And did you notice that it wasn't until after a cool mil was wired to a bank in the Caymans that AIG was bailed out? Source of that wire? The landlord. What's a mil when you're talking about 17.5% (your 15% is inaccurate) of your total income? Who would have thought The Fed could be bought like that?
DISCLAIMER: I'm bored so I just made all that up. Does sound plausible though, to me at least, but then again I've had but two hours of sleep so what do I know?
Also, in places like Florida where only a rear plate is used, getting a picture of both the plate and the driver will require the use of two cameras.
Nope. It will merely require a quick change in the law that will then require everyone in Florida to have two plates, and of course you'll have to pay $$ for the second plate. Using two cameras would not at all be practical in most situations, but requiring two plates is very easy for the state.
Great idea(s) but only 3 hours for data retention? I've had a vehicle stolen and it was longer than three hours before I noticed it. It was stolen sometime during the night. I noticed it was gone around 11 am. I think storing the data for the past 24 hours would be much better because then you have time to notice you're vehicle is gone, call the police, wait 2 1/2 hours for someone to show up, then almost an hour for the report to be written, and then finally he'll call it in to dispatch who puts out the alert to look for your car. 3 hours isn't even enough time from when you call the cops to when the alert goes out, under the current system, in Burien, WA anyway.
Umm... you might should have mentioned the "sorta stable" part to the guy who decided to put Windows on this thing. Had he known that was a requirement, Windows would obviously not have been chosen.
Personally, I'd go with whatever is on the space shuttle. Takes very little memory and never crashes!
But do we really need so many different rendering engines? I'm all for competition and I think having a choice of browsers is great, but in the end we all seem to want our pages to render the same on each browser. I know I don't want my sites to look diff on IE than they do in Firefox or any other browser. So what is the point of having three main engines (webkit, ie, gecko)?
Having several distros of Linux gives us choice. We can use whichever we like the most, but they all run the same kernel and if they didn't, they wouldn't be a Linux distro. If I take Ubuntu and mod it to use a *bsd kernel or Mach or billies_kernel_he_crafted_in_his_parents_basement-4.2.8, then I no longer truly have a Linux distro because Linux is the kernel.
Why can't we have a variety of browsers that offer diff features, but all render using the same engine? The argument is that competition is good and if there was only one, there would be no incentive to innovate or whatever. That's crap in this case. Even if we were stuck with the rendering engine from IE 6, as shite as it was, it would still be better than what we have now. I already have to test against Firefox 2 and 3, IE 6 and 7 (and soon 8), and I ignore the rest due to a lack of time. If Chrome gets popular then I'm going to have to test against it as well. And I've no idea if all the webkit browsers render identical or if I'll have to test against more than one. And at some point, when a 40 hour day is invented, I'll also have time to test against Opera and iPhone, and Blackberry, and Opera mobile, and insert long list here.
If only the web standards actually meant something and they were strictly adhered to. But then if all engines rendered the same, why have more than one? We need the one true engine, to rule them all! lol
Has Google actually failed at anything yet? All kidding aside, as near as I can tell, and I've had roughly two hours of sleep so excuse me if I'm totally forgetting some big blunder, but I think they've damn near nailed it most of the time.
They dominate searching. They came in and kicked ass, took names, and have been atop the pile for a long time. I haven't recently seen numbers on email but I suspect Gmail is continuing to gain market share and will eventually be the leader if it's not already there, and I suspect it's not only because so many people were/are already tied to some other service and aren't wanting to bother with a switch. My guess is that for new users they are winning the war easy.
Google had a wealth of great ideas and the combined brain power among those they employ to do some things that will amaze and impress us. If you had asked me two weeks ago if I thought Google would ever release a browser, I would have said you're nuts. What would they gain from competing in that space, but here they are with Chrome. My fear is that they once again dominate a market and my fav, Firefox of course, falls by the wayside. If they had went with Gecko I would have liked it better. At least then there would be some bennefit to Firefox but as it is, we just have one more browser to test against, and yet, it uses Webkit but does it render 100% exactly like any other browser using Webkit, or will they extend that or make changes that causes it render things differently?
