I write my posts, etc., in text editors first, and then paste things in. I find text editors are more stable (and manipulate text better) than Web browsers. (And OmniWeb does like to crash, you know.)
Text editors can be overkill sometimes, especially if you're just typing something short.
(7) Ad Blocking (And Yes OmniWeb Has Pop-up Blocking Too)
Hey.
The solution you suggested would not be used by 99% of users and is a pain to set up. With OmniWeb, all you need is a couple of clicks within the GUI. Simple.
You haven't seen Hydra, I take it.
Hydra is a rendezvous enabled collaborative text editor, AFAIK. OmniWeb allows you to view source of a page, with nice formatting and colour coding and then allows you to edit and save the update, all within the browser. How is Hydra relevant here?
What activity are you monitoring?
Page components being downloaded. And of course generic downloads. Can be handy for troubleshooting if a page is having trouble loading, if you're not sure if OmniWeb has frozen, or if you just want to tinker.
I used it for a long time, and loved it, but honestly, it doesn't have anything worth $30 that other browsers or programs have for free or less money.
There was a lot of love and a lot of effort put into OmniWeb and it shows, especially in the interface which I maintain is the best of any browser I've ever seen. If I had a job, I'd pay for it. But I'm stuck on a less than 4000 student loan in my final year on uni. My living expenses go up and my loan goes down. Grr.
Safari's implementation of 'live-searchable' is laughable compared to OmniWeb's. With Safari, you have to type 'sla' etc. to get 'slashdot.org. With OmniWeb, I could type 'dot' and it would be listed as an option. It also checks the title of pages, rather than just the URL. For complex or obscure page names, this is an absolute Godsend and I frequently find myself longing for it. I'm very much torn between this (and the general awesomeness of the OmniWeb features and interface) and Safari's ability to use tabs. Grr.
Without regressing to my comp.sys.amiga.advocacy days, the biggest difference was ejecting. With the Mac you had to use "special->eject disk" or something, which was useless when the computer crashed.
Ah, but that was a hardware issue, rather than OS-related. If there was a physical eject button, you could still use it. Or stick a clip in the little hole beside the disk.
Also, the ability to have up to 4 drives in a chain was a plus, especially with disk based games that had a lot of floppies.
That's pretty cool. Expensive in those days, but still pretty cool. Wonder how many floppy drives I could connect via USB...
Otherwise, there's not much difference. But we weren't talking about the Mac, now were we?:)
Actually, yes, he did mention the Mac, but I forgive your ignorance since there was plenty of useful info in your post anyway;^)
Well, allows you to make educated guesses about what those laws might be. You can build a model that seems to work the same way when in fact, it might actually be follwoing different laws. But as long as it fits with the evidence and allows you to make accurate predictions, then we're happy.
Good point though about needing science. Hadn't thought about it that way.
Why do you assume that religion cannot have any evidence going for it? For something claiming to be the absolute truth, I would expect a bit of evidence to back it up and I see evidence for Christianity. Is it 100% proof? No. Does it leave room for doubt? Yes. But there sitll is evidence there.
I thought you were making a joke since it;s the kind of thing that people usually say about the Brits. And most people down South couldn't care less about whether the North is 'reunited' or stays in the UK. The Irish government certainly isn't trying to forcibly annex land, so it can't actually be imperialism.
I was responding to the poster who was attacking the idea that Christians of any kind could be scientists. He wasn't restricting himself to the Christian Science Church (or at least it doesn't seem that way since he put Christian in all caps and everything else in lower case) and neither was I.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that, which is why I put the 're' in bold. It was clear he meant Northern Ireland.
And lets face it, the Irish are a bit fanatical about religion.
Let's face it, I live here and I know that most aren't and that the conflict has very little to do with religion. More to do with people's ignorance of a religion they claim to belon to and their fear of other cultures.
Yes, because force should decide every disagreement, right?
If the view you're presenting is so weak that it must be backed up by force of arms, doesn't that tell you something is wrong with it in the first place?
No, faith is believe in the absence of complete proof; it can still have supporting evidence. Blind faith has no proof. Science itself requires a modicum of faith.
Please don't talk about Northern Ireland when you clearly have no comprehension of the situation here. It's not about religion, it's about a history of bloodshed, hatred, intimidation and suspicion, differences in politics and people who like violence. You'll hear the victims say 'I forgive them' while the terrorists drown on about how they want revenge and 'the war isn't over'.
