: Slow and sometimes fast degradation. Yes, I feel I am qualified to make that statement.