Dude... put some fucking newlines between "Spoiler alert" and the actual spoiler. People usually scan a couple of words ahead before they register their meaning, and by then it's too late to block the spoiler. I would have liked to see the season before knowing the conclusion. Thanks a fucking lot.
Actually, he's right. The intel-compiled gcc might be faster than the gcc-compiled gcc, but their (the 2nd generation compiler's) outputs should be identical.
If Linux had a stable interface for binary non-free drivers, we might see more support from the vendors. It's not a crime to not want to disclose your hardware.
I don't get it either. When I search for something, I want to discover new sites. So why would I search, then add a site that's already known to me to the results? Why would I change the results order if I can just scroll through until I find the link that I sought?
Unless you use a google search instead of bookmarks. Which would be stupid.
I'm also pretty sure that any major feature Google invent will soon be copied by IE and Firefox, so in another 6-12 months us techies who want add-ons, ad blockers, but still want separate processes for each tab will have all of that in Firefox.
Radically changing the software architecture of such a mature, big code-base is damn hard and may require more work than it's worth. I think they might as well re-write from scratch.
I'd bet that Google is looking to target embedded platforms that will need a lightweight browser in ROM. This would include things like cell phones/PDAs, netbooks, notebooks with a pre-boot environment, etc. This is what Chrome was designed for from the start.
I'm not really sure of that. It seems to rely rather heavily on Windows UI libraries, which is why the Linux and OSX versions are lagging behind so much. Surely if they had had the embedded (and Android) platform in mind, they'd minimize dependencies and use Linux as their primary platform. The Android browser is not Chrome, not even a variant of it.
Internet enabled televisions will become commonplace in the not too distant future.
Well. Internet TV is like nuclear fusion or the Linux desktop - the breakthrough and widespread adoption is just around the corner. For years and years...
Ideally, you'll develop conforming to standards, and have it work on every compliant browser. I used to do web development work too, IE's the bitch, not the other ones - generally speaking.
As a technology-affine person, I really like the sandboxing and one-process-per-tab architecture of Chrome, but I'll have to admit that it is the UI that has won me over. It's so minimalistic and functional, and really gets out of the way while maximizing the browsing area. Near perfect.
I use Chrome a lot. I rarely see any ads. An ad-blocking HOSTS file is the magic ingredient, and as I see it, really the better way. Why block ads at the browser level when you can do it at the OS level? There are some features that I miss from Chrome, but ad-blocking is not one of them.
I wonder how many non-geek users have something like adblock installed. The Adblock+ download numbers you cited are certainly impressive, but is it a significant percentage of total users?
A lot of the claimed "Windows 7 boots faster"...can already be experienced with a pair of sludge-cheap $5 2GB usb keys used in tandem with ReadyBoost. Everything seriously launches oodles faster, but Windows 7 tends to launch and boot significantly faster than Vista with a single 2GB ReadyBoost key.
Seriously? Do you have any sources to back that up? A quick google came up with nothing. I'm genuinely interested, as I'd love faster boot-up times.
I didn't follow the state of ReadyBoost after the initial disappointing benchmarks, but if it has indeed matured into a usable system with real benefits, I'm willing to try it out...
And if that's not enough, install the Script Extender mod which gives you access to many more multi-tiered hotkeys. Seriously, there were many things wrong with the vanilla Oblivion interface - but not this one.
I'm not sure if the grandparent isn't (somewhat) right. By pushing it backwards, you'd lower its periapsis altitude - on the opposite side of the orbit. The apoapsis (highest altitude of the orbit) should remain unchanged, which means it will end up on the same spot (where you pushed it off) again.
However, the duration of the orbit would be reduced, since for the most part, it has a lower altitude, hence a higher angular velocity. So although the orbits of the Pusher and the Pushed would still intersect at the Pushed's apoapsis, they wouldn't actually collide for quite some time. They won't be at the same spot at the same time.
And even if a collision were to occur at some point, it would be mostly harmless, since the difference in velocity would be very small - the speed at which the object was initially pushed away.
If I'm wrong with any of this, please correct me. I'm not a rocket scientist, I just like to play Orbiter from time to time.:)
TFA claims that the gel would transfer the heat to the aluminum enclosure where it could radiate away, but I'm not so sure of that. Doesn't it store the heat more than transfer it?
