Possibly, but here is an even better comparison with two cached pages. When you click "back" in Safari it loads the page layout and text first and then loads the images. Chrome loads the entire page at once, which is a lot less visually jarring.
If they both finishing loading from cache quickly, then I'll give this to Chrome. But if it's slower (especially if elements on the page aren't cached, like banner ads and content from remote Javascripts), then generally I want text and layout to come before the pretty (funny that, coming from a Mac user...).
Another reason I prefer content to render as it becomes available: what's really frustrating about Internet Explorer (as of v7) is that it doesn't load certain table content until it receives the closing tags. This is especially annoying when a piece of content in that table takes longer to prepare (content is being flushed to client as it becomes available on the back-end, rather than waiting for the entire page to be assembled first before sending). All other browsers will render everything before that point in the table code.
I believe you mean Michael Brown, and he was removed from his post far faster than if he had been elected to it.
While appointments can be abused (there is a debate over our unelected senate, which is a room full of patronage appointments from whichever party's in power when a position is filled), my take is that those positions should not be elected posts because they do not represent you, they (judges, attourney generals, etc) represent the state. In Canada, this means the only positions up for election are municipal, provincial or federal representatives, as well as local school board trustees (since they *do* represent your ward in matters of public education).
It's supposed to be the elected officials' jobs to determine the best candidate for a position. You do not elect the US military commander in Iraq, for instance; that's the president or congress' job, iirc. And while there will be ambitions to advance the ranks internally (as there will anywhere else), we won't have things like the Duke rape case, where the DA was making an obvious election play that thankfully backfired on him
Don't get me wrong, our system's not perfect either, but in this particular area I think the US system is more flawed than ours.
Judges and law enforcement officials in Canada aren't elected. They're appointed by our elected officials, and I'm more than happy they're focused on their actual jobs and not wasting months every few years shilling for votes based on overblown high profile cases.
Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.
While somewhat dangerous, it shouldn't be that hard to get a camera and lights down there, as it is "only" 100 feet deep. (if that makes sense)
Correction: That's 100 *metres* deep. National geographic says it's about 30 storeys deep, which I assume to mean that's where the sides of the hole end and the "cavern" (for lack of a better term) begins.
How so? Will consumers boycott BP? How would they even go about that? Do we have so much oil that someone with some to sell, even with a bad reputation, will find no buyers?
Not consumers, but countries could deny BP rights to future oil extraction rights. Refusal to pay could also result in collateral damage to other oil companies if Arctic drilling is reconsidered.
The downside to the latter scenario is that oil prices will rise and they'll make up the difference easily. Hell, they win either way... they might even come out ahead in the long run, even if they refuse to pay penalties now. What a truly fucked up system.
I recently futzed with trying to get video on our new website. Being forward-thinking, I tried to use the html5 video tag. Being realistic, I tried to get away without converting to and storing ogg files. The idea was that h.264 videos would play natively for browsers that could handle it, and those that couldn't would revert to the Flash wrapper nested inside the video tag, as demonstrated by several html5/video tutorials.
Unfortunately, as soon as Firefox sees the video tag it expects an ogg source inside it. It won't fall back to the Flash wrapper if it's inside the video tag.
I could have written some Javascript to insert code appropriate to the detected browser, but being a pragmatist I realized I'd spent enough time on it (less than 5% of our visitors are even capable of using the video tag), and settled on the Flash-wrapped h.264 option--for now.
I drive a manual, but I see two key disadvantages, both non-technical:
1) driving with an injured/broken left foot or leg, while not impossible, seems to be an extremely daunting task 2) in North America, people are less likely to know stick, so you might not have friends to help drive in case you can't or don't want to (e.g. case #1, drank a bit too much, tired, etc)
So, lighter, better fuel economy, and less repair costs. I really don't see why people wouldn't want to drive a stick. The excuse "I don't know how" isn't a valid excuse, except they're too lazy to learn.
Damn straight. I drove auto for over 12 years, then a $1000 government subsidy on the manual version of the car I wanted prompted me to learn stick (the auto fell just short of the program's required fuel efficiency rating).
When I drove my new car off the lot, I had driven stick just 3 times--once test-driving a different make and model, the second was a friend's who coached me for an hour, and the third was test-driving the model I eventually bought.
Plus, not only did I get $1000 back, with taxes included I also saved another $1500 by not getting the automatic transmission option.
Not saying they were, merely saying that Sony is even less inclined to care about the USAF's issues than they would a consumer who bought a PS3 and ten games at full retail price; in the latter's case Sony has at least made up some of the loss with each game sale.