About a year ago I was looking into using a CMS for a couple of sites and it came down to Drupal vs Joomla. I kept hearing how great Drupal was and how Joomla was nothing but a security headache but in the end I chose Joomla because it seemed to have the better community. I'm a programmer and my design skills are limited. I wanted something that had some fairly nice commercial templates available for purchase and for whatever reason, I found a lot more for Joomla than Drupal.
Not wanting to base my decision solely on that, I installed both and gave each a quick run-through. I didn't have weeks to evaluate the merits of each and study the codebase and do all of the things one might do if his job depended on the decision. Instead I just went with my gut and chose the one I felt most comfortable with.
I've since upgraded to Joomla 1.5.x and I've gotta say I'm very happy with the choice I made. Joomla has done everything I've asked of it and I've been able to find some really nice templates for each site I've done. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but it's a fine piece of software. Is it better or worse than Drupal? I dunno. I don't think anyone can answer that conclusively as it's subjective. I just wish Joomla would add some of the features that Wordpress is sporting these days... Google Gears and installation/updating via svn.
If you never shut off the machine would you be safe from this? If it's a problem with some things expanding quicker than others when things heat up, it seems that leaving the machine on all the time, thereby keeping everything at relatively the same temp, would help to mitigate any effect this might have on the parts. I have ATI cards in both of my machines so I'm not worried about this either way but my desktop machine is on 24/7 unless the power goes out which is very ra^@$%$%@$#@
Right but when you go to the irc channel to ask for help, then you are going to get confused. I'm running Hardy and when I have a question I can tell people that's what I'm running, but I don't even know what the corresponding version number is, nor have I needed to know that. Also, when you are searching for answers, most if not all of the tutorials I have come across use the codename. They might also use the version number but I haven't noticed if that's the case or not.
I agree with you regarding books. I've pirated a few but once I've read enough to know I want the book, I go out and buy it because I want an actual book in my hands. Movies and everything else work just fine when pirated. My xbox 360 is connected to my network so I can download whatever I want to any of my computers and then play it on my tv via the 360. Works great. It even works better than my dvr because if I download my content, I get a better version. That's the funny part of this.
See I have an SD tv but I like to watch widescreen video because then I get the full frame rather than pan and scan or worse. With my dvr I can record regular shows or hd shows but if I record hd shows, the dvr fills up really fast. I also have to hit the fast forward button every so often to skip through commercials. My alternative is to download shows that are in widescreen format and have no commercials. They show up online usually about the same time they air on tv because I'm on the west coast and people on the east coast get stuff up immediately. The only time when my online access fails is for live events like swimming in the Olympics. There was great online coverage of other events but the big events, like Phelps swimming weren't shown in realtime online... at the main site anyway. I have however watched streaming tv for stuff like the NBA playoffs last year and that worked great.
Napster brought digital piracy to the masses and broadband made it possible to pirate large files. There's nothing at all difficult about pirating movies, music, or tv shows, and programs and games are only slightly harder but usually include a readme and any crack files you might need. Plus there is help all over the web if you run into problems, so who is that is suffering from The Dumb and can't math today?
That favicon is brutal. Someone, whoever made that, needs to be taken out back and beaten... severely. That's just not right!
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Hey last time you did the vip package with the buffet and overnight accommodations... that worked out quite well for me and the misses... is that not avail this time?