However, I suppose you could combine this technique with a watercooling system. Just wind some copper tubing around the HDD a few times and lead it to the outside of the enclosure.
Paper ballots have to be counted by people. Lots of people. People are error-prone.
With the right process, you can make manual counting almost error- and tamper-proof. First, the counting is done in public. Representatives from each party are present, and anyone can watch. Second, the votes are counted twice, by different people. If there is a difference, the count is repeated.
This is the reason you want machines to do the counting. It's what computers do best. At least properly configured.
But it's not transparent. The counting is not public. The machine is a black box. Sure, it gets certified by an accredited agency - but they only test a sample, not every machine that gets used. In the end, you can only hope that your vote gets counted by a "properly configured" machine, without any possibility to verify the result. (Unless you have a paper trail machine. Which again would have to be counted manually, defeating the purpose of the machine in the first place.)
And is e-voting that expensive? Really? Compared to having thousands of workers and supervisors spend hours upon hours counting and recounting paper votes? I doubt that.
Voting machines are very expensive, not least because of all the auditing and certification that comes along with them. They need to be supported and maintained as well. Election workers, on the other hand, don't get paid (at least here in Germany), they're volunteers. The bulk of the cost is in the printing of the ballots and some bureaucracy. And even with e-Voting, some ballots will have to be printed for absentee voters, so the initial printing cost is there anyway.
Even if in the long run voting machines should prove cheaper (which I don't believe) - I feel that having a proven, transparent, trusted, publicly verifiable voting system should be worth the cost.
If e-Voting eliminates the possibility for failure, then that is actually an argument against e-Voting: lots of people cast invalid votes as a means of protest, expressing that although no party is fit for their support, they want their political will recorded nonetheless.
It's not what I would do, but the possibility to do so should be preserved.
Besides that.. honestly, if people fail to properly write an "X" into an "O", there's no way they'd fare better with a machine.
Does it really matter if you have them instantly - as opposed to the next morning? And sacrifice trust in the validity of the election for such a small convenience?
If you have a truly verifiable e-Voting system with a paper trail, the final, binding results aren't faster either - because a few districts will still have to be counted manually to verify the machine count.
It's insanity. There is no advantage to electronic voting. It's expensive, complicated and prone to failure and manipulation on so many levels, it's obscene. It undermines democracy.
But how do you know that the machine recorded your vote correctly? It could display your vote correctly, print out a correct receipt, but secretly increase the other candidate's tally. If just, say, 3 percent of votes get misattributed, chances are that no one will notice and no re-count will take place. The election will still have been tampered with in a significant way.
The _only_ practicable and moderately secure way to do an election is by pen and paper and manual counting. It's done all over the world and it works near flawlessly.
I'd like to add that the counting must not only be manual, but also public. Everyone with an interest in the election, including the voters, must be able to verify the process. That can never happen with voting machines.
I don't get it. Nearly everyone with professional knowledge of computer science and/or hardware, including technology enthusiasts who'd otherwise embrace any new technology, advise against voting machines, because they know that the necessary level of trust and security is impossible to reach. Why don't the politicians for once listen to those who genuinely know better?
It's not like voting machines have any significant inherent advantages over pen-and-paper voting. I guess they are a bit faster in counting. But sacrifice the trust in democracy (and a couple of billions of dollars) for that little convenience? Absurd!
I use it, too. What I really like is how Chrome automatically "captures" search functions, without any user interaction required. For example, after I searched a word at dict.leo.org just once, I could just type "leo [search term]" into the address bar.
I know FF can do this too, but only with special handcrafted bookmarks.
The minimalist, maximum-useable-area interface is quite wonderful too, and I really miss the resizeable text fields whenever I'm in FF. If only Google would provide a standard installer (and lose the "unique ID" crap) it would be near perfect.
Slashdot Mirror
Can it use accelerated OpenGL in the browser? If so, that would put it ahead of Flash by a large margin.
Loaded forever and didn't show anything, even though I specifically installed the newest Java update 11 for this.
If that "experience" and the sibling responses to your post are anything to go by, this won't have much of a future...
Dude... put some fucking newlines between "Spoiler alert" and the actual spoiler. People usually scan a couple of words ahead before they register their meaning, and by then it's too late to block the spoiler. I would have liked to see the season before knowing the conclusion. Thanks a fucking lot.