You do realise there are plenty of Christian scientists, right? And that the overwhelming majority would have no problem with natural selection, which very obviously happens, but instead differ over whether or not we are the result of random genetic mutations, which quite a few non-Christian scientists are sceptical of as well.
Now, as for stem cell research and cloning, what do you mean by 'don't believe in'? They accept the scientific theories concerning them, but think they are morally wrong. A different stance on morality doesn't mean they can't be good scientists or report objectively.
On a final note, most Christians I know are medics, sceintists or mathematicians, particularly in my church in Oxford. I can't get away from physicists and mathematicians. It's kinda creepy sometimes.
I keep a fully functional 100 MB 9.2.2 install (including Classic files) on my iPod along with a few utilities. Saved the day on a couple of occassions and runs every app I've thrown at it. Pity Mac OS X doesn't go down anywhere near that small. Be a lot more work deciding what could and couldn't be stripped out as well.
The first transmission, yes, so it is the birthplace, but the first over the horizon one was in the UK, which is a little more useful. Either way, it's not Newfoundland:^)
Also, Apple's method of handling bookmarks is significantly different from most. If only they'd incorperate the Omniweb (check for updates) features Safari would be one of the best browsers out there.
The feature I miss most is the way that OmniWeb searched every part of your bookmarks' names when you were typing in the address bar. You could type 'dot' and Slashdot would come up as an option. Made it a lot easier to find pages.
I'm a student who lives on a 4,000 student loan each year and own an iBook and iPod:^) All Mac owners I know are average people when it comes to income.
I think your pride is getting the better of you:^)
The birth of wireless communication happened, unsurprisingly, before the first trans-Atlantic transmission (which may actualyl have just been static). Try looking here for example.
In fact, as every Northern Irish school child is (or at elast should be) taught, the first overseas transmission happened just up the road from me between Rathlin Island and Ballycastle, as this site should inform you.
In realworld use, my DVD drive is rarely required and I don't have Wifi. Without dimming the screen the whole way, I can get quite a few hours use out of it. Once when I was just using it to read pdfs, I got 8 hours use without the battery running out. Of course, now that the battery is 2 years old, I'm rather more cautious about how long I spend away from a plug.
Just to clarify what I said, since I was apparently too lazy with my words, I think the simple beginner stuff is too simple and not explain in enough detail, which is why I said 'not deep'. On the other hand, he jumps striaght from the very simple into much more advanced very deep stuff, but it's things you won;t even think about without already knowing some Physics, so while it's deep, it isn't hugely accessable or apparent that it is deep. Bad learning curve.
I misspoke. Being lazy with my words. He certainly understnad the stuff well, but I didn't find it particularly useful for learning the stuff from. Found other textbooks much clearer. I think they're good to go back and look at once you've learnt a subject and have some understanding of it, but in my experience, they just don't cut it when it comes to learning for the first time.
Honestly, you don't have the background to see how deep the Feynman lectures are.His discussion of angular momentum has so much physical insight that you *know* that the writer has a deep understanding of mathematical physics. Never confuse a lack of verbosity or notation for lack of physical insight.
I found that I never learnt as much from Feynman as I did from other books and that when I tried to look up something for my course in his lectures, it was too difficult to find the information or he simply waffled about it. He certainly understands the subject well but in my experience, he fails to convey that understanding to others in so far as the lecture books go. His other books are much better.
French is one of the poorer intro QM books, IMO (a poor formal treatment of operators and commutators and the like). I perfer Sakurai (although it is hard for the average undergraduate) with Peebles as a supplement for applications (the baby-field theory in the last chapter is brilliant) and Shankar for his treatment of path integrals. Merzbacher and/or Sakurai's second book are good for graduate QM.
Never come across any of them, but I"m still an undergrad and don't spend as much time in the library as I probably should. Looked at Cohen & Tanoudji and a few others whose names I can't remember. Found I preferred French's style. You're right about the operator and commutator treatment though. He doesn't go quite deep enough into the mathematics. Maybe that's why I liked it:^)
The BEST book for intro E/M is Purcell. It is an exceptionally elegant treatment that doesn't shy away from math, but still manages to remain grounded in the physics of the situation. For intermediate E/M, Griffiths is the obvious choice. For advanced E/M, Jackason is the obvious choice.