I'm using it right now just to try it out. I'm a huge Firefox fan and have been for several years now. I started using Firefox back when it was just a beta, long before version 1 finally hit. As a web programmer I think I use Firefox more than any other program and I've really come to like it. It does have a few issues that I'd like to see resolved however, and I think Chrome might be going in the right direction. Memory usage in Firefox is nuts and always has been. After browsing for a couple of hours I can close all tabs and still use nearly 400 megs of memory. That's a serious problem. Sure I can restart Firefox at that point and get the memory back, but I shouldn't need to. Also, when Firefox is using more than 300 megs on my machine, it starts to slow down. I had a gig and a half in my computer so I thought maybe I needed more. I bought another gig and brought my total to 2.5 gigs, yet Firefox still begins to crap out around the 300 meg threshold.
From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that. Is that enough to make me switch? No, not at all. I rely on a number of Firefox extensions and unless Google makes Chrome compatible with Firefox extensions, or comes up with their own system and then develops a tool to auto-port Firefox extensions, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch. Back when I was running 1.5.3 (I think it was.3) and had a number of stability issues I might have given Chrome serious consideration but I only installed it tonight to see what it's all about. When I'm done playing it's back to Firefox I go.
I actually think The Dark Knight is the best movie ever, but that's just me. I've seen it three times... opening night was regular cinema and then the other two were both Imax. I'm going again sometime this week to see it again on Imax and I would have already seen it a couple more times on Imax but the closest Imax theater is 60 miles from here and I don't particularly like driving through San Fran.
If you really want to be blown away, check it out on Imax. The whole thing looks impressive and sounds damn good, but the scenes filmed with Imax equipment, there are six of them, look unreal. It's incredible. Then again, I'm comparing a film in a particular format to other films in the standard format so that gives TDK an unfair edge. If everything was in Imax I'd pay at least double to see them, even older films.
Most of the people I know said Bush had no chance the last time around but look where we are now. From what I've heard of the latest polls things are pretty even. I thought several months back that McCain had no chance but now I'm not so sure if for no other reason than I don't trust the voting machines. I'll be surprised if Obama is able to win this.
How is she any less qualified than the guy who currently holds the office? He was elected twice so apparently we as a nation have pretty low standards. Then again, look at the individuals we choose to nominate. It's no wonder we find ourselves at the polls trying to choose between the lesser of two yahoos.
Hey! Lets get off of Ma's... I just got off yours!
Holy crap... that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've said in the last five minutes but what the hell... I'm way too bored today.
Odd that you would bail after one failed upgrade. I'm running Ubuntu on a server and have upgraded three times now, no wait... 4 times (Dapper to Feisty to Gutsy to Hardy) with no problems. I'm update my sources, update, then upgrade and a little while later it's done and I reboot. I've had problems in the past with Debian, RedHat, and Mandrake... but I've only been using Ubuntu for a little over a year now and maybe thus far I've just gotten lucky.
Most people I know upgrade Office because they think everyone else is going to and they want to make sure they can open any files they receive. But then most people I know did not upgrade beyond Office 2003 because they don't like the ribbon crap. They also haven't upgraded to Vista. The risk you run when your software reaches that "good enough" point is that you really have to give more to get customers to upgrade. Taking away the tried-and-true menus and replacing them with unfamiliar crap is not a good way to get people to upgrade.
But again, I have a FREE legal copy of the latest Office and I choose not to use it. That really says something about my opinion of the product. But even then, I choose to stay with what I already have because while Office is not progressing in my opinion, neither is any of its competitors. Open Office gives me nothing that I don't already have, as far as I know. And if it does, it needs to do a better job of marketing whatever it is that might convince me to switch. Simply relying on the fact that it's free isn't getting it done.
Slashdot Mirror
Their insurance company: AIG.
And did you notice that it wasn't until after a cool mil was wired to a bank in the Caymans that AIG was bailed out? Source of that wire? The landlord. What's a mil when you're talking about 17.5% (your 15% is inaccurate) of your total income? Who would have thought The Fed could be bought like that?
DISCLAIMER: I'm bored so I just made all that up. Does sound plausible though, to me at least, but then again I've had but two hours of sleep so what do I know?
