My shirt is grey, but when I stand in a room with a blue light, guess what? It looks blue.
My shirt is blue, but when I stand in a room with a red light, guess what? It looks purple.
Don't say that they made all equipment only grey - there must be other colors too. And if that color is not red - it will apear in a red light as a mixed.
Now, your theory has even more weak points. The problem is that the day light in Mars cannot be just red. It can have slightly more red than other color - but not completely red. Te Marsian athmosphere is not a lamp bulb - it's just a transparent air with small amount of red dust. That means it may add a little bit of red to the light by reflecting it from dust particles, but guess what, that change would be a fraction of %. The original blue and green component of the sunlight will be still there.
By all means the pictures are fake. It's a matter of time now to read articles full of criticism from varios athmosphere phisists who do not work for NASA.
That is, if you have normal colour vision, and were standing right where the rover is parked right now, the colours you'd see would perfectly match those in the photos released.
Once I was in the middle of red-color cloud made my military signalling grenade. Let me tell you - red colors around were looking slightly brighter than others, but the grass was still green (although some brownish), and the blue jeans were still blue (although some purplish).
Also, back two decades ago I used to do black-white photo for my family, and the lab was a room with a red light. Again, my blue jeans were purple, and my green shirt were brown, while yellow things were orange. And that was in the room with EXCLUSIVELY red light. Remember? Marisan dust clouds do not create a monochrome light - they transparent to the light adding a bit of red by reflecting the WHITE light from particles.
You theory of red-dust-in-the-air cannot explain why all equipment we see is in red? Don't tell me that it's all painted red in NASA specially for Mars.
For me all those pictures are a fake in terms of color. Why do faked it? That's another question.
Why nasa continues to cast the pictures with a red hue to everything is beyond me.
Good question!
Check those NASA pictures where you see JPL equipment - all is in red. It's obviously photohoped. I understand to see all the red on the surface. But why all equipment is red? I don't believe it's all painted in red.
I asked same questions on Gentoo forums and I've got an impression that usually people with DVD+/-R/RW don't know how to build a bootable DVD.
The problem with a bootable DVD is in its size - its image would be too big to become commonly downloadble. But if you have a Linux box in your hands then such problem doesn't exist anymore.
The solution is to distribute a guiding script instead of an image. If you already have Linux with DVD authoring tools then such script, being configured and told about what settings and what applications you want on the disc, would build all desireable application packages, pre-configure the system for your desirable environment, make a proper image and burn it.
Source code is more compact than binaries. And it's a high chance that you have most of needed source code on your Linux box already. So, with such a guiding script, the downloaded size can be even less than with a CD image.
By the way, does any of you know any links that I can follow and gather bootable DVD advises? I may build such script by myself (as I actually need it!) and share it with the rest of us.
Now they need to worry about things like SSL and site performance, and it's too late.
It's never late. Getting working site under SSL is 2 hours to 2 days work. I did it few times and never had any serious performance problems.
And if performance is still a problem, isn't reasonable to consider a web-hosting? If application is done one anything that a web-hosting company can run (Perl, Java, ASP, even Zope) then both performance and SSL are even less problem - most of hosting companies provide SSL and have no performance problems. The thumb rule is: if you don't know how to do the job right - give it to people who know the drill.
Both Gnome libmlx2 and Apache Xerces implement schema-validation accoding to W3C standards and have no problem to validate XForms. I still fail to see what is the problem between XML parsers and XForms.
XForms is not differnet from any other XML, in terms of XML parsing. I used Gnome libxml2 as well as Apache Xerces. In both cases I had my data model specifically designed for a desired XML dialect. It's not a parser that should be adapted to XForms - it's the application data model. The parser stays XML-dialect neutral. As for the application, it must have that data-model anyway, no matter it's getting data from XML or from RPC. Blaming XML parsers doesn't show your understanding how actualy XML works.
