It may not be a universal truth, but surely in this case theres no intrinsic value to a piece of cardboard. I mean, come on, these things are gonna cost $1.
Why Mozilla Doesn't Use Native Widgets
Why Mozilla Doesn't Use Native Widgets
People frequently ask why Mozilla implements its own widget set rather than
just using the widget set available on whatever platform it's running on. This
document is an attempt to explain why.
Transparency and Z-ordering
Consider this testcase.
It's a text field behind an element full of "blah" text. The "blah" element
is transparent, so you can see and even edit the text field with the "blah" text
overlaid on top. This simply can't be done in with Gtk or Qt widgets (unless this
has changed in a very recent version of these toolkits). In Win32 it can only be
done in Win2000 or WinXP, and then it is tricky and inefficient. If you don't believe this,
try implementing the same effect using your favourite platform toolkit, and email
me if you succeed.
Getting this right isn't optional. It's a requirement for a correct CSS
implementation.
Other HTML/CSS functionality
An HTML BUTTON element can contain arbitrary HTML. It's practially impossible
to get that to work with any platform button widget. (Note that the HTML inside
the button is part of the same document as the button itself.)
Printing
On many platforms it's very difficult or impossible to get a
native control to print.
International languages
When you browse the Web you find content in every language that computers
can handle. It is important for the browser to have strong support for uncommon
languages. This means it is important for the browser to display form elements
containing strange characters and scripts. Many platforms (e.g., older versions
of Windows) do not provide good support for locales other than the locale
that the operating system itself is installed for. Therefore their widgets
aren't good enough for strong browser language support.
Performance
On many platforms the per-widget memory and time cost is quite significant.
This is OK for most GUI apps because you typically don't have more controls per
window than fit on the screen. But in a browser, you sometimes see pages with
hundreds or thousands of controls. (Think "a long comments page in Slashdot when
you have moderation points".) This has to be fast and not consume too much
memory. On some older Windows versions it's simply impossible to create 1000 edit
boxes without crashing the system!
Event handling
The DOM Events model defines ways for a page to intercept events such
as keyboard or mouse input before they are dispatched to the control with focus.
It would be very tricky and error-prone to implement this using platform-specific hacks.
Arguments For Native Widgets
Here are some arguments for using native widgets, and how we answer them.
Native look and feel are critical for usability
Agreed. We have started using platform-specific APIs to render our widgets as
if they were native widgets, wherever we can. For GTK, WinXP and MacOSX we actually
call theme APIs so that Mozilla picks up whatever theme is currently in force. It really
looks like a native app. All of the above advantages are still retained because we're still
not using actual native widgets. It also means we automatically "keep up" as the platform
look changes, which has been a big problem for "cross platform" UI toolkits in the past.
We're still working on the "native feel" problem. Feel doesn't vary as much as look,
it seems, so it's less of a problem, but we have a number of tweaks that vary the feel
of our widgets across platform and we'll add more.
Native look and feel are critical for accessibilty
We're building in support for platform accessibility APIs in GTK and Win32, so
our widgets will be just as accessible as the native widgets.
Too much work for developers
Yes, but it's worth it.
Too slow, too much footprint
Yes, rolling our own widgets requires some extra code and may not be as well
optimized as the platform widgets. But as noted
The cable is "holding" mostly its own weight. Therefore, if the material is not at the critical strength, the elevator can't be built. (not disagreeing with you about the difference from lab to real life tho)
OK it can be done. But what I was really asking about is whether or not it can be done SAFELY. If anything, the fact that they decided against nuclear ramjets for safety reasons bolsters my argument. These comments about nuclear rockets just keep getting modded up. Even your response that it looks like you spent 30 seconds typing got modded up. What the hell is going on? Do the mods have a nuclear fetish?
I was just curious why so many seem to be pushing nuclear rockets on slashdot lately? I know that radiation fears are irrationally intense in this country, and certainly the thermo-electric nuclear powerplants on probes posed no risk. HOWEVER, that isn't even in the same league as a nuclear rocket. Would the fissile material in a nuclear rocket be as strongly encased as the stuff we send up now?