Also, in places like Florida where only a rear plate is used, getting a picture of both the plate and the driver will require the use of two cameras.
Nope. It will merely require a quick change in the law that will then require everyone in Florida to have two plates, and of course you'll have to pay $$ for the second plate. Using two cameras would not at all be practical in most situations, but requiring two plates is very easy for the state.
Great idea(s) but only 3 hours for data retention? I've had a vehicle stolen and it was longer than three hours before I noticed it. It was stolen sometime during the night. I noticed it was gone around 11 am. I think storing the data for the past 24 hours would be much better because then you have time to notice you're vehicle is gone, call the police, wait 2 1/2 hours for someone to show up, then almost an hour for the report to be written, and then finally he'll call it in to dispatch who puts out the alert to look for your car. 3 hours isn't even enough time from when you call the cops to when the alert goes out, under the current system, in Burien, WA anyway.
I got a new computer. Oh yea? What kind? It's the new Cray OMG PONIES!!! It runs Duke Nukem Forever like a mutha!
I'd sell my left nut to buy one if they named it that, just to be able to say I had one.
making it actually useable, and sorta stable
Umm... you might should have mentioned the "sorta stable" part to the guy who decided to put Windows on this thing. Had he known that was a requirement, Windows would obviously not have been chosen.
Personally, I'd go with whatever is on the space shuttle. Takes very little memory and never crashes!
But do we really need so many different rendering engines? I'm all for competition and I think having a choice of browsers is great, but in the end we all seem to want our pages to render the same on each browser. I know I don't want my sites to look diff on IE than they do in Firefox or any other browser. So what is the point of having three main engines (webkit, ie, gecko)?
Having several distros of Linux gives us choice. We can use whichever we like the most, but they all run the same kernel and if they didn't, they wouldn't be a Linux distro. If I take Ubuntu and mod it to use a *bsd kernel or Mach or billies_kernel_he_crafted_in_his_parents_basement-4.2.8, then I no longer truly have a Linux distro because Linux is the kernel.
Why can't we have a variety of browsers that offer diff features, but all render using the same engine? The argument is that competition is good and if there was only one, there would be no incentive to innovate or whatever. That's crap in this case. Even if we were stuck with the rendering engine from IE 6, as shite as it was, it would still be better than what we have now. I already have to test against Firefox 2 and 3, IE 6 and 7 (and soon 8), and I ignore the rest due to a lack of time. If Chrome gets popular then I'm going to have to test against it as well. And I've no idea if all the webkit browsers render identical or if I'll have to test against more than one. And at some point, when a 40 hour day is invented, I'll also have time to test against Opera and iPhone, and Blackberry, and Opera mobile, and insert long list here.
If only the web standards actually meant something and they were strictly adhered to. But then if all engines rendered the same, why have more than one? We need the one true engine, to rule them all! lol
Has Google actually failed at anything yet? All kidding aside, as near as I can tell, and I've had roughly two hours of sleep so excuse me if I'm totally forgetting some big blunder, but I think they've damn near nailed it most of the time.
They dominate searching. They came in and kicked ass, took names, and have been atop the pile for a long time. I haven't recently seen numbers on email but I suspect Gmail is continuing to gain market share and will eventually be the leader if it's not already there, and I suspect it's not only because so many people were/are already tied to some other service and aren't wanting to bother with a switch. My guess is that for new users they are winning the war easy.
Google had a wealth of great ideas and the combined brain power among those they employ to do some things that will amaze and impress us. If you had asked me two weeks ago if I thought Google would ever release a browser, I would have said you're nuts. What would they gain from competing in that space, but here they are with Chrome. My fear is that they once again dominate a market and my fav, Firefox of course, falls by the wayside. If they had went with Gecko I would have liked it better. At least then there would be some bennefit to Firefox but as it is, we just have one more browser to test against, and yet, it uses Webkit but does it render 100% exactly like any other browser using Webkit, or will they extend that or make changes that causes it render things differently?