XForms, althogh it's surely useful for general use outside HTML, is hugely overcomplicated for the majority of web browsing.
web browsing - that's the major problem of understanding of modern web-based application requirements by many web developers. They still think about browsing instead of applications. In mid-90s browsing was almost all that users needed from the web. But not anymore.
Today we deploy web-based applications not for public masses, but for intranet users and for extranet customers. We deploy them based on web as it is a convinient way to avoid any installation problems, but we still want them being applications - with same complex logic as we used to have in C++ based GUI.
Of course, deploing applications through the web requires the web-browser, which is not just a hypertext document browser anymore - it's a shell to run applications downloaded from the web on the fly. The majority of the application code can be still HTML, but other languages are used more and more oftner: Javascript, Java, XUL, Xforms.
The fact that you personally do not need anything besides HTML (including HTML forms) does not mean that all other web-developers agree with you. Today they often have to roll-back their pland to deploy new apps based just on a default web-browser - HTML-forms is too primitive way in many cases and doesn't help to implement a complex logic. They have to choose Java applets in such cases (or even worse - Flash!).
I think if Microsoft or Opera would recognize this problem before Mozilla and implement XForms natively in XHTML - many web-developers would prefer that browser. Again, it's sad that Mozilla developers don't understand it and still think like in mid-90s.
The fact that some companies are more lucky than others does not prove that Sun's technology is reliable in general. Besides, the big part of Sun's revenue in recent past years was from dot-coms ("we are a *dot* for your *com*", remember?), not only from data-centers.
Coming back to the original prediction (Sun is sinking further and further). Dot-coms sector is downgraded - that is one reason of such pessimistic forecast.
The other one is based on observation that data-centers imply more and more web-based multi-tier applications, which work fine on Lintel using load-balancing front-ends (when reliability of a single node is not an issue).
Third one is the fact that Compaq and IBM deliver still better price/performance yet reliable (even more reliable than Sun as I can tell).
With all three reasons it's obvious that the pessimistic forcast for Sun has big chances to become true. And Last time I talked to Wallstreet guys - they don't advise to invest for long to SUNW.
SVG development is still going nowhere, while Calendar development has just stopped. No need to mention that nobody in Mozilla development team understands the importance of MNG and XForms. In Bugzilla you can even find their comments saying that "HTML forms work, what the reason for Xforms?"!
So, Mozilla becomes the best web browser accoridng to requirements of mid-90s. However, development teams of other browsers (read: IE and Opera, not sure about Apple) are more informed about web-browser requirements of mid-00s. No need to predict who will be a winner.
I love Mozilla (both Suite and Firebird) and I love XUL, and that's why it's so sad to see that my favorite browser is a big loser.
If time was constant everywhere in the universe, you could assign 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IPv6 addresses to every second.
First, I thought we talk about computer clocks, not IP address space problems.
Second, what's wrong to assign IPv6 addresses every second *even* when time is not constant everywhere?
Third, we have sunrise at different moment at Earth, which (and because) is rotating. However we have so-called Universal time, which is the point zero for all other time-zones. In the same way the age of the Universe as it's seen on Earth can be count as a starting measurement. I guess something like timezones will be needed when we'll travel to places where the Universe is younger or older.
So, the problem of different Universe ages is solvable. But we don't have to solve *that* problem now. All we need right now is to get some valuable, provable, reliable zero-point for our clocks. I don't see anything better than the Big Bang. Do you?
Similarly, sure tabs are cool but if you never use them who cares? Personally I do a fair bit of research and I find no use for tabs. I can only read one screen at a time so I don't care for tabs.
Certainly you did your research among IE users - it's hard to use tabs when you don't have them.
I noticed that 99% of those Windows and MacOS users who tried Mozilla at least once - they decided to stick to it because of tabs.
Of course people read one screen at time. But based your logic OS must not let more than one GUI application running anyway - because we read one screen at time. Somehow this logic reminds me MSDOS. Any chance you work for Microsoft.