Is that even possible? The probe power sources aren't throttlable-- they just keep dumping out power and heat at the same rate 24/7 (decreasing as the material decays I guess). With a nuclear rocket, on top of being alot more material, has different design requirements.
Funny you mention that you point out we should look at tech in the same way as Moore's Law. Most of the advances he pointed out are caused by computers. We map genes faster because the process is highly automated. We search star systems for planets faster because the analysis of data can be automated and done faster. Fiber back-bones go faster because we can put faster chips on either side. We can machine tinier parts because photo-lithography is improving (again Moore's Law).
And of course, don't forget the exponentially increasing e-commerce. So... I'm guessing that article was written pre-2001.
The thing with the exponential runaway technology thesis is that it involves taking "technology" (which I think any reasonable person would agree could include a LOT of stuff), and breaking it down to a single number.
Why do you people bother nitpicking the movie? Hello, its not the book.
Why do you other people complain about the nitpickers? Hello, nitpicking this movie is pointless, but nitpicking people's choice in slashdot comments isn't?
Why do people like me complain about the complainers? It's all so depressing. A brain the size of a planet, and all I ever get to do is post on slashdot. [please dont mod me down flaimbait or whatever if you don't get that reference. its really funny. really. kinda.]
This bugged me too. It wouldn't have been so bad if this wasn't the millionth time they tried to fool you that a character had died. (Merry + Pippin crushed by horses, Gandalf). On the commentary though two things were said: #1 - When Aragorn is unconscious and we see Arwen and him talking, this is not a hallucination or a telepathic communication. It is in fact the night before Aragorn leaves for the fellowship, film that they had originally shot for the first movie. I don't know about you, but for me the that brings the cheese factor WAY down. So the question is why wasn't it made clear what that was all about without listening to the commentary? Jackson screwed up.
#2 - One of the writers says something to the effect of try to imagine what it would do to the tension of the story if Aragorn HADN'T fallen off the cliff. I couldn't follow this-- maybe some film buff could explain?
Huh? Am I the only one who missed the part in the books where the Quidditch "field" is a bog, and the "stands" are 100 foot towers? Its kind of funny, the game which was developed in parallel (I assume) has Quidditch looking consistent with the descriptions in the book. Not that WWF vertical towers of doom crap.
"Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself." *visions of the line of demarcation*
How can we possibly anticipate the situation of future generations when they begin exploiting space resources? Will the UN even still exist?
I'm sure there must be other posts pointing this out, but if you want a well researched look at what might work for living on Mars, try Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars.
I just thought it was interesting that you credit legos with improving your thinking skills.
Why is it though that toys must improve skills to be good? It seems that we are slightly obsessed with education. In highschool my band teacher pulled the whole mozart = math skills thing one day and it kind of backfired (for me at least). If the purpose of music or literature or (say) legos is to improve your math or reasoning skills, what are you doing messing around with that stuff? Get some math and philosophy books and start reading up!
No, the purpose of legos is not to improve your imagination. If anything, the purpose of your imagination is to make legos fun.
Manifold Space MUCH better
on
Coalescent
·
· Score: 1
I agree. It's too bad you read Origins at first. Manifold Space was imho by far the best of the trilogy. To me basically the WHOLE book was like the very end of 2001. This guy is suddenly launched into interacting with powerful aliens, however it is a one way trip because in order to do this he must also travel hundreds of years into the future with every step he takes -- leaving his own culture and society behind forever. Although towards the end it has some aspects which are grueling in the same way where that main guy ends up with some neanderthals.
Xelee books are good, Manifold Space is good, but avoid Evolution at all costs! It's like the worst parts of origins for the whole damn book. NO high tech:(
One of the obscure little known could-have should-have stories of silicon valley is a startup by the name of Insite. Both Insite Floptical and IOmega Zip use optical tracking like a CD to positiong the magnetic read/write head.
