A projector doesn't project pixels that would be offscreen on a normal monitor. Therefore all you are doing is stretching the pixels near the edges around you and moving them even further outside your peripheral vision. Hence, you see less.
Good concept, stupid implementation. The concept however requires the 3d world to render the portions outside the normal view and maybe have a few projectors to project it around you to get a true 180 FOV.
GIFs aren't proprietary and they never were. It was the LZW compression algorithm used in GIFs that was patented. So anyone could freely read GIFs, but you needed a license to create a GIF. But now that patent has since expired so it's free all around.
I am a web developer and I really didn't want to have to look at the source, but I did briefly. The part where you said they have a centered container div is true and that they explicitly specify a width is true, but they are in two separate div tags. There is a wrapping the entire body. So that means everything inside that (which is the whole page) should be centered on the screen and it is clearly not. It's obviously centering it using the suggested width and not the actual width that it decides to draw it as. I really don't want to dig into the header table width part. I don't care that much.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but the fact is that the majority of web users out there are using IE. And there has to be an incentive for users, not web developers to want to switch browsers. Obviously tabbed browsing gives some incentive, but when you go to a website that you frequent and it's messed up, that ruins the web surfing experience.
I'm not sure why you think it's just not possible for non-microsoft products to do no wrong...to the point where you think microsoft hires people to make up stories. But here's your proof. And no, these aren't doctored images.
By the way, these problems happened on two completely different computers.
The following was hard to time the screen capture for since it happens really fast. Basically a bunch of crap blinks on the screen when the page loads. Here is proof of that: http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/broken1.j pg
And here's a layout problem with firefox. Notice that the top part of the table doesn't stretch all the way to the right and that the table isn't centered: http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/ff2.jpg
I agree with you. I'm all for following the HTML standard strictly, but the problem is that a large part of the web isn't doing that and if FireFox wants to be better than IE, it needs to at least render the pages the way they were intended.
I've been using Firefox 1.0 for a few days now and I go to gamespot.com and have all sorts of issues with Flash junk blinking all over the screen before the flash movie appears and the tables are scrolled off screen when looking at the Pirates game screenshots. In IE everything looks great.
> And many websites are fixing themselves to work with FireFox
That's the main issue I have with Firefox. It doesn't always layout the page correctly even though IE has no problem with it. Firefox should be more lenient with their HTML the way IE is because although some websites may be fixing their stuff to work with Firefox, most probably won't.
>The fact that I have no idea what kind of trojan horse of timebomb windows might be. In a world of open network, I have the feeling that it is my ethical obligation to know what my computer is running...
Just because it's open source/network it doesn't mean that you know what your computer is running. In fact, I highly doubt you've looked at and thought about the logic of every single line of code in the operating system and all applications you are running. It's quite possible that you have some trojan horses or time bombs of your own and don't even know it even though it's plain as day in the source code! Remember, nobody is a perfect programmer. Everyone makes mistakes and some people take shortcuts when programming.
hol cr@p. you can see the./ effect just by hitting the refresh button and watch the number of screen names grow. So how many of those users will now start to receive spam IMs?:-)
I'm just speculating, but it seems to me that he is building up his database when you log in and IM him. He doesn't have a complete list (since it said 6xxx names) although it's probably growing more and more. Looks almost like an opt in strategy, but for what? I didn't log in myself so I don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
A projector doesn't project pixels that would be offscreen on a normal monitor. Therefore all you are doing is stretching the pixels near the edges around you and moving them even further outside your peripheral vision. Hence, you see less. Good concept, stupid implementation. The concept however requires the 3d world to render the portions outside the normal view and maybe have a few projectors to project it around you to get a true 180 FOV.
Yeah, I think this guy just doesn't know enough about Java before bashing it.
GIFs aren't proprietary and they never were. It was the LZW compression algorithm used in GIFs that was patented. So anyone could freely read GIFs, but you needed a license to create a GIF. But now that patent has since expired so it's free all around.
I am a web developer and I really didn't want to have to look at the source, but I did briefly. The part where you said they have a centered container div is true and that they explicitly specify a width is true, but they are in two separate div tags. There is a wrapping the entire body. So that means everything inside that (which is the whole page) should be centered on the screen and it is clearly not. It's obviously centering it using the suggested width and not the actual width that it decides to draw it as. I really don't want to dig into the header table width part. I don't care that much.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but the fact is that the majority of web users out there are using IE. And there has to be an incentive for users, not web developers to want to switch browsers. Obviously tabbed browsing gives some incentive, but when you go to a website that you frequent and it's messed up, that ruins the web surfing experience.
I'm not sure why you think it's just not possible for non-microsoft products to do no wrong...to the point where you think microsoft hires people to make up stories. But here's your proof. And no, these aren't doctored images.
j pg
p g
By the way, these problems happened on two completely different computers.
The following was hard to time the screen capture for since it happens really fast. Basically a bunch of crap blinks on the screen when the page loads. Here is proof of that:
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/broken1.
And here is what it looks like after it's fully loaded after all that blinking stops:
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/fixed1.j
And here's a layout problem with firefox. Notice that the top part of the table doesn't stretch all the way to the right and that the table isn't centered:
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/ff2.jpg
And here's the same page in IE and it all looks good:
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/ie2.jpg
I agree with you. I'm all for following the HTML standard strictly, but the problem is that a large part of the web isn't doing that and if FireFox wants to be better than IE, it needs to at least render the pages the way they were intended. I've been using Firefox 1.0 for a few days now and I go to gamespot.com and have all sorts of issues with Flash junk blinking all over the screen before the flash movie appears and the tables are scrolled off screen when looking at the Pirates game screenshots. In IE everything looks great.
> And many websites are fixing themselves to work with FireFox That's the main issue I have with Firefox. It doesn't always layout the page correctly even though IE has no problem with it. Firefox should be more lenient with their HTML the way IE is because although some websites may be fixing their stuff to work with Firefox, most probably won't.
>The fact that I have no idea what kind of trojan horse of timebomb windows might be. In a world of open network, I have the feeling that it is my ethical obligation to know what my computer is running... Just because it's open source/network it doesn't mean that you know what your computer is running. In fact, I highly doubt you've looked at and thought about the logic of every single line of code in the operating system and all applications you are running. It's quite possible that you have some trojan horses or time bombs of your own and don't even know it even though it's plain as day in the source code! Remember, nobody is a perfect programmer. Everyone makes mistakes and some people take shortcuts when programming.
Sounds like the study is probably funded by the Windex commercials featuring birds flying into glass windows. :-)
hol cr@p. you can see the ./ effect just by hitting the refresh button and watch the number of screen names grow. So how many of those users will now start to receive spam IMs? :-)
I'm just speculating, but it seems to me that he is building up his database when you log in and IM him. He doesn't have a complete list (since it said 6xxx names) although it's probably growing more and more. Looks almost like an opt in strategy, but for what? I didn't log in myself so I don't know.
...knows how to do both.