What version of Chimera are you using? Something sounds wrong.
A nightly build from a week or so ago. It's definitely wrong, but the question is whether it's wrong in all cases, or only wrong in the build that I (occasionally) use.
If-- and this is a giant if-- the Chimera guys can get their act together and actually release a finished product, it might, someday, end up being a better browser than OmniWeb. But if it goes the Mozilla route, that is to say they just take a given build that's not even remotely feature-complete or bug-free and stamp it 1.0, then it's still going to be OmniWeb all the way.
Recent versions of Mozilla now use Cocoa for text rendering
True, but the text still doesn't look right. The leading is wrong, and cannot be adjusted. Compare, oh, Slashdot's main page in OmniWeb to the same page in Chimera. The OmniWeb version looks noticeably better.
Mozilla ain't perfect.
Mozilla is, ultimately, a hack. I appreciate the work that went into making the user interface fully cross-platform, but it was wasted effort. It would have been better to have a native branch for Mac, a native branch for Windows, and so on. More work to maintain, but the result would have been far superior, which is the only thing that counts.
I have, at various times, tried to use either Chimera or full-blown Mozilla as my main browser. I just can't do it. OmniWeb just blows them both away in terms of overall quality of the browsing experience.
Yuck. I don't want to use a browser where you have to have an article that explains how to do things.
I do not, for example, want an article that tells me how to make Chimera's tab-to-focus only work with text boxes instead of with every UI element on the page. I just want it to work correctly.
The problem only really occurs with some fonts that the Carbon anti-aliases handles differently than the Cocoa anti-aliasing.
That's not what I'm talking about. Open up Chimera and go to a page with a big textedit box. Start typing. See how it redraws the entire textedit box contents every time you strike a key? I have a dual gigahertz machine, and I'm only a moderately fast typist; Chimera can't keep up with me. It lags behind as I type. That's unacceptable.
Dude, if you take the very best browser overall for the Mac and dismiss it with "I hate this," of course you're going to end up with no good choices.
OmniWeb is not without flaws. It needs some CSS improvements, seriously, and some JavaScript improvements. But its text rendering and Cocoa features (like spell-checking in a textedit box) can't be beat. It's got great regular-expression URL filtering, too. I use OmniWeb most of the time, and Chimera on those rare occasions when I have to.
Mmmm... huh? For the record, non-Roman sites like apple.co.jp, chinese.yahoo.com, yahoo.co.jp, and so on render just fine in IE for OS X. I don't know if they use Unicode or another character set, but they work with no problem at all, and without anything other than the default OS loaded.
They didn't cover anything about the value of open source.
Why should they? Open source is of no value whatsoever to most people. In fact, given the conclusion (the arguable conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless) that IE is superior to Mozilla and Mozilla-derived browsers right now, it seems like "open source" is a liability rather than an asset.
They didn't cover any of the cool plug-ins, like the preferences toolbar, mouse gesturing, or whatever.
This falls into the same category as the open-source thing. These features are of dubious value at best. Mouse gesturing? Dumb idea. Certainly some people out there are going to like it, but most won't, so why bother mentioning it in a competitive review?
IE5 for the Mac is as good as Mozilla for Windows. They are both awesome browsers.
Well, I won't argue that IE for OS X is about the same as Mozilla for Windows, but I can say that it's not an "awesome browser."
IE randomly decides to stop loading page data before it's finished. If you browse a page with tons of images-- some web designers just love to separate a page into 50+ GIFs, for some reason-- the page will often fail to render completely. IE will just stop right in the middle.
On my machine, I have OmniWeb, Chimera, and IE. IE is by far the least dependable browser of the bunch.
It doesn't support most of the nice Cocoa features that Omniweb does. (i.e. spellchecking)
It goes deeper than that. Chimera doesn't use Cocoa text widgets at all. Not only to you not get services like spellchecking; the text rendering itself is screwed up. It's unbearable, and so absurdly unnecessary.
I use Chimera only when I have to. For everything else, it's OmniWeb all the way-- and yes, I paid for my OmniWeb license, thank you very much.