The difference between the two was that the Floptical shipped years earlier, and was backwards compatable. The first generation was 21 mb floppy disk, the second was 40 mb, third was 100 mb (all 100% backwards compatable with earlier 3.5" diskettes). This was in the early 90s, before CD writing drives were available.
So why do we still use old floppy drives today, 15 years after this technology was developed? Biblically bad management of the company. Marketing so incompetent that when these drives were being sold at fry's, they neglected to indicate anywhere that the drives were backwards compatable. VP of sales so stubborn he refused cold hard cash from apple for the first million units WHENEVER they were ready.
The last dying gasp was Intel was interested in buying out the company from the dipshit VCs who listened to their buddy the CEO (who was really a VC himself, hence the incompetent management), and as a result were trying to cut their "losses". Intel's business team wanted to buy the company to push the technology not because of the money they expected to make from drive sales, but because the technology would enable multi-media PC application (remember this was before everyone had a CD-ROM and long before anyone had heard of DVDs).
The business team was overruled by the three people in charge of Intel because of their 5-year plan said "thou shalt not buy hardware companies" (I'm guessing these guys are the same ones who weren't interested in trying for the PC market in the late 70s -- another great call!).
So, the patents were sold off to a dozen other companies who had niche uses for them, effectively killing the technology. The most advanced form it achieved was marketed as the "SuperDrive" with a 200 mb capacity. IOmega had no interest in the technology for political reasons ("yeah, so these other guys developed a better system with capabilities we couldn't achieve faster and cheaper").
One of the obscure little known could-have should-have stories of silicon valley is a startup by the name of Insite. Both Insite Floptical and IOmega Zip use optical tracking like a CD to positiong the magnetic read/write head.
The difference between the two was that the Floptical shipped years earlier, and was backwards compatable. The first generation was 21 mb floppy disk, the second was 40 mb, third was 100 mb (all 100% backwards compatable with earlier 3.25" diskettes). This was in the early 90s, before CD writing drives were available.
So why do we still use old floppy drives today, 15 years after this technology was developed? Biblically bad management of the company. Marketing so incompetent that when these drives were being sold at fry's, they neglected to indicate anywhere that the drives were backwards compatable. VP of sales so stubborn he refused cold hard cash from apple for the first million units WHENEVER they were ready.
The last dying gasp was Intel was interested in buying out the company from the dipshit VCs who listened to their buddy the CEO (who was really a VC himself, hence the incompetent management), and as a result were trying to cut their "losses". Intel's business team wanted to buy the company to push the technology not because of the money they expected to make from drive sales, but because the technology would enable multi-media PC application (remember this was before everyone had a CD-ROM and long before anyone had heard of DVDs).
The business team was overruled by the three people in charge of Intel because of their 5-year plan said "thou shalt not buy hardware companies" (I'm guessing these guys are the same ones who weren't interested in trying for the PC market in the late 70s -- another great call!).
So, the patents were sold off to a dozen other companies who had niche uses for them, effectively killing the technology. The most advanced form it achieved was marketed as the "SuperDrive" with a 200 mb capacity. IOmega had no interest in the technology for political reasons ("yeah, so these other guys developed a better system with capabilities we couldn't achieve faster and cheaper").
If brain drain were an economic strategy of the US wouldn't the government be helping to subsidize the education of foriegn students so they don't have to pay through the nose? Also if they were trying to steal capable/educated individuals from foriegn economies why would INS give people so much shit about student visas? Wouldn't they just let the individuals getting education immigrate?
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -Samuel Clemens
Slashdot Mirror
It may not be a universal truth, but surely in this case theres no intrinsic value to a piece of cardboard. I mean, come on, these things are gonna cost $1.
People frequently ask why Mozilla implements its own widget set rather than just using the widget set available on whatever platform it's running on. This document is an attempt to explain why. Transparency and Z-ordering
Consider this testcase. It's a text field behind an element full of "blah" text. The "blah" element is transparent, so you can see and even edit the text field with the "blah" text overlaid on top. This simply can't be done in with Gtk or Qt widgets (unless this has changed in a very recent version of these toolkits). In Win32 it can only be done in Win2000 or WinXP, and then it is tricky and inefficient. If you don't believe this, try implementing the same effect using your favourite platform toolkit, and email me if you succeed.