The rest of us, while reading one screen at time, use more than one "screen" (actually window) at time. Ever heard about a clipboard?
in last company we had about 50 Sun boxen, from U10 to E4500, all UltraSparcIII. 80% of boxen had at least 1 hardware failure within 1st year (all new, no second-hand). 40% of boxen had a fatal hardware failure, that caused Sun to come and change it. Dispite, there was a battle history of Solais problems, applying patches and answers from Sun "this bug is not patched yet". I know about Sun's quality not from the Web - I worked with those problems. And all that time my friends in a company-sutomer of IBM, were laughing on us - they neved had such issues, neither with Intel-based Netfinity, nor with Power4 and PPC based RS6Ks. So, excuse me, that would be you who is uninformed about Sun.
Scott McNealy and Sun Microsystems: Worth watching, though they may be difficult to see as they sink further and further out of sight.
No need to be a wizard to see that time for overpriced and underperformed (and unreliable) hardware (and OS) in internet-related business is finished. Today I can quicker deploy several (even dozens) of Lintel boxen running all needed application services distributed, then I did it before with a big 15K or few E4500s. With Lintel I save money in all aspects (cost of deployment, TCO) and I keep speed and quality not less (often even better) than with Sparc. SUN's customer base is collapsing to those who *do* need a *really* big iron. Just like SGI's one did.
Demonstrate something good - maybe set up IPC using mailboxes or something.
10 years ago I've created document-oriented transactioned RPC based on Sendmail, Procmail, PGP, and Shell scripting (and OraTCL). It was secure and reliable on very unreliable phone lines (ever connected with 1200 bod ?). Does it give me any points?:)
One of my bosses used to start his every speach on every meeting by: Well... you know... I mean... It's like this.... The rest of hiw speach was usually much cleaner and even articulated, but the introductionary phrase was irritating, especially being so persistent.
By the way, it was irritating for us ESL-immigrants. Americans used to talk in a similar way and did not found anything wrong in using so many parasite-phrases.
I agree all those epochs are too random, including the birthday of Jesus Christ. IMHO the only meaningful and universal epoch is a time of the Big Bang. All time should be count from that.
Twisted is Python-oriented. If you need it language-independent then try Jabber. It has all XML-RPC good things, and it's more reliable on a transport layer. Someone will suggest you IBM MQ - functionally it's same as Jabber, just costs lots more dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
My shirt is blue, but when I stand in a room with a red light, guess what? It looks purple.
Don't say that they made all equipment only grey - there must be other colors too. And if that color is not red - it will apear in a red light as a mixed.
Now, your theory has even more weak points. The problem is that the day light in Mars cannot be just red. It can have slightly more red than other color - but not completely red. Te Marsian athmosphere is not a lamp bulb - it's just a transparent air with small amount of red dust. That means it may add a little bit of red to the light by reflecting it from dust particles, but guess what, that change would be a fraction of %. The original blue and green component of the sunlight will be still there.
By all means the pictures are fake. It's a matter of time now to read articles full of criticism from varios athmosphere phisists who do not work for NASA.
That is, if you have normal colour vision, and were standing right where the rover is parked right now, the colours you'd see would perfectly match those in the photos released.
Once I was in the middle of red-color cloud made my military signalling grenade. Let me tell you - red colors around were looking slightly brighter than others, but the grass was still green (although some brownish), and the blue jeans were still blue (although some purplish).
Also, back two decades ago I used to do black-white photo for my family, and the lab was a room with a red light. Again, my blue jeans were purple, and my green shirt were brown, while yellow things were orange. And that was in the room with EXCLUSIVELY red light. Remember? Marisan dust clouds do not create a monochrome light - they transparent to the light adding a bit of red by reflecting the WHITE light from particles.
For me all those pictures are a fake in terms of color. Why do faked it? That's another question.
Good question!
Check those NASA pictures where you see JPL equipment - all is in red. It's obviously photohoped. I understand to see all the red on the surface. But why all equipment is red? I don't believe it's all painted in red.
So, it's fishy to me.
Not much of help for users of most of Linux hardware platforms. The only Linux arch where flash works (somehow) is x86.