Two nights ago I wanted to check out the catalogue for a bike company. Their "low resolution" PDF was 157 MB, their hi-res was almost 250 MB. Never mind downloading on a mobile device, even on my desktop I had no desire to download something that big just to view a half dozen pages within, and their "interactive" Flash version was crap.
If they had used Scribd and their new HTML mode, I would've been able to load the front cover, go to the table of contents, jump to just the pages I wanted to see, and probably downloading less than 1 MB by the time I was finished.
While the US government will continue waving a big stick at IP backwater countries (/sarcasm) and trying to shoehorn IP laws in during treaty and other negotiations, at least they're not stupid enough to bomb and invade countries over this.
Send soldiers to fight and die to protect Hollywood and recording studios? You'd need 100x more Reality Distortion Field than even Steve Jobs has to spin that one.
Apple hasn't sold DRMd music for a couple of years now.
No, but they still want me to pay [a total of] $100 to get non-DRM versions of the music that I already bought and own...
I can't tell if you're speaking of 1) music you already bought from Lala, or 2) music you bought from iTunes while it was still DRM'ed and would have to pay extra to get non-DRMed versions.
For 1), this post says that if you already bought it for $.99 to $1.29, you already have it in DRM-free mp3 and don't need to buy new ones. If you paid $0.10 for each of them, you do not in fact own it, but could stream that song whenever you wanted, for as long as the service remained (which again illustrates why low-cost music streaming services aren't good for building collections--the service can disappear at any time).
For 2), yeah it sucks you have to pay to upgrade to DRM-free iTunes versions, but a) they're higher quality, and b) you're only paying the difference, i.e. you're paying $0.30 to replace the song, not $1.29. Assuming this wasn't a limited-time upgrade offer, that's a much better deal than studios usually allow, where you had (and still have) to pay full price when changing media (e.g. vinyl/tape/CD/download, VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray/download).
Modern 2-engined aircrafts are designed to be able to cope with only one working engine. It's part of the tests.
That really wasn't my point. What I suppose I didn't make clear, though, was that even though 4-engine planes can still run marginally even with 3 failed engines, that's still one more engine failed than a twin engine has.
And to go along with your post, the British Airways flight was about 100 miles from the volcano, and all 4 engines started up again after they were out of the ash. One of them failed again, but they were able to make it safely to an airport on their own power rather than strictly gliding.
That's great for 4-engine planes like the 747, A340 and A380. What about the twin-engines used for shorter-haul flights?
I thought the travel blackout was a little too knee jerk. I don't know how high the ash got in the atmosphere, but I'm thinking that there would be a more or less safe zone either above or below the main concentration of ash. Then there is the bigger safe zone away from the main corridor the ash is traveling. They might have needed to make adjustments to flight plans, but I think that they could have had a much smaller no-fly zone. Of course I am not even an aerospace janitor, so what do I know?
There had never been extensive testing done to determine safe levels of volcanic ash, so they could not, on a few hours notice, set up "safe zones" with any confidence. In those same first few hours they also might not have had the detailed maps and analyses of ash concentrations and altitudes that we saw in the days after.
Granted I'm not an aerospace janitor either, but given the little they knew at the time, which included direct knowledge of what can happen when flying near volcanic eruptions (British Airways 9 and KLM 867), IMHO they really had no choice but to issue a complete ban until at least some tests were done without using paying passengers as guinea pigs.
Though not an international news channel like CNN or BBC, Canada's CTV news network not only mentioned BA 9 the day the flight ban started, but showed the dramatic clips from the Discovery Channel's Mayday episode about it.
Of course, it helped that Discovery Canada is owned by CTV, and Mayday is a Canadian production.
What's going on now is the second-guessing of experts and efforts, being played up by the media to the clueless public, just like we saw with the Y2K bug.
Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast, faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink!
Slashdot Mirror
Americans call a game "football" where physical foot contact with the ball, by both sides, throughout the entire game, adds up to maybe 2 seconds.
Between this and being the last major country to eschew the metric system, it's like you *want* the world to mock you ;-P
Possibly, but here is an even better comparison with two cached pages. When you click "back" in Safari it loads the page layout and text first and then loads the images. Chrome loads the entire page at once, which is a lot less visually jarring.
If they both finishing loading from cache quickly, then I'll give this to Chrome. But if it's slower (especially if elements on the page aren't cached, like banner ads and content from remote Javascripts), then generally I want text and layout to come before the pretty (funny that, coming from a Mac user...).