Getting this right isn't optional. It's a requirement for a correct CSS implementation. Other HTML/CSS functionality
An HTML BUTTON element can contain arbitrary HTML. It's practially impossible to get that to work with any platform button widget. (Note that the HTML inside the button is part of the same document as the button itself.) Printing
On many platforms it's very difficult or impossible to get a native control to print. International languages
When you browse the Web you find content in every language that computers can handle. It is important for the browser to have strong support for uncommon languages. This means it is important for the browser to display form elements containing strange characters and scripts. Many platforms (e.g., older versions of Windows) do not provide good support for locales other than the locale that the operating system itself is installed for. Therefore their widgets aren't good enough for strong browser language support. Performance
On many platforms the per-widget memory and time cost is quite significant. This is OK for most GUI apps because you typically don't have more controls per window than fit on the screen. But in a browser, you sometimes see pages with hundreds or thousands of controls. (Think "a long comments page in Slashdot when you have moderation points".) This has to be fast and not consume too much memory. On some older Windows versions it's simply impossible to create 1000 edit boxes without crashing the system! Event handling
The DOM Events model defines ways for a page to intercept events such as keyboard or mouse input before they are dispatched to the control with focus. It would be very tricky and error-prone to implement this using platform-specific hacks. Arguments For Native Widgets
Here are some arguments for using native widgets, and how we answer them. Native look and feel are critical for usability
Agreed. We have started using platform-specific APIs to render our widgets as if they were native widgets, wherever we can. For GTK, WinXP and MacOSX we actually call theme APIs so that Mozilla picks up whatever theme is currently in force. It really looks like a native app. All of the above advantages are still retained because we're still not using actual native widgets. It also means we automatically "keep up" as the platform look changes, which has been a big problem for "cross platform" UI toolkits in the past.
We're still working on the "native feel" problem. Feel doesn't vary as much as look, it seems, so it's less of a problem, but we have a number of tweaks that vary the feel of our widgets across platform and we'll add more. Native look and feel are critical for accessibilty
We're building in support for platform accessibility APIs in GTK and Win32, so our widgets will be just as accessible as the native widgets. Too much work for developers
Yes, but it's worth it. Too slow, too much footprint
Yes, rolling our own widgets requires some extra code and may not be as well optimized as the platform widgets. But as noted
The cable is "holding" mostly its own weight. Therefore, if the material is not at the critical strength, the elevator can't be built. (not disagreeing with you about the difference from lab to real life tho)
Creating ethanol takes 29% more energy than it provides... with current technology.
.43 Eout
Ein = 1.29 Eout
This tech takes ethanol -> energy effeciency from 20% to 60%.
Eout' = 3 * Eout
Ein = 1.29/3 Eout =
So now we can run all the tractors and such off ethanol and still have 67% of the ethanol left over to power other stuff.
Wait "same idea, but with fission powering the thing." I think you are a bit confused -- we are not talking about fusion rockets.
OK it can be done. But what I was really asking about is whether or not it can be done SAFELY. If anything, the fact that they decided against nuclear ramjets for safety reasons bolsters my argument.
These comments about nuclear rockets just keep getting modded up. Even your response that it looks like you spent 30 seconds typing got modded up. What the hell is going on? Do the mods have a nuclear fetish?
I was just curious why so many seem to be pushing nuclear rockets on slashdot lately? I know that radiation fears are irrationally intense in this country, and certainly the thermo-electric nuclear powerplants on probes posed no risk. HOWEVER, that isn't even in the same league as a nuclear rocket. Would the fissile material in a nuclear rocket be as strongly encased as the stuff we send up now?
Is that even possible? The probe power sources aren't throttlable-- they just keep dumping out power and heat at the same rate 24/7 (decreasing as the material decays I guess). With a nuclear rocket, on top of being alot more material, has different design requirements.