So, no wonder it can use Mozilla plugins :)
I asked same questions on Gentoo forums and I've got an impression that usually people with DVD+/-R/RW don't know how to build a bootable DVD. The problem with a bootable DVD is in its size - its image would be too big to become commonly downloadble. But if you have a Linux box in your hands then such problem doesn't exist anymore. The solution is to distribute a guiding script instead of an image. If you already have Linux with DVD authoring tools then such script, being configured and told about what settings and what applications you want on the disc, would build all desireable application packages, pre-configure the system for your desirable environment, make a proper image and burn it. Source code is more compact than binaries. And it's a high chance that you have most of needed source code on your Linux box already. So, with such a guiding script, the downloaded size can be even less than with a CD image. By the way, does any of you know any links that I can follow and gather bootable DVD advises? I may build such script by myself (as I actually need it!) and share it with the rest of us.
If X Windows is not Windows then what is it? X Doors?
X Windows is Windows, it's just not MS Windows.
It is. But why did you decide that shot are made on Mars? It's made in Hollywood, in the same studio as 30 years ago made "documentary" about Moon.
I remember such buttons in two desktops: Gnome-1.4 and really old Sun's OpenLook.
It's never late. Getting working site under SSL is 2 hours to 2 days work. I did it few times and never had any serious performance problems.
And if performance is still a problem, isn't reasonable to consider a web-hosting? If application is done one anything that a web-hosting company can run (Perl, Java, ASP, even Zope) then both performance and SSL are even less problem - most of hosting companies provide SSL and have no performance problems. The thumb rule is: if you don't know how to do the job right - give it to people who know the drill.
Both Gnome libmlx2 and Apache Xerces implement schema-validation accoding to W3C standards and have no problem to validate XForms. I still fail to see what is the problem between XML parsers and XForms.
I think Californians should just switch back horses. What was the movie where their Governer was on the horse?
XForms is not differnet from any other XML, in terms of XML parsing. I used Gnome libxml2 as well as Apache Xerces. In both cases I had my data model specifically designed for a desired XML dialect. It's not a parser that should be adapted to XForms - it's the application data model. The parser stays XML-dialect neutral. As for the application, it must have that data-model anyway, no matter it's getting data from XML or from RPC. Blaming XML parsers doesn't show your understanding how actualy XML works.
web browsing - that's the major problem of understanding of modern web-based application requirements by many web developers. They still think about browsing instead of applications. In mid-90s browsing was almost all that users needed from the web. But not anymore.
Today we deploy web-based applications not for public masses, but for intranet users and for extranet customers. We deploy them based on web as it is a convinient way to avoid any installation problems, but we still want them being applications - with same complex logic as we used to have in C++ based GUI.
Of course, deploing applications through the web requires the web-browser, which is not just a hypertext document browser anymore - it's a shell to run applications downloaded from the web on the fly. The majority of the application code can be still HTML, but other languages are used more and more oftner: Javascript, Java, XUL, Xforms.
The fact that you personally do not need anything besides HTML (including HTML forms) does not mean that all other web-developers agree with you. Today they often have to roll-back their pland to deploy new apps based just on a default web-browser - HTML-forms is too primitive way in many cases and doesn't help to implement a complex logic. They have to choose Java applets in such cases (or even worse - Flash!).
I think if Microsoft or Opera would recognize this problem before Mozilla and implement XForms natively in XHTML - many web-developers would prefer that browser. Again, it's sad that Mozilla developers don't understand it and still think like in mid-90s.
Coming back to the original prediction (Sun is sinking further and further). Dot-coms sector is downgraded - that is one reason of such pessimistic forecast.
The other one is based on observation that data-centers imply more and more web-based multi-tier applications, which work fine on Lintel using load-balancing front-ends (when reliability of a single node is not an issue).
Third one is the fact that Compaq and IBM deliver still better price/performance yet reliable (even more reliable than Sun as I can tell).
With all three reasons it's obvious that the pessimistic forcast for Sun has big chances to become true. And Last time I talked to Wallstreet guys - they don't advise to invest for long to SUNW.
