To witness all that this total solar eclipse has to offer, viewing must be within the narrow path of the moon's umbral shadow, which passes directly over Ceduna.
Wow! Amazing! To see the eclipse you've actually got to be somewhere where the eclipse is happening!
I mean seriously, isn't it common knowledge that the eclipse will only be visible from a small area? It's certainly part of pre-university physics here:-) Otherwise you would experience eclipses much more regularly.
(And BTW, "narrow path" = about 50-150 miles wide IIRC. At least it was in 1999(?) in Europe.)
actually you can stare at a Total eclpise without having to worry about your eyes burning out at all.
No. Common misconception. The danger is at the end of the eclipse: your eyes are accustomed to the dark, your pupils are dilated, and suddenly the first Bailey's Bead appears. The Bailey's Beads can be very bright compared to the eclipse itself: the corona is instantly invisible again.
it takes 18 years, 11 and 1/3 days to occure again but it will happen 120 degreese further west due to the rotation of the earth durring that time.
Funny then about the one I saw a few years ago (1999?) in Austria...
LOL. This is where the universe breaks down:-) 7 pages of comments is ridiculous... and the moderators don't appear to have noticed this page yet either.
If you put up a web site and it doesn't render properly in Mozilla, that's a small annoyance. If it doesn't render properly in Internet Explorer, you're dead in the water.
If you design a website to work in Mozilla, it will most likely also work in IE. But not always the other way round.
So long as you avoid using any proprietary MS extensions / quirks / plugins etc. (and by designing for Mozilla you'd have to) your site should work on both. There may be odd things that don't look quite right, but nothing major, and nothing that's hard to fix.
The only major flaw in this plan that I know of is PNG graphics. These are very badly supported by IE.
Um. My main use of Gimp doesn't involve printing a lot, and I must confess I'd only tried printing in Gimp on Windows (mainly because my printer is shared from a Windows box across a network, and when printing large files it's much quicker to walk to that machine and print locally). Since I'm not in Windows now, I can't try out your hint, but I will - thanks.
Having just now seen Gimp's Linux print dialog box for the first time (!), I was truly amazed. The first time I've ever seen Linux printing to be better than Windows:-) Thanks for that pointer.
Gimp is an incredibly weak imitation of Photoshop. It's not suitable for any real work.
I beg to differ. I do a fair amount of graphics work, and I find The Gimp indispensible. It's as complete, functional, and feature-rich as anything else I've used. Admittedly, for a first-time user, the interface is terrible - it took me a long time to get to grips with it. But it was worth the effort.
I even use The Gimp as my graphics tool of choice when forced onto Windows.
AFAICS, Gimp's only major shortcoming is in printing. I generally need a little more control over my printouts than a standard "Print X Copies to Printer Y [OK]" box.
Mozilla is almost at version 1.2 now, and can be considered a mature product. Although work on the rendering engine is still continuing, it is now almost completely W3C HTML compiant. It does not support some of Microsoft's proprietary extensions, because they're not in any official standard.
Most of the work on Mozilla now goes into extra features and bug fixes for the Mozilla application suite, rather than the rendering engine. There are still a small number of problems with the rendering engine, but the problem is not usually a violation of standards - rather, a fault which makes the interpreted content display incorrectly (e.g. corrupted display).
No, no, no! One of the main objectives of Mozilla is to have good HTML compliance. It's probably the most standards-compliant browser I know.
IE has bad HTML compliance, and the Microsoft page contains all sorts of fudges to make it display properly (e.g. negative margins) - which aren't strictly non-standard, but they shouldn't be expected to work in anything other than IE...
Just for the record, I'm in the UK where we have 50Hz mains, and I still find 60Hz unacceptably flickery (although I'm one of those people who notices it more than most).
Or keep your distfiles directory on one machine, and set the others up to mount it from that machine by NFS. That way, you'll never have to download anything more than once, and you don't have the hassle of keeping the directories in sync.
I tried Mozilla 1.0 which was a horrible product. I could repeatedly lock up the browser simply by going into the preferences.
In which case, find a way to reproduce the bug, go to Bugzilla, and file it. Most likely it's an issue with your configuration though.
IE runs just fine.
And has many, many more security flaws than Mozilla. There isn't a major news event every time Microsoft releases a minor security update on Windows Update. True, Mozilla isn't flawless. But it's way better than IE.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that the eclipse will cause *more* harmful radiation to reach Earth? Why?
I understand that the moon may not block much, if any, but surely it can't amplify the radiation.
I mean seriously, isn't it common knowledge that the eclipse will only be visible from a small area? It's certainly part of pre-university physics here
(And BTW, "narrow path" = about 50-150 miles wide IIRC. At least it was in 1999(?) in Europe.)
A cluster of how many Lotus Domino servers?!
Er, no, wait.....
LOL. This is where the universe breaks down :-) 7 pages of comments is ridiculous... and the moderators don't appear to have noticed this page yet either.
So long as you avoid using any proprietary MS extensions / quirks / plugins etc. (and by designing for Mozilla you'd have to) your site should work on both. There may be odd things that don't look quite right, but nothing major, and nothing that's hard to fix.
The only major flaw in this plan that I know of is PNG graphics. These are very badly supported by IE.
Um. My main use of Gimp doesn't involve printing a lot, and I must confess I'd only tried printing in Gimp on Windows (mainly because my printer is shared from a Windows box across a network, and when printing large files it's much quicker to walk to that machine and print locally). Since I'm not in Windows now, I can't try out your hint, but I will - thanks.
:-) Thanks for that pointer.
Having just now seen Gimp's Linux print dialog box for the first time (!), I was truly amazed. The first time I've ever seen Linux printing to be better than Windows
I even use The Gimp as my graphics tool of choice when forced onto Windows.
AFAICS, Gimp's only major shortcoming is in printing. I generally need a little more control over my printouts than a standard "Print X Copies to Printer Y [OK]" box.
Mozilla is almost at version 1.2 now, and can be considered a mature product. Although work on the rendering engine is still continuing, it is now almost completely W3C HTML compiant. It does not support some of Microsoft's proprietary extensions, because they're not in any official standard.
Most of the work on Mozilla now goes into extra features and bug fixes for the Mozilla application suite, rather than the rendering engine. There are still a small number of problems with the rendering engine, but the problem is not usually a violation of standards - rather, a fault which makes the interpreted content display incorrectly (e.g. corrupted display).
IE has bad HTML compliance, and the Microsoft page contains all sorts of fudges to make it display properly (e.g. negative margins) - which aren't strictly non-standard, but they shouldn't be expected to work in anything other than IE...
Just for the record, I'm in the UK where we have 50Hz mains, and I still find 60Hz unacceptably flickery (although I'm one of those people who notices it more than most).
Lucky I can't read that in Linux then, what with the text all overlapping in Mozilla... :-)
Or keep your distfiles directory on one machine, and set the others up to mount it from that machine by NFS. That way, you'll never have to download anything more than once, and you don't have the hassle of keeping the directories in sync.
In which case, find a way to reproduce the bug, go to Bugzilla, and file it. Most likely it's an issue with your configuration though.
And has many, many more security flaws than Mozilla. There isn't a major news event every time Microsoft releases a minor security update on Windows Update. True, Mozilla isn't flawless. But it's way better than IE.