Actually, he's right. The intel-compiled gcc might be faster than the gcc-compiled gcc, but their (the 2nd generation compiler's) outputs should be identical.
If Linux had a stable interface for binary non-free drivers, we might see more support from the vendors. It's not a crime to not want to disclose your hardware.
Adblocking can be done through the HOSTS file, and there's a Chrome build with support for Greasemonkey scripts - look up Greasemetal.
I've been using Chrome as my main browser for a while now. It's perfectly usable, the UI is a minimalist's dream and it's really, really fast.
I'm somewhat sure that a communal water treatment plant achieves a better efficiency than 600 watt-hours per litre.
Real-time radiosity rendering?
I don't get it either. When I search for something, I want to discover new sites. So why would I search, then add a site that's already known to me to the results? Why would I change the results order if I can just scroll through until I find the link that I sought?
Unless you use a google search instead of bookmarks. Which would be stupid.
I'm also pretty sure that any major feature Google invent will soon be copied by IE and Firefox, so in another 6-12 months us techies who want add-ons, ad blockers, but still want separate processes for each tab will have all of that in Firefox.
Radically changing the software architecture of such a mature, big code-base is damn hard and may require more work than it's worth. I think they might as well re-write from scratch.
I'd bet that Google is looking to target embedded platforms that will need a lightweight browser in ROM. This would include things like cell phones/PDAs, netbooks, notebooks with a pre-boot environment, etc. This is what Chrome was designed for from the start.
I'm not really sure of that. It seems to rely rather heavily on Windows UI libraries, which is why the Linux and OSX versions are lagging behind so much. Surely if they had had the embedded (and Android) platform in mind, they'd minimize dependencies and use Linux as their primary platform. The Android browser is not Chrome, not even a variant of it.
Internet enabled televisions will become commonplace in the not too distant future.
Well. Internet TV is like nuclear fusion or the Linux desktop - the breakthrough and widespread adoption is just around the corner. For years and years...
Ideally, you'll develop conforming to standards, and have it work on every compliant browser. I used to do web development work too, IE's the bitch, not the other ones - generally speaking.
As a technology-affine person, I really like the sandboxing and one-process-per-tab architecture of Chrome, but I'll have to admit that it is the UI that has won me over. It's so minimalistic and functional, and really gets out of the way while maximizing the browsing area. Near perfect.
unlike FF you can't easily block ads in Chrome.
I use Chrome a lot. I rarely see any ads. An ad-blocking HOSTS file is the magic ingredient, and as I see it, really the better way. Why block ads at the browser level when you can do it at the OS level? There are some features that I miss from Chrome, but ad-blocking is not one of them.
I wonder how many non-geek users have something like adblock installed. The Adblock+ download numbers you cited are certainly impressive, but is it a significant percentage of total users?
A lot of the claimed "Windows 7 boots faster"...can already be experienced with a pair of sludge-cheap $5 2GB usb keys used in tandem with ReadyBoost. Everything seriously launches oodles faster, but Windows 7 tends to launch and boot significantly faster than Vista with a single 2GB ReadyBoost key.
Seriously? Do you have any sources to back that up? A quick google came up with nothing. I'm genuinely interested, as I'd love faster boot-up times.
I didn't follow the state of ReadyBoost after the initial disappointing benchmarks, but if it has indeed matured into a usable system with real benefits, I'm willing to try it out...
And if that's not enough, install the Script Extender mod which gives you access to many more multi-tiered hotkeys. Seriously, there were many things wrong with the vanilla Oblivion interface - but not this one.
With interface mods, it's perfect.
I'm not sure if the grandparent isn't (somewhat) right. By pushing it backwards, you'd lower its periapsis altitude - on the opposite side of the orbit. The apoapsis (highest altitude of the orbit) should remain unchanged, which means it will end up on the same spot (where you pushed it off) again.
However, the duration of the orbit would be reduced, since for the most part, it has a lower altitude, hence a higher angular velocity. So although the orbits of the Pusher and the Pushed would still intersect at the Pushed's apoapsis, they wouldn't actually collide for quite some time. They won't be at the same spot at the same time.