Everything you said is absolutely true: you should be able to orienteer with a map and a compass. But GPS is a nice luxury to have. I used it extensively on a recent kayaking trip; we had five days to make 50 miles, and I wanted to be sure that we didn't come in a day too early, so I used my Garmin to mark our route and keep good situational awareness of how far we had to go. It worked really well.
Sitting at his campsite at night writing up a few entries on his laptop and reviewing where he's already been, and uploading some digital pictures, shouldn't do anything but add to his experience.
Yeah... if by "add to his experience" you mean "weigh more than your sleeping pad, sleeping bag, and tent combined."
I know you're just giving shit, but for the record I spent the weekend after Thanksgiving hiking and camping primitive-style. Our only concession to the 21st century was a hand-held GPS device, just in case. But we also carried a compass in case the batteries died.
Being a geek doesn't necessarily always mean looking for the highest-technology electronic solution. Primitive camping-- figuring out how to carry everything you need to survive on your back-- appeals to the geek nature just as much as anything else.
Yet, it is most certainly going to occur before "faster-than-light spaceships"
Why? Why is machine comprehension any more likely than the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or a fat-free fudge cake that doesn't let you down in the flavor department like so many others?
Let me be explicit: You have no idea what you are talking about.
The program only needs to be "smart" enough to sidestep copyright -- create a new expression of the same idea.
Based on your posts, I'm not entirely sure that you're smart enough to do this.
I'd suggest you stop focusing on irrelevant personal insults
I'd say that the fact that your idea is incredibly stupid is, in fact, quite relevant. You should retract your statements, admit that you're talking out of your hat, and be quiet for a while.
Which parts of your post were intended to be sarcastic? Because, on my life, you sounded just like your average neo-hippie Slashdot idiot to me. If you were kidding, I'd like to know, so I can laugh and appreciate.
Someday, like on Stardate 20192.7, Earth companies learned to share their intellectual wealth for the betterment of all, instead of paying the salaries of talking heads on a spring.
Oh, man, you're kidding, right? Read your history. Any scheme that includes the phrase "for the betterment of all" is doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the assumption that people will act contrary to their own self-interest on a large scale. This will not happen. If I have an idea that gives me an advantage over you, I will not share that idea with you. I will, instead, exploit my advantage to the fullest extent that I can. The only way to prevent this is to outlaw it through force, and from about 1950 to about 1990 we saw how well that worked.
The world is not an elementary school playground. There are no rules of fair play, and no teachers to run to if you feel like you've been slighted. Unfair advantage is the natural order of things, and to try to ignore that fact is foolish at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
As a country, we believe that everybody is created equal. But starting at about six seconds post-partum, inequality and unfairness set in, and from that point on, it's dog-eat-dog.
With the advancement of AI, bayesian algorithms, and genetic algorithms, it may well be something which can be achieved with work.
Given that you obviously don't understand in even the most basic terms what kind of problem you're talking about, I suppose it's no surprise that you're bandying it about so carelessly.
Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday. Then again, so are faster-than-light spaceships, immortality, and time travel. None of these things is proven to be impossible. And yet none of them have even a theoretical basis in fact.
The ability to distinguish fact from fancy is an important aspect of maturity. I would recommend that you spend a little time improving this skill in yourself. Or, if you prefer, you can simply remain an idiot. Doesn't much matter to me.
If you don't want to follow the rules, fine. But to deny that there are rules, or to assert that they are "silly," is just foolishness.
Oh, and by the way, "shall" in the second or third person indicates a necessity originating from the person speaking: "You shall not pass." In the first person it indicates the opposite: a necessity originating from outside the person speaking: "We shall see."
"Will," on the other hand, indicates simple futurity with no particular indication of the motive of the futurity.
After a conditional conjunction, "shall" is used to indicate simple futurity in the subjunctive mood: "If he shall go...."
These meanings have changed over time. When the King James Bible was published in 1611, "shall" was used to indicate simple futurity. In the 20th century, "shall" began to fall out of favor in American English in all but the most formal situations, such as legal writing. Over time, the meanings of "shall" and "will" may shift further.
Until then, the words "shall" and "will" have very different meanings, and there is a right way and a wrong way to use them.
As computers programs are becoming smarter and smarter, it may be possible for them to read in paragraphs and reword them to be written differently, but still mean the same thing.