Obvious choice in my experience differ from tutor to tutor:^) And beginner/intermediate/advanced vary wildly between places. For what I do, Duffin, esp Advanced Duffin is fairly clear and easy to find things in. Bleaney & Bleaney is good for fleshing it out and going into more detail.
For QFT, Perkins and Schroder is the standard text, although for the very mathematically inclined, Weinberg's series is excellent.
Don't think I'll be doing any QFT. Not even sure if there's an option to an undergrad level. Just done some atmoic physics though. Can't stand the stuff. Woodgate was a decent starter volume on it though. Nice to finally get a bit clsoer to the truth after all the lies we were told in Chemistry in school.
Slashdot Mirror
Text editors can be overkill sometimes, especially if you're just typing something short.
The solution you suggested would not be used by 99% of users and is a pain to set up. With OmniWeb, all you need is a couple of clicks within the GUI. Simple.
Hydra is a rendezvous enabled collaborative text editor, AFAIK. OmniWeb allows you to view source of a page, with nice formatting and colour coding and then allows you to edit and save the update, all within the browser. How is Hydra relevant here?
Page components being downloaded. And of course generic downloads. Can be handy for troubleshooting if a page is having trouble loading, if you're not sure if OmniWeb has frozen, or if you just want to tinker.
There was a lot of love and a lot of effort put into OmniWeb and it shows, especially in the interface which I maintain is the best of any browser I've ever seen. If I had a job, I'd pay for it. But I'm stuck on a less than 4000 student loan in my final year on uni. My living expenses go up and my loan goes down. Grr.
Safari's implementation of 'live-searchable' is laughable compared to OmniWeb's. With Safari, you have to type 'sla' etc. to get 'slashdot.org. With OmniWeb, I could type 'dot' and it would be listed as an option. It also checks the title of pages, rather than just the URL. For complex or obscure page names, this is an absolute Godsend and I frequently find myself longing for it. I'm very much torn between this (and the general awesomeness of the OmniWeb features and interface) and Safari's ability to use tabs. Grr.
Ah, but that was a hardware issue, rather than OS-related. If there was a physical eject button, you could still use it. Or stick a clip in the little hole beside the disk.
That's pretty cool. Expensive in those days, but still pretty cool. Wonder how many floppy drives I could connect via USB...
Actually, yes, he did mention the Mac, but I forgive your ignorance since there was plenty of useful info in your post anyway ;^)
What's the difference between this and the Mac way of doing things? The Mac did this all without the click sound every few seconds.
You disagree that WinXP is better than Win9x because Win2K (which isn't Win9x) is better than WinXP? That's rather flawed logic isn't it?
Well, allows you to make educated guesses about what those laws might be. You can build a model that seems to work the same way when in fact, it might actually be follwoing different laws. But as long as it fits with the evidence and allows you to make accurate predictions, then we're happy.
Good point though about needing science. Hadn't thought about it that way.
Why do you assume that religion cannot have any evidence going for it? For something claiming to be the absolute truth, I would expect a bit of evidence to back it up and I see evidence for Christianity. Is it 100% proof? No. Does it leave room for doubt? Yes. But there sitll is evidence there.
If you can have miracles, that doesn't mean that you can't apply science the rest of the time. The two aren't incompatible.
I thought you were making a joke since it;s the kind of thing that people usually say about the Brits. And most people down South couldn't care less about whether the North is 'reunited' or stays in the UK. The Irish government certainly isn't trying to forcibly annex land, so it can't actually be imperialism.
Genius. Someone should mod that up funny.
I was responding to the poster who was attacking the idea that Christians of any kind could be scientists. He wasn't restricting himself to the Christian Science Church (or at least it doesn't seem that way since he put Christian in all caps and everything else in lower case) and neither was I.
Yes, I'm quite aware of that, which is why I put the 're' in bold. It was clear he meant Northern Ireland.
Let's face it, I live here and I know that most aren't and that the conflict has very little to do with religion. More to do with people's ignorance of a religion they claim to belon to and their fear of other cultures.
Yes, because force should decide every disagreement, right?
If the view you're presenting is so weak that it must be backed up by force of arms, doesn't that tell you something is wrong with it in the first place?