About a year ago I was looking into using a CMS for a couple of sites and it came down to Drupal vs Joomla. I kept hearing how great Drupal was and how Joomla was nothing but a security headache but in the end I chose Joomla because it seemed to have the better community. I'm a programmer and my design skills are limited. I wanted something that had some fairly nice commercial templates available for purchase and for whatever reason, I found a lot more for Joomla than Drupal.
Not wanting to base my decision solely on that, I installed both and gave each a quick run-through. I didn't have weeks to evaluate the merits of each and study the codebase and do all of the things one might do if his job depended on the decision. Instead I just went with my gut and chose the one I felt most comfortable with.
I've since upgraded to Joomla 1.5.x and I've gotta say I'm very happy with the choice I made. Joomla has done everything I've asked of it and I've been able to find some really nice templates for each site I've done. Is it perfect? No, far from it, but it's a fine piece of software. Is it better or worse than Drupal? I dunno. I don't think anyone can answer that conclusively as it's subjective. I just wish Joomla would add some of the features that Wordpress is sporting these days... Google Gears and installation/updating via svn.
If you never shut off the machine would you be safe from this? If it's a problem with some things expanding quicker than others when things heat up, it seems that leaving the machine on all the time, thereby keeping everything at relatively the same temp, would help to mitigate any effect this might have on the parts. I have ATI cards in both of my machines so I'm not worried about this either way but my desktop machine is on 24/7 unless the power goes out which is very ra^@$%$%@$#@
NO CARRIER
Have you never visited Bash? It's proof that you don't need to be a genius to use IRC.
Right but when you go to the irc channel to ask for help, then you are going to get confused. I'm running Hardy and when I have a question I can tell people that's what I'm running, but I don't even know what the corresponding version number is, nor have I needed to know that. Also, when you are searching for answers, most if not all of the tutorials I have come across use the codename. They might also use the version number but I haven't noticed if that's the case or not.
Not this time. After each one is made they break the mold thereby ensuring that no copy can or will ever exist. It's foolproof I assure you!!!
I agree with you regarding books. I've pirated a few but once I've read enough to know I want the book, I go out and buy it because I want an actual book in my hands. Movies and everything else work just fine when pirated. My xbox 360 is connected to my network so I can download whatever I want to any of my computers and then play it on my tv via the 360. Works great. It even works better than my dvr because if I download my content, I get a better version. That's the funny part of this.
See I have an SD tv but I like to watch widescreen video because then I get the full frame rather than pan and scan or worse. With my dvr I can record regular shows or hd shows but if I record hd shows, the dvr fills up really fast. I also have to hit the fast forward button every so often to skip through commercials. My alternative is to download shows that are in widescreen format and have no commercials. They show up online usually about the same time they air on tv because I'm on the west coast and people on the east coast get stuff up immediately. The only time when my online access fails is for live events like swimming in the Olympics. There was great online coverage of other events but the big events, like Phelps swimming weren't shown in realtime online... at the main site anyway. I have however watched streaming tv for stuff like the NBA playoffs last year and that worked great.
Napster brought digital piracy to the masses and broadband made it possible to pirate large files. There's nothing at all difficult about pirating movies, music, or tv shows, and programs and games are only slightly harder but usually include a readme and any crack files you might need. Plus there is help all over the web if you run into problems, so who is that is suffering from The Dumb and can't math today?
That favicon is brutal. Someone, whoever made that, needs to be taken out back and beaten... severely. That's just not right!
Hey last time you did the vip package with the buffet and overnight accommodations... that worked out quite well for me and the misses... is that not avail this time?