I always believed you were an idiot. This proves it. Thank you.
So, what you're saying is if Nazis lined your family up to be shot to death and you were the only one that survived that you would be happy?!?
In 1992 or 1993, a friend of mine was out on a lake with his two sons. I never found out exactly what happened, but there was an accident, and both sons were badly hurt. One died. The other survived.
About a year later, I was talking to him about it, and he told me that he'd never known such a conflicting set of emotions. On the one hand, he was in anguish at the loss of his son. But at the same time, he felt such joy and gratitude that the other son, who might also have died, lived. He told me that the hardest thing he had to deal with in the following months was the sense of guilt he carried because he was more happy that his son survived than sad because his other son had died.
I've heard that this is not an uncommon feeling, particularly among the survivors of accidents. The survivors feel such joy to have survived at all, then become overwhelmed with guilt because of it. In other words, they feel bad because they don't feel worse.
The fact Schindler saved jews is great, but don't you think it's appalling that the millions of Germans didn't really give a fuck that their jewish neighbors were being hauled off from their homes like cattle while their possesions were being confiscated!
Sure, it's appalling. What's worse is that it's also entirely understandable. When you make your movie about that aspect of the holocaust, I will pay my $8.50 to see it.
So, next time you open your pie hole Herr Hollywood please get a fucking clue what happiness is.
Man. You're a dick. Please keep me on your foes list, and make sure to assign a modifier. I'd just as soon you not respond to any more of my posts in the future.
the better teen comedies shouldn't be dismissed just because they're aimed at a teen audience
Ah, funny. That's the hardest one of all. I'm sure that after the first showing of The Acharnians, Aristophanes was heard muttering to himself backstage about how the highbrows in the audience wouldn't know funny if it bit them on the ass. In Greek, though, of course.
I rather like macaroni and cheese
Now, see, this is something I have an opinion about. Ever since my own personal dot-com bubble burst, I've been a chef. Do you know what separates high cuisine from low cuisine? Love. That's all. Just love. When you eat a meal at my restaurant, you know that somebody sweated over every aspect of your meal, from the hunter who shot the animal (or the fisherman, or the farmer, whatever) all the way down to me, who puts the last finishing touch on the plate before the waiter brings it to you. We do it out of love.
Macaroni and cheese is on the menu at my restaurant. It's called "nouilles de coude avec des sept fromages," but it's mac and cheese. I use elbow noodles made from an unbelievably complicated blend of different kinds of wheat, butter from Normandy, cream from Wisconsin, and seven different types of cheeses, but it's just mac and cheese. The only difference between what I make and the stuff you get out of the box is love. And when I make the stuff out of the box at home, it's still better, because I love it, too; the tiniest pinch of fresh dill, a little ground ancho chile pepper, and a sprinkling of parmesan make all the difference.
People who dismiss mac and cheese just because it's mac and cheese-- without taking into account what went into it, or how the result turned out-- are missing out on some wonderful things.
you're saying right out that audiences can't critique movies, only movie-makers can critique movies
No, no, a thousand times no. I specifically said that arguing about individual films is completely fine with me. I do it all the time myself, and I'm not a professional critic. But people who look at Hollywood from outside-- with no knowledge of how or why things happen there-- and dismiss the whole thing with a hand-wave are just being idiots.
Ignorant opinions are antisocial
I don't know if I would have chosen the word "antisocial" or not, but I would definitely say that an uninformed opinion, vocally expressed, says far more about the holder of that opinion than that person probably realizes.
Well, right away you can tell that the study is flawed
Using my one-sentence half-assed summary of the study's methodology to come up with flaws is just a waste of your time. If you want to critique the study's methodology, read it. Don't point at something that I said and wave your arms like you've peeked behind the curtain or something.
Slashdot Mirror
What version of Chimera are you using? Something sounds wrong.
A nightly build from a week or so ago. It's definitely wrong, but the question is whether it's wrong in all cases, or only wrong in the build that I (occasionally) use.
If-- and this is a giant if-- the Chimera guys can get their act together and actually release a finished product, it might, someday, end up being a better browser than OmniWeb. But if it goes the Mozilla route, that is to say they just take a given build that's not even remotely feature-complete or bug-free and stamp it 1.0, then it's still going to be OmniWeb all the way.