Another reason I prefer content to render as it becomes available: what's really frustrating about Internet Explorer (as of v7) is that it doesn't load certain table content until it receives the closing tags. This is especially annoying when a piece of content in that table takes longer to prepare (content is being flushed to client as it becomes available on the back-end, rather than waiting for the entire page to be assembled first before sending). All other browsers will render everything before that point in the table code.
I believe you mean Michael Brown, and he was removed from his post far faster than if he had been elected to it.
While appointments can be abused (there is a debate over our unelected senate, which is a room full of patronage appointments from whichever party's in power when a position is filled), my take is that those positions should not be elected posts because they do not represent you, they (judges, attourney generals, etc) represent the state. In Canada, this means the only positions up for election are municipal, provincial or federal representatives, as well as local school board trustees (since they *do* represent your ward in matters of public education).
It's supposed to be the elected officials' jobs to determine the best candidate for a position. You do not elect the US military commander in Iraq, for instance; that's the president or congress' job, iirc. And while there will be ambitions to advance the ranks internally (as there will anywhere else), we won't have things like the Duke rape case, where the DA was making an obvious election play that thankfully backfired on him
Don't get me wrong, our system's not perfect either, but in this particular area I think the US system is more flawed than ours.
Judges and law enforcement officials in Canada aren't elected. They're appointed by our elected officials, and I'm more than happy they're focused on their actual jobs and not wasting months every few years shilling for votes based on overblown high profile cases.
Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.
While somewhat dangerous, it shouldn't be that hard to get a camera and lights down there, as it is "only" 100 feet deep. (if that makes sense)
Correction: That's 100 *metres* deep. National geographic says it's about 30 storeys deep, which I assume to mean that's where the sides of the hole end and the "cavern" (for lack of a better term) begins.
[citation needed]
From Tuesday's Fox News of the Apple world, MacDailyNews itself:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/25439/
The software (screensavers mostly, but at least one application) was listed on several major, reputable Mac software aggregation sites.
Perhaps not a botnet this time, but after giving the admin password during installation, any payload could have been installed.
IIRC, KITT was "destroyed" no less than three times.
under conditions that would destroy any car you've ever owned full stop.
I reckon my Hummer could take it.
Your Hummer certainly uses more fuel...
How so? Will consumers boycott BP? How would they even go about that? Do we have so much oil that someone with some to sell, even with a bad reputation, will find no buyers?
Not consumers, but countries could deny BP rights to future oil extraction rights. Refusal to pay could also result in collateral damage to other oil companies if Arctic drilling is reconsidered.
The downside to the latter scenario is that oil prices will rise and they'll make up the difference easily. Hell, they win either way... they might even come out ahead in the long run, even if they refuse to pay penalties now. What a truly fucked up system.
Actually this is a problem.
I recently futzed with trying to get video on our new website. Being forward-thinking, I tried to use the html5 video tag. Being realistic, I tried to get away without converting to and storing ogg files. The idea was that h.264 videos would play natively for browsers that could handle it, and those that couldn't would revert to the Flash wrapper nested inside the video tag, as demonstrated by several html5/video tutorials.
Unfortunately, as soon as Firefox sees the video tag it expects an ogg source inside it. It won't fall back to the Flash wrapper if it's inside the video tag.
I could have written some Javascript to insert code appropriate to the detected browser, but being a pragmatist I realized I'd spent enough time on it (less than 5% of our visitors are even capable of using the video tag), and settled on the Flash-wrapped h.264 option--for now.
I drive a manual, but I see two key disadvantages, both non-technical:
1) driving with an injured/broken left foot or leg, while not impossible, seems to be an extremely daunting task
2) in North America, people are less likely to know stick, so you might not have friends to help drive in case you can't or don't want to (e.g. case #1, drank a bit too much, tired, etc)
So, lighter, better fuel economy, and less repair costs. I really don't see why people wouldn't want to drive a stick. The excuse "I don't know how" isn't a valid excuse, except they're too lazy to learn.
Damn straight. I drove auto for over 12 years, then a $1000 government subsidy on the manual version of the car I wanted prompted me to learn stick (the auto fell just short of the program's required fuel efficiency rating).
When I drove my new car off the lot, I had driven stick just 3 times--once test-driving a different make and model, the second was a friend's who coached me for an hour, and the third was test-driving the model I eventually bought.
Plus, not only did I get $1000 back, with taxes included I also saved another $1500 by not getting the automatic transmission option.
Not saying they were, merely saying that Sony is even less inclined to care about the USAF's issues than they would a consumer who bought a PS3 and ten games at full retail price; in the latter's case Sony has at least made up some of the loss with each game sale.
[...] but its cheaper to buy the PS3 which Sony, like every other console manufacturer, sells below cost and make up the difference with game sales.