No, faith is believe in the absence of complete proof; it can still have supporting evidence. Blind faith has no proof. Science itself requires a modicum of faith.
Please don't talk about Northern Ireland when you clearly have no comprehension of the situation here. It's not about religion, it's about a history of bloodshed, hatred, intimidation and suspicion, differences in politics and people who like violence. You'll hear the victims say 'I forgive them' while the terrorists drown on about how they want revenge and 'the war isn't over'.
You do realise there are plenty of Christian scientists, right? And that the overwhelming majority would have no problem with natural selection, which very obviously happens, but instead differ over whether or not we are the result of random genetic mutations, which quite a few non-Christian scientists are sceptical of as well.
Now, as for stem cell research and cloning, what do you mean by 'don't believe in'? They accept the scientific theories concerning them, but think they are morally wrong. A different stance on morality doesn't mean they can't be good scientists or report objectively.
On a final note, most Christians I know are medics, sceintists or mathematicians, particularly in my church in Oxford. I can't get away from physicists and mathematicians. It's kinda creepy sometimes.
I keep a fully functional 100 MB 9.2.2 install (including Classic files) on my iPod along with a few utilities. Saved the day on a couple of occassions and runs every app I've thrown at it. Pity Mac OS X doesn't go down anywhere near that small. Be a lot more work deciding what could and couldn't be stripped out as well.
The first transmission, yes, so it is the birthplace, but the first over the horizon one was in the UK, which is a little more useful. Either way, it's not Newfoundland :^)
The feature I miss most is the way that OmniWeb searched every part of your bookmarks' names when you were typing in the address bar. You could type 'dot' and Slashdot would come up as an option. Made it a lot easier to find pages.
I'm a student who lives on a 4,000 student loan each year and own an iBook and iPod :^) All Mac owners I know are average people when it comes to income.
I think your pride is getting the better of you :^)
The birth of wireless communication happened, unsurprisingly, before the first trans-Atlantic transmission (which may actualyl have just been static). Try looking here for example.
In fact, as every Northern Irish school child is (or at elast should be) taught, the first overseas transmission happened just up the road from me between Rathlin Island and Ballycastle, as this site should inform you.
In realworld use, my DVD drive is rarely required and I don't have Wifi. Without dimming the screen the whole way, I can get quite a few hours use out of it. Once when I was just using it to read pdfs, I got 8 hours use without the battery running out. Of course, now that the battery is 2 years old, I'm rather more cautious about how long I spend away from a plug.
Just to clarify what I said, since I was apparently too lazy with my words, I think the simple beginner stuff is too simple and not explain in enough detail, which is why I said 'not deep'. On the other hand, he jumps striaght from the very simple into much more advanced very deep stuff, but it's things you won;t even think about without already knowing some Physics, so while it's deep, it isn't hugely accessable or apparent that it is deep. Bad learning curve.
I misspoke. Being lazy with my words. He certainly understnad the stuff well, but I didn't find it particularly useful for learning the stuff from. Found other textbooks much clearer. I think they're good to go back and look at once you've learnt a subject and have some understanding of it, but in my experience, they just don't cut it when it comes to learning for the first time.
I found that I never learnt as much from Feynman as I did from other books and that when I tried to look up something for my course in his lectures, it was too difficult to find the information or he simply waffled about it. He certainly understands the subject well but in my experience, he fails to convey that understanding to others in so far as the lecture books go. His other books are much better.
Never come across any of them, but I"m still an undergrad and don't spend as much time in the library as I probably should. Looked at Cohen & Tanoudji and a few others whose names I can't remember. Found I preferred French's style. You're right about the operator and commutator treatment though. He doesn't go quite deep enough into the mathematics. Maybe that's why I liked it :^)
Obvious choice in my experience differ from tutor to tutor :^) And beginner/intermediate/advanced vary wildly between places. For what I do, Duffin, esp Advanced Duffin is fairly clear and easy to find things in. Bleaney & Bleaney is good for fleshing it out and going into more detail.
For QFT, Perkins and Schroder is the standard text, although for the very mathematically inclined, Weinberg's series is excellent.
Don't think I'll be doing any QFT. Not even sure if there's an option to an undergrad level. Just done some atmoic physics though. Can't stand the stuff. Woodgate was a decent starter volume on it though. Nice to finally get a bit clsoer to the truth after all the lies we were told in Chemistry in school.