Recent versions of Mozilla now use Cocoa for text rendering
True, but the text still doesn't look right. The leading is wrong, and cannot be adjusted. Compare, oh, Slashdot's main page in OmniWeb to the same page in Chimera. The OmniWeb version looks noticeably better.
Mozilla ain't perfect.
Mozilla is, ultimately, a hack. I appreciate the work that went into making the user interface fully cross-platform, but it was wasted effort. It would have been better to have a native branch for Mac, a native branch for Windows, and so on. More work to maintain, but the result would have been far superior, which is the only thing that counts.
I have, at various times, tried to use either Chimera or full-blown Mozilla as my main browser. I just can't do it. OmniWeb just blows them both away in terms of overall quality of the browsing experience.
Yuck. I don't want to use a browser where you have to have an article that explains how to do things.
I do not, for example, want an article that tells me how to make Chimera's tab-to-focus only work with text boxes instead of with every UI element on the page. I just want it to work correctly.
The problem only really occurs with some fonts that the Carbon anti-aliases handles differently than the Cocoa anti-aliasing.
That's not what I'm talking about. Open up Chimera and go to a page with a big textedit box. Start typing. See how it redraws the entire textedit box contents every time you strike a key? I have a dual gigahertz machine, and I'm only a moderately fast typist; Chimera can't keep up with me. It lags behind as I type. That's unacceptable.
Omni I hate.
Dude, if you take the very best browser overall for the Mac and dismiss it with "I hate this," of course you're going to end up with no good choices.
OmniWeb is not without flaws. It needs some CSS improvements, seriously, and some JavaScript improvements. But its text rendering and Cocoa features (like spell-checking in a textedit box) can't be beat. It's got great regular-expression URL filtering, too. I use OmniWeb most of the time, and Chimera on those rare occasions when I have to.
"I hate this" isn't a very good critique.
Internet Explorer for Mac: No Unicode
Mmmm... huh? For the record, non-Roman sites like apple.co.jp, chinese.yahoo.com, yahoo.co.jp, and so on render just fine in IE for OS X. I don't know if they use Unicode or another character set, but they work with no problem at all, and without anything other than the default OS loaded.
They didn't cover anything about the value of open source.
Why should they? Open source is of no value whatsoever to most people. In fact, given the conclusion (the arguable conclusion, but a conclusion nonetheless) that IE is superior to Mozilla and Mozilla-derived browsers right now, it seems like "open source" is a liability rather than an asset.
They didn't cover any of the cool plug-ins, like the preferences toolbar, mouse gesturing, or whatever.
This falls into the same category as the open-source thing. These features are of dubious value at best. Mouse gesturing? Dumb idea. Certainly some people out there are going to like it, but most won't, so why bother mentioning it in a competitive review?
IE5 for the Mac is as good as Mozilla for Windows. They are both awesome browsers.
Well, I won't argue that IE for OS X is about the same as Mozilla for Windows, but I can say that it's not an "awesome browser."
IE randomly decides to stop loading page data before it's finished. If you browse a page with tons of images-- some web designers just love to separate a page into 50+ GIFs, for some reason-- the page will often fail to render completely. IE will just stop right in the middle.
On my machine, I have OmniWeb, Chimera, and IE. IE is by far the least dependable browser of the bunch.
It doesn't support most of the nice Cocoa features that Omniweb does. (i.e. spellchecking)
It goes deeper than that. Chimera doesn't use Cocoa text widgets at all. Not only to you not get services like spellchecking; the text rendering itself is screwed up. It's unbearable, and so absurdly unnecessary.
I use Chimera only when I have to. For everything else, it's OmniWeb all the way-- and yes, I paid for my OmniWeb license, thank you very much.
Let me guess - you have a girlfriend too, right?
Right.
And she's a model, right?
No, she's just out of medical school. She's a surgeon. Well, a surgical resident, anyway.
Everything you said is absolutely true: you should be able to orienteer with a map and a compass. But GPS is a nice luxury to have. I used it extensively on a recent kayaking trip; we had five days to make 50 miles, and I wanted to be sure that we didn't come in a day too early, so I used my Garmin to mark our route and keep good situational awareness of how far we had to go. It worked really well.