Funny you mention that you point out we should look at tech in the same way as Moore's Law. Most of the advances he pointed out are caused by computers. We map genes faster because the process is highly automated. We search star systems for planets faster because the analysis of data can be automated and done faster. Fiber back-bones go faster because we can put faster chips on either side. We can machine tinier parts because photo-lithography is improving (again Moore's Law).
And of course, don't forget the exponentially increasing e-commerce. So... I'm guessing that article was written pre-2001.
The thing with the exponential runaway technology thesis is that it involves taking "technology" (which I think any reasonable person would agree could include a LOT of stuff), and breaking it down to a single number.
Why do you people bother nitpicking the movie? Hello, its not the book.
Why do you other people complain about the nitpickers?
Hello, nitpicking this movie is pointless, but nitpicking people's choice in slashdot comments isn't?
Why do people like me complain about the complainers?
It's all so depressing. A brain the size of a planet, and all I ever get to do is post on slashdot.
[please dont mod me down flaimbait or whatever if you don't get that reference. its really funny. really. kinda.]
This bugged me too. It wouldn't have been so bad if this wasn't the millionth time they tried to fool you that a character had died. (Merry + Pippin crushed by horses, Gandalf).
On the commentary though two things were said:
#1 - When Aragorn is unconscious and we see Arwen and him talking, this is not a hallucination or a telepathic communication. It is in fact the night before Aragorn leaves for the fellowship, film that they had originally shot for the first movie. I don't know about you, but for me the that brings the cheese factor WAY down.
So the question is why wasn't it made clear what that was all about without listening to the commentary? Jackson screwed up.
#2 - One of the writers says something to the effect of try to imagine what it would do to the tension of the story if Aragorn HADN'T fallen off the cliff. I couldn't follow this-- maybe some film buff could explain?
Huh? Am I the only one who missed the part in the books where the Quidditch "field" is a bog, and the "stands" are 100 foot towers? Its kind of funny, the game which was developed in parallel (I assume) has Quidditch looking consistent with the descriptions in the book. Not that WWF vertical towers of doom crap.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't those explorers (or their backers) pimpin it with the big $$$ from trade?
"To the majority of the users of desktop operating systems, better means: like Windows so it's familiar, but sell it for less... IMHO, OS X is there."
OS X cheaper than windows? Are you not counting hardware or something?
Just out of curiosity: has terrorist action ever been used as part of an effective military expedition?
I mean "surrender or we'll kill random civilians"?
"Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself."
*visions of the line of demarcation*
How can we possibly anticipate the situation of future generations when they begin exploiting space resources? Will the UN even still exist?
mod parent up please grandparent was smoking crack can't believe it got modded up
I'm sure there must be other posts pointing this out, but if you want a well researched look at what might work for living on Mars, try Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars.
Ritalin (methaphetamyn) stimulates the release of epinephrine (aka adrenaline). This is the same thing that caffiene does.
I just thought it was interesting that you credit legos with improving your thinking skills.
Why is it though that toys must improve skills to be good? It seems that we are slightly obsessed with education. In highschool my band teacher pulled the whole mozart = math skills thing one day and it kind of backfired (for me at least). If the purpose of music or literature or (say) legos is to improve your math or reasoning skills, what are you doing messing around with that stuff? Get some math and philosophy books and start reading up!
No, the purpose of legos is not to improve your imagination. If anything, the purpose of your imagination is to make legos fun.
I agree. It's too bad you read Origins at first. Manifold Space was imho by far the best of the trilogy. To me basically the WHOLE book was like the very end of 2001. This guy is suddenly launched into interacting with powerful aliens, however it is a one way trip because in order to do this he must also travel hundreds of years into the future with every step he takes -- leaving his own culture and society behind forever. Although towards the end it has some aspects which are grueling in the same way where that main guy ends up with some neanderthals. Xelee books are good, Manifold Space is good, but avoid Evolution at all costs! It's like the worst parts of origins for the whole damn book. NO high tech :(
One of the obscure little known could-have should-have stories of silicon valley is a startup by the name of Insite. Both Insite Floptical and IOmega Zip use optical tracking like a CD to positiong the magnetic read/write head.