And even if a collision were to occur at some point, it would be mostly harmless, since the difference in velocity would be very small - the speed at which the object was initially pushed away.
If I'm wrong with any of this, please correct me. I'm not a rocket scientist, I just like to play Orbiter from time to time. :)
TFA claims that the gel would transfer the heat to the aluminum enclosure where it could radiate away, but I'm not so sure of that. Doesn't it store the heat more than transfer it?
However, I suppose you could combine this technique with a watercooling system. Just wind some copper tubing around the HDD a few times and lead it to the outside of the enclosure.
It wouldn't be hard, but is such an option actually present? I'm genuinely curious.
Paper ballots have to be counted by people. Lots of people. People are error-prone.
With the right process, you can make manual counting almost error- and tamper-proof. First, the counting is done in public. Representatives from each party are present, and anyone can watch. Second, the votes are counted twice, by different people. If there is a difference, the count is repeated.
This is the reason you want machines to do the counting. It's what computers do best. At least properly configured.
But it's not transparent. The counting is not public. The machine is a black box. Sure, it gets certified by an accredited agency - but they only test a sample, not every machine that gets used. In the end, you can only hope that your vote gets counted by a "properly configured" machine, without any possibility to verify the result. (Unless you have a paper trail machine. Which again would have to be counted manually, defeating the purpose of the machine in the first place.)
And is e-voting that expensive? Really? Compared to having thousands of workers and supervisors spend hours upon hours counting and recounting paper votes? I doubt that.
Voting machines are very expensive, not least because of all the auditing and certification that comes along with them. They need to be supported and maintained as well. Election workers, on the other hand, don't get paid (at least here in Germany), they're volunteers. The bulk of the cost is in the printing of the ballots and some bureaucracy. And even with e-Voting, some ballots will have to be printed for absentee voters, so the initial printing cost is there anyway.
Even if in the long run voting machines should prove cheaper (which I don't believe) - I feel that having a proven, transparent, trusted, publicly verifiable voting system should be worth the cost.
If e-Voting eliminates the possibility for failure, then that is actually an argument against e-Voting: lots of people cast invalid votes as a means of protest, expressing that although no party is fit for their support, they want their political will recorded nonetheless.
It's not what I would do, but the possibility to do so should be preserved.
Besides that.. honestly, if people fail to properly write an "X" into an "O", there's no way they'd fare better with a machine.
Does it really matter if you have them instantly - as opposed to the next morning? And sacrifice trust in the validity of the election for such a small convenience?
If you have a truly verifiable e-Voting system with a paper trail, the final, binding results aren't faster either - because a few districts will still have to be counted manually to verify the machine count.
It's insanity. There is no advantage to electronic voting. It's expensive, complicated and prone to failure and manipulation on so many levels, it's obscene. It undermines democracy.
But how do you know that the machine recorded your vote correctly? It could display your vote correctly, print out a correct receipt, but secretly increase the other candidate's tally. If just, say, 3 percent of votes get misattributed, chances are that no one will notice and no re-count will take place. The election will still have been tampered with in a significant way.
The _only_ practicable and moderately secure way to do an election is by pen and paper and manual counting. It's done all over the world and it works near flawlessly.
I'd like to add that the counting must not only be manual, but also public. Everyone with an interest in the election, including the voters, must be able to verify the process. That can never happen with voting machines.
I don't get it. Nearly everyone with professional knowledge of computer science and/or hardware, including technology enthusiasts who'd otherwise embrace any new technology, advise against voting machines, because they know that the necessary level of trust and security is impossible to reach. Why don't the politicians for once listen to those who genuinely know better?
It's not like voting machines have any significant inherent advantages over pen-and-paper voting. I guess they are a bit faster in counting. But sacrifice the trust in democracy (and a couple of billions of dollars) for that little convenience? Absurd!
I use it, too. What I really like is how Chrome automatically "captures" search functions, without any user interaction required. For example, after I searched a word at dict.leo.org just once, I could just type "leo [search term]" into the address bar.
I know FF can do this too, but only with special handcrafted bookmarks.
The minimalist, maximum-useable-area interface is quite wonderful too, and I really miss the resizeable text fields whenever I'm in FF. If only Google would provide a standard installer (and lose the "unique ID" crap) it would be near perfect.