SVG development is still going nowhere, while Calendar development has just stopped. No need to mention that nobody in Mozilla development team understands the importance of MNG and XForms. In Bugzilla you can even find their comments saying that "HTML forms work, what the reason for Xforms?"!
So, Mozilla becomes the best web browser accoridng to requirements of mid-90s. However, development teams of other browsers (read: IE and Opera, not sure about Apple) are more informed about web-browser requirements of mid-00s. No need to predict who will be a winner.
I love Mozilla (both Suite and Firebird) and I love XUL, and that's why it's so sad to see that my favorite browser is a big loser.
First, I thought we talk about computer clocks, not IP address space problems.
Second, what's wrong to assign IPv6 addresses every second *even* when time is not constant everywhere?
Third, we have sunrise at different moment at Earth, which (and because) is rotating. However we have so-called Universal time, which is the point zero for all other time-zones. In the same way the age of the Universe as it's seen on Earth can be count as a starting measurement. I guess something like timezones will be needed when we'll travel to places where the Universe is younger or older.
So, the problem of different Universe ages is solvable. But we don't have to solve *that* problem now. All we need right now is to get some valuable, provable, reliable zero-point for our clocks. I don't see anything better than the Big Bang. Do you?
Certainly you did your research among IE users - it's hard to use tabs when you don't have them.
I noticed that 99% of those Windows and MacOS users who tried Mozilla at least once - they decided to stick to it because of tabs.
Of course people read one screen at time. But based your logic OS must not let more than one GUI application running anyway - because we read one screen at time. Somehow this logic reminds me MSDOS. Any chance you work for Microsoft.
The rest of us, while reading one screen at time, use more than one "screen" (actually window) at time. Ever heard about a clipboard?
in last company we had about 50 Sun boxen, from U10 to E4500, all UltraSparcIII. 80% of boxen had at least 1 hardware failure within 1st year (all new, no second-hand). 40% of boxen had a fatal hardware failure, that caused Sun to come and change it. Dispite, there was a battle history of Solais problems, applying patches and answers from Sun "this bug is not patched yet". I know about Sun's quality not from the Web - I worked with those problems. And all that time my friends in a company-sutomer of IBM, were laughing on us - they neved had such issues, neither with Intel-based Netfinity, nor with Power4 and PPC based RS6Ks. So, excuse me, that would be you who is uninformed about Sun.
No need to be a wizard to see that time for overpriced and underperformed (and unreliable) hardware (and OS) in internet-related business is finished. Today I can quicker deploy several (even dozens) of Lintel boxen running all needed application services distributed, then I did it before with a big 15K or few E4500s. With Lintel I save money in all aspects (cost of deployment, TCO) and I keep speed and quality not less (often even better) than with Sparc. SUN's customer base is collapsing to those who *do* need a *really* big iron. Just like SGI's one did.
10 years ago I've created document-oriented transactioned RPC based on Sendmail, Procmail, PGP, and Shell scripting (and OraTCL). It was secure and reliable on very unreliable phone lines (ever connected with 1200 bod ?). Does it give me any points? :)
One of my bosses used to start his every speach on every meeting by: Well... you know... I mean... It's like this.... The rest of hiw speach was usually much cleaner and even articulated, but the introductionary phrase was irritating, especially being so persistent.
By the way, it was irritating for us ESL-immigrants. Americans used to talk in a similar way and did not found anything wrong in using so many parasite-phrases.
I agree all those epochs are too random, including the birthday of Jesus Christ. IMHO the only meaningful and universal epoch is a time of the Big Bang. All time should be count from that.
Twisted is Python-oriented. If you need it language-independent then try Jabber. It has all XML-RPC good things, and it's more reliable on a transport layer. Someone will suggest you IBM MQ - functionally it's same as Jabber, just costs lots more dollars.
Better call her Ext3 or XFS - much more reliable.
By the way, my friend calls his cat Xemacs - I guess he loves them both that much :)