Sitting at his campsite at night writing up a few entries on his laptop and reviewing where he's already been, and uploading some digital pictures, shouldn't do anything but add to his experience.
Yeah... if by "add to his experience" you mean "weigh more than your sleeping pad, sleeping bag, and tent combined."
As if anyone here does that.
I know you're just giving shit, but for the record I spent the weekend after Thanksgiving hiking and camping primitive-style. Our only concession to the 21st century was a hand-held GPS device, just in case. But we also carried a compass in case the batteries died.
Being a geek doesn't necessarily always mean looking for the highest-technology electronic solution. Primitive camping-- figuring out how to carry everything you need to survive on your back-- appeals to the geek nature just as much as anything else.
Twirlip, you really have to find a better hobby than trolling me around Slashdot.
Why? It's fun. Besides, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.
Yet, it is most certainly going to occur before "faster-than-light spaceships"
Why? Why is machine comprehension any more likely than the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or a fat-free fudge cake that doesn't let you down in the flavor department like so many others?
Let me be explicit: You have no idea what you are talking about.
The program only needs to be "smart" enough to sidestep copyright -- create a new expression of the same idea.
Based on your posts, I'm not entirely sure that you're smart enough to do this.
I'd suggest you stop focusing on irrelevant personal insults
I'd say that the fact that your idea is incredibly stupid is, in fact, quite relevant. You should retract your statements, admit that you're talking out of your hat, and be quiet for a while.
Which parts of your post were intended to be sarcastic? Because, on my life, you sounded just like your average neo-hippie Slashdot idiot to me. If you were kidding, I'd like to know, so I can laugh and appreciate.
Someday, like on Stardate 20192.7, Earth companies learned to share their intellectual wealth for the betterment of all, instead of paying the salaries of talking heads on a spring.
Oh, man, you're kidding, right? Read your history. Any scheme that includes the phrase "for the betterment of all" is doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the assumption that people will act contrary to their own self-interest on a large scale. This will not happen. If I have an idea that gives me an advantage over you, I will not share that idea with you. I will, instead, exploit my advantage to the fullest extent that I can. The only way to prevent this is to outlaw it through force, and from about 1950 to about 1990 we saw how well that worked.
The world is not an elementary school playground. There are no rules of fair play, and no teachers to run to if you feel like you've been slighted. Unfair advantage is the natural order of things, and to try to ignore that fact is foolish at best, and downright dangerous at worst.
As a country, we believe that everybody is created equal. But starting at about six seconds post-partum, inequality and unfairness set in, and from that point on, it's dog-eat-dog.
With the advancement of AI, bayesian algorithms, and genetic algorithms, it may well be something which can be achieved with work.
Given that you obviously don't understand in even the most basic terms what kind of problem you're talking about, I suppose it's no surprise that you're bandying it about so carelessly.
Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday. Then again, so are faster-than-light spaceships, immortality, and time travel. None of these things is proven to be impossible. And yet none of them have even a theoretical basis in fact.
The ability to distinguish fact from fancy is an important aspect of maturity. I would recommend that you spend a little time improving this skill in yourself. Or, if you prefer, you can simply remain an idiot. Doesn't much matter to me.
Who makes up your silly fucking rules?
In this case, the University of Chicago Press.
If you don't want to follow the rules, fine. But to deny that there are rules, or to assert that they are "silly," is just foolishness.
Oh, and by the way, "shall" in the second or third person indicates a necessity originating from the person speaking: "You shall not pass." In the first person it indicates the opposite: a necessity originating from outside the person speaking: "We shall see."
"Will," on the other hand, indicates simple futurity with no particular indication of the motive of the futurity.
After a conditional conjunction, "shall" is used to indicate simple futurity in the subjunctive mood: "If he shall go...."
These meanings have changed over time. When the King James Bible was published in 1611, "shall" was used to indicate simple futurity. In the 20th century, "shall" began to fall out of favor in American English in all but the most formal situations, such as legal writing. Over time, the meanings of "shall" and "will" may shift further.