USAF buys literally tons of loss-leading PS3s but no games? I think you just hit on why Sony doesn't care about the problem the Air Force faces now.
Shuttle can't reach Geosynchronous orbit... actually, if wiki is correct it only gets to around 1% of the necessary altitude:
Shuttle orbit: 380 km (for space station missions)
Geosynchronous orbit: 35,786 km
Perhaps a valid point for VNC, but doesn't RDP use encryption out-of-the-box?
Two nights ago I wanted to check out the catalogue for a bike company. Their "low resolution" PDF was 157 MB, their hi-res was almost 250 MB. Never mind downloading on a mobile device, even on my desktop I had no desire to download something that big just to view a half dozen pages within, and their "interactive" Flash version was crap.
If they had used Scribd and their new HTML mode, I would've been able to load the front cover, go to the table of contents, jump to just the pages I wanted to see, and probably downloading less than 1 MB by the time I was finished.
Our border authority's efforts would be better spent preventing illegal guns from slipping across the border and into the hands of criminal gangs.
OTOH, it's easier and safer for them to "seize suspected infringing materials without the need for a court order."
At least 309 million people live in countries with overly draconian intellectual property protection.
While the US government will continue waving a big stick at IP backwater countries (/sarcasm) and trying to shoehorn IP laws in during treaty and other negotiations, at least they're not stupid enough to bomb and invade countries over this.
Send soldiers to fight and die to protect Hollywood and recording studios? You'd need 100x more Reality Distortion Field than even Steve Jobs has to spin that one.
Apple hasn't sold DRMd music for a couple of years now.
No, but they still want me to pay [a total of] $100 to get non-DRM versions of the music that I already bought and own...
I can't tell if you're speaking of 1) music you already bought from Lala, or 2) music you bought from iTunes while it was still DRM'ed and would have to pay extra to get non-DRMed versions.
For 1), this post says that if you already bought it for $.99 to $1.29, you already have it in DRM-free mp3 and don't need to buy new ones. If you paid $0.10 for each of them, you do not in fact own it, but could stream that song whenever you wanted, for as long as the service remained (which again illustrates why low-cost music streaming services aren't good for building collections--the service can disappear at any time).
For 2), yeah it sucks you have to pay to upgrade to DRM-free iTunes versions, but a) they're higher quality, and b) you're only paying the difference , i.e. you're paying $0.30 to replace the song, not $1.29. Assuming this wasn't a limited-time upgrade offer, that's a much better deal than studios usually allow, where you had (and still have) to pay full price when changing media (e.g. vinyl/tape/CD/download, VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray/download).
Modern 2-engined aircrafts are designed to be able to cope with only one working engine. It's part of the tests.
That really wasn't my point. What I suppose I didn't make clear, though, was that even though 4-engine planes can still run marginally even with 3 failed engines, that's still one more engine failed than a twin engine has.
And to go along with your post, the British Airways flight was about 100 miles from the volcano, and all 4 engines started up again after they were out of the ash. One of them failed again, but they were able to make it safely to an airport on their own power rather than strictly gliding.
That's great for 4-engine planes like the 747, A340 and A380. What about the twin-engines used for shorter-haul flights?
I thought the travel blackout was a little too knee jerk. I don't know how high the ash got in the atmosphere, but I'm thinking that there would be a more or less safe zone either above or below the main concentration of ash. Then there is the bigger safe zone away from the main corridor the ash is traveling. They might have needed to make adjustments to flight plans, but I think that they could have had a much smaller no-fly zone. Of course I am not even an aerospace janitor, so what do I know?
There had never been extensive testing done to determine safe levels of volcanic ash, so they could not, on a few hours notice, set up "safe zones" with any confidence. In those same first few hours they also might not have had the detailed maps and analyses of ash concentrations and altitudes that we saw in the days after.
Granted I'm not an aerospace janitor either, but given the little they knew at the time, which included direct knowledge of what can happen when flying near volcanic eruptions (British Airways 9 and KLM 867), IMHO they really had no choice but to issue a complete ban until at least some tests were done without using paying passengers as guinea pigs.
Though not an international news channel like CNN or BBC, Canada's CTV news network not only mentioned BA 9 the day the flight ban started, but showed the dramatic clips from the Discovery Channel's Mayday episode about it.
Of course, it helped that Discovery Canada is owned by CTV, and Mayday is a Canadian production.
What's going on now is the second-guessing of experts and efforts, being played up by the media to the clueless public, just like we saw with the Y2K bug.
What happens when you blink? Or sneeze?
Listen, your life could depend on this.
Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast, faster than you can believe. Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink!
Good luck...