I'm using it right now just to try it out. I'm a huge Firefox fan and have been for several years now. I started using Firefox back when it was just a beta, long before version 1 finally hit. As a web programmer I think I use Firefox more than any other program and I've really come to like it. It does have a few issues that I'd like to see resolved however, and I think Chrome might be going in the right direction. Memory usage in Firefox is nuts and always has been. After browsing for a couple of hours I can close all tabs and still use nearly 400 megs of memory. That's a serious problem. Sure I can restart Firefox at that point and get the memory back, but I shouldn't need to. Also, when Firefox is using more than 300 megs on my machine, it starts to slow down. I had a gig and a half in my computer so I thought maybe I needed more. I bought another gig and brought my total to 2.5 gigs, yet Firefox still begins to crap out around the 300 meg threshold.
.3) and had a number of stability issues I might have given Chrome serious consideration but I only installed it tonight to see what it's all about. When I'm done playing it's back to Firefox I go.
From the comic it seems like Google really wants to take a new approach to how browsers deal with memory and I think Firefox could learn from that. Is that enough to make me switch? No, not at all. I rely on a number of Firefox extensions and unless Google makes Chrome compatible with Firefox extensions, or comes up with their own system and then develops a tool to auto-port Firefox extensions, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch. Back when I was running 1.5.3 (I think it was
The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring? What is this? Berkeley in the 60's? Damn stoners!
I actually think The Dark Knight is the best movie ever, but that's just me. I've seen it three times... opening night was regular cinema and then the other two were both Imax. I'm going again sometime this week to see it again on Imax and I would have already seen it a couple more times on Imax but the closest Imax theater is 60 miles from here and I don't particularly like driving through San Fran.
If you really want to be blown away, check it out on Imax. The whole thing looks impressive and sounds damn good, but the scenes filmed with Imax equipment, there are six of them, look unreal. It's incredible. Then again, I'm comparing a film in a particular format to other films in the standard format so that gives TDK an unfair edge. If everything was in Imax I'd pay at least double to see them, even older films.
Most of the people I know said Bush had no chance the last time around but look where we are now. From what I've heard of the latest polls things are pretty even. I thought several months back that McCain had no chance but now I'm not so sure if for no other reason than I don't trust the voting machines. I'll be surprised if Obama is able to win this.
How is she any less qualified than the guy who currently holds the office? He was elected twice so apparently we as a nation have pretty low standards. Then again, look at the individuals we choose to nominate. It's no wonder we find ourselves at the polls trying to choose between the lesser of two yahoos.
Hey! Lets get off of Ma's... I just got off yours! Holy crap... that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've said in the last five minutes but what the hell... I'm way too bored today.
From Apple IIGS to Apple IIXP. I loved my IIGS. It was awesome in it's day... but then Apple went Mac and that was that. *sniffle*
I was thinking the same thing. I'm not a Windows hater but ME? Are you freakin kidding us?!!?!?
Odd that you would bail after one failed upgrade. I'm running Ubuntu on a server and have upgraded three times now, no wait... 4 times (Dapper to Feisty to Gutsy to Hardy) with no problems. I'm update my sources, update, then upgrade and a little while later it's done and I reboot. I've had problems in the past with Debian, RedHat, and Mandrake... but I've only been using Ubuntu for a little over a year now and maybe thus far I've just gotten lucky.
Most people I know upgrade Office because they think everyone else is going to and they want to make sure they can open any files they receive. But then most people I know did not upgrade beyond Office 2003 because they don't like the ribbon crap. They also haven't upgraded to Vista. The risk you run when your software reaches that "good enough" point is that you really have to give more to get customers to upgrade. Taking away the tried-and-true menus and replacing them with unfamiliar crap is not a good way to get people to upgrade.
But again, I have a FREE legal copy of the latest Office and I choose not to use it. That really says something about my opinion of the product. But even then, I choose to stay with what I already have because while Office is not progressing in my opinion, neither is any of its competitors. Open Office gives me nothing that I don't already have, as far as I know. And if it does, it needs to do a better job of marketing whatever it is that might convince me to switch. Simply relying on the fact that it's free isn't getting it done.