Until then, the words "shall" and "will" have very different meanings, and there is a right way and a wrong way to use them.
As computers programs are becoming smarter and smarter, it may be possible for them to read in paragraphs and reword them to be written differently, but still mean the same thing.
I always believed you were an idiot. This proves it. Thank you.
ginormous energy bolt of DEATH!
You misspelled "gianormous." You know, "giant" plus "enormous?"
Plurals do not have apostrophes.
Except plurals indicating an interval, such as "the 1970's."
So, what you're saying is if Nazis lined your family up to be shot to death and you were the only one that survived that you would be happy?!?
In 1992 or 1993, a friend of mine was out on a lake with his two sons. I never found out exactly what happened, but there was an accident, and both sons were badly hurt. One died. The other survived.
About a year later, I was talking to him about it, and he told me that he'd never known such a conflicting set of emotions. On the one hand, he was in anguish at the loss of his son. But at the same time, he felt such joy and gratitude that the other son, who might also have died, lived. He told me that the hardest thing he had to deal with in the following months was the sense of guilt he carried because he was more happy that his son survived than sad because his other son had died.
I've heard that this is not an uncommon feeling, particularly among the survivors of accidents. The survivors feel such joy to have survived at all, then become overwhelmed with guilt because of it. In other words, they feel bad because they don't feel worse.
The fact Schindler saved jews is great, but don't you think it's appalling that the millions of Germans didn't really give a fuck that their jewish neighbors were being hauled off from their homes like cattle while their possesions were being confiscated!
Sure, it's appalling. What's worse is that it's also entirely understandable. When you make your movie about that aspect of the holocaust, I will pay my $8.50 to see it.
So, next time you open your pie hole Herr Hollywood please get a fucking clue what happiness is.
Man. You're a dick. Please keep me on your foes list, and make sure to assign a modifier. I'd just as soon you not respond to any more of my posts in the future.
the better teen comedies shouldn't be dismissed just because they're aimed at a teen audience
Ah, funny. That's the hardest one of all. I'm sure that after the first showing of The Acharnians, Aristophanes was heard muttering to himself backstage about how the highbrows in the audience wouldn't know funny if it bit them on the ass. In Greek, though, of course.
I rather like macaroni and cheese
Now, see, this is something I have an opinion about. Ever since my own personal dot-com bubble burst, I've been a chef. Do you know what separates high cuisine from low cuisine? Love. That's all. Just love. When you eat a meal at my restaurant, you know that somebody sweated over every aspect of your meal, from the hunter who shot the animal (or the fisherman, or the farmer, whatever) all the way down to me, who puts the last finishing touch on the plate before the waiter brings it to you. We do it out of love.
Macaroni and cheese is on the menu at my restaurant. It's called "nouilles de coude avec des sept fromages," but it's mac and cheese. I use elbow noodles made from an unbelievably complicated blend of different kinds of wheat, butter from Normandy, cream from Wisconsin, and seven different types of cheeses, but it's just mac and cheese. The only difference between what I make and the stuff you get out of the box is love. And when I make the stuff out of the box at home, it's still better, because I love it, too; the tiniest pinch of fresh dill, a little ground ancho chile pepper, and a sprinkling of parmesan make all the difference.
People who dismiss mac and cheese just because it's mac and cheese-- without taking into account what went into it, or how the result turned out-- are missing out on some wonderful things.
God damn it. Now I'm all hungry.
you're saying right out that audiences can't critique movies, only movie-makers can critique movies
No, no, a thousand times no. I specifically said that arguing about individual films is completely fine with me. I do it all the time myself, and I'm not a professional critic. But people who look at Hollywood from outside-- with no knowledge of how or why things happen there-- and dismiss the whole thing with a hand-wave are just being idiots.
Ignorant opinions are antisocial
I don't know if I would have chosen the word "antisocial" or not, but I would definitely say that an uninformed opinion, vocally expressed, says far more about the holder of that opinion than that person probably realizes.
Well, right away you can tell that the study is flawed
Using my one-sentence half-assed summary of the study's methodology to come up with flaws is just a waste of your time. If you want to critique the study's methodology, read it. Don't point at something that I said and wave your arms like you've peeked behind the curtain or something.