The difference between the two was that the Floptical shipped years earlier, and was backwards compatable. The first generation was 21 mb floppy disk, the second was 40 mb, third was 100 mb (all 100% backwards compatable with earlier 3.5" diskettes). This was in the early 90s, before CD writing drives were available.
So why do we still use old floppy drives today, 15 years after this technology was developed? Biblically bad management of the company. Marketing so incompetent that when these drives were being sold at fry's, they neglected to indicate anywhere that the drives were backwards compatable. VP of sales so stubborn he refused cold hard cash from apple for the first million units WHENEVER they were ready.
The last dying gasp was Intel was interested in buying out the company from the dipshit VCs who listened to their buddy the CEO (who was really a VC himself, hence the incompetent management), and as a result were trying to cut their "losses". Intel's business team wanted to buy the company to push the technology not because of the money they expected to make from drive sales, but because the technology would enable multi-media PC application (remember this was before everyone had a CD-ROM and long before anyone had heard of DVDs).
The business team was overruled by the three people in charge of Intel because of their 5-year plan said "thou shalt not buy hardware companies" (I'm guessing these guys are the same ones who weren't interested in trying for the PC market in the late 70s -- another great call!).
So, the patents were sold off to a dozen other companies who had niche uses for them, effectively killing the technology. The most advanced form it achieved was marketed as the "SuperDrive" with a 200 mb capacity. IOmega had no interest in the technology for political reasons ("yeah, so these other guys developed a better system with capabilities we couldn't achieve faster and cheaper").
Whoops 3.5", 5.25" ; no 3.25" heh :P
One of the obscure little known could-have should-have stories of silicon valley is a startup by the name of Insite. Both Insite Floptical and IOmega Zip use optical tracking like a CD to positiong the magnetic read/write head.
The difference between the two was that the Floptical shipped years earlier, and was backwards compatable. The first generation was 21 mb floppy disk, the second was 40 mb, third was 100 mb (all 100% backwards compatable with earlier 3.25" diskettes). This was in the early 90s, before CD writing drives were available.
So why do we still use old floppy drives today, 15 years after this technology was developed? Biblically bad management of the company. Marketing so incompetent that when these drives were being sold at fry's, they neglected to indicate anywhere that the drives were backwards compatable. VP of sales so stubborn he refused cold hard cash from apple for the first million units WHENEVER they were ready.
The last dying gasp was Intel was interested in buying out the company from the dipshit VCs who listened to their buddy the CEO (who was really a VC himself, hence the incompetent management), and as a result were trying to cut their "losses". Intel's business team wanted to buy the company to push the technology not because of the money they expected to make from drive sales, but because the technology would enable multi-media PC application (remember this was before everyone had a CD-ROM and long before anyone had heard of DVDs).
The business team was overruled by the three people in charge of Intel because of their 5-year plan said "thou shalt not buy hardware companies" (I'm guessing these guys are the same ones who weren't interested in trying for the PC market in the late 70s -- another great call!).
So, the patents were sold off to a dozen other companies who had niche uses for them, effectively killing the technology. The most advanced form it achieved was marketed as the "SuperDrive" with a 200 mb capacity. IOmega had no interest in the technology for political reasons ("yeah, so these other guys developed a better system with capabilities we couldn't achieve faster and cheaper").
What about a huge aircraft which drops scramjet craft, which drops rocket which goes to orbit? Is there a reason why this is completely insane?
If brain drain were an economic strategy of the US wouldn't the government be helping to subsidize the education of foriegn students so they don't have to pay through the nose? Also if they were trying to steal capable/educated individuals from foriegn economies why would INS give people so much shit about student visas? Wouldn't they just let the individuals getting education immigrate? "Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." -Samuel Clemens