Yes, they were very successful with the 3.5 inch floppy.. also Trinitron screens, and the CD, which was co-developped with philips. They were also very successfull at putting DV/Firewire video in the hands of ordinary customers.
yeah they made some lemons too, but like any tech company, that actually tries to invent stuff.
Well that is the equation, and its more abotu trying to proove it, in both directiosn. We have already prooven that matter can be broken down to energy (nuclear bombs.. etc) can the opposite also be true? if so, then we coudl therise matter is matter is just energy,and vice versa.
Erm, with regards to Hindus and other Dharmic Beliefs, they dont's say that we are the "only ones". read a post i wrote above about Dharmic beliefs. But at heart it understands that our notion of Intelligence and life is constrained to our perceptions and that we should keep an open mind.
I agree which you. In fact what you talk about is also true of the deistic "Dharma" philosophy.
Dharma, is the diestic philosophy, of the thestic "religions" of Bhuddism, Jainism, Siehkism, and vedism (aka Hinduism).
Dharma describes everything (of which the universe is a part of) as a single entity, that morphs and forms. This "entity" does not have a "known" personality nor anything that can be attributed to human factors, and nuances, and we are all part of it. The universe forms, disforms, destroys and rebuilds. its just a huge never ending cycle. Life cannot truely be defined, as we only can define life as what we "know".
To take your "men in black principle", there is a more readily available description of describing it. Our bodies are made of millions of individual cells. Each of them have life on their own, as well as a purpose. Some die after 2 weeks and are replaced, some live much longer, and are not replaced when they die (eg brain cells). Each individual cell may not be "aware" of the implications on each other. However, formed together, they make us. Our lives, our emotions, our being, as a singular compounded organism. With this in mind, there is nothing to say that we are not part of a bigger so called organism, its just that we don't understand it if it does exist, and maybe its not even REQUIRED to understand it.
I agree with your views of deism can itself support science. Dhramic philosophy has never discouraged the pursuit of science, unlike it appears of Abrahamic religions (such as Chistiantiy, Islam). Indeed, thousands of years ago Dharmic "scientists" (of all the main dharmic religions) worked out things such as the fact that Earth revolved around the sun, that there are other planets, and indeed other stars, and galaxys, etc, even as others still viewed the earth as flat, surrounded by a "dome". One particular assertion by Dharmism is that energy and matter are the same thing, in that energy "clumps" together to form matter. Recent works on quantum physics, have agreed somewhat to that idea, including a recent experiment at CERN, where "energy" were accelerated and then "smashed" together, and for a split second formed "matter".
Frankly i find all this rather interesting, and somewhat overwhelming. What we have is such a large concept, that is difficult to sometimes comprehend with our limited minds, and consciences. However, i woudl rather not go back to the "safe cocoon" of thestic views.
I get web'n'walk plus for £12 add on, which allows everything (inc im/pop/imap/telnet) excluding VoIP with 3 GB fair use.
the only problem is its only whilst in the UK, and doesnt include roaming, but while you are in the UK, you can use GPRS/3g, High speed 3g, for almost anything, except VoIP....
P.S.... Not sure why this was posted under YRO... I was about the say the same thing. This is definitely a patentable invention, and is quite novel. The idea of "fluid filled bags" may not be new, but the R&D to make it work, is substantial.
Sometimes in this current "DRM/stupid patents/bullying" days, I forgot that Sony is primarily a electronics company that have actually invented some amazing stuff, and some of them have become VERY successful in their own right (eg the 3.5inch floppy drive, Trinitron TV)
You are ignoring one important fact, that makes all the difference. "Lock-in".
First things first, I am one of the early volunteers for Mozilla. I joined to held create and promote a "W3C standards based browser". Note this down....
Firstly the "Text Edit" control, (and also the Rich Text Edit control), take in a known standard, work with a standard, and send out to that standard. In the case of the Text Edit, it works with plain Ascii text files (and has been recently updated to include Unicode, etc) It is not usurping a standard, then extending it in a way to make output files that have proprietary extentions that prevent interoperation. The Rich Text control Inputs and outputs the RTF format, which is created by Microsoft, and largely is open, and compatible as an interchange format. Sure the Rich Text format has been somewhat extended by Microsoft, but only Word or other "optional" software handles the extensions. The standard built in Rich Text control reads and outputs Standard RTF.
HTML is a standard originally created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee who made it open, with the core view of Interoperability. The idea was to be as ubiquitous as Text.
Microsoft was not the first to "Bastardise" HTML. Netscape first tried to ruin the standard, by adding proprietary Tags, which where only compatible with their browser, and protected by Copyright, or other shenanigans to prevent other browsers from using those tags. Later, towards Netscape 4, they introduced their proprietary Layers tag. However, to Netscape's credit, up until Netscape 3, they did at least include all the standard tags of HTML up to the latest standard of the time. Things did go wrong from Netscape 4 onwards, but arguable it was due to a pretty poor rendering engine.
Microsoft did a whole lot worse. They did everything Netscape did, such as introduce proprietary Tags and stuff, but they also failed to implement standards. Take for example, the CSS spec. IT was originally created and submitted to the W3C by Microsoft, yet now, even their most current browser, IE7, has one of the least support of CSS amongst all major browsers. Not only is the lack of support worrying, it also intentionally or otherwise, through "bugs", broke some of the standards.
So the largest software company in the world, with the most widely used operating system in the world, decided to "include" a "broken" implementation of HTML into the Operating system, forcing web designers to code to that "broken" and "Extended" form of html, which then requires tricks and stunts to be compatible with other browsers. This is not good for interoperability, and ask any Copmetant web designer for the current state of play.
Yes, it is not a requirement to support every single standard, but W3C guidelines state that browsers should degrade gracefully over stuff they do not support, and should not break any tag they do support. IE, in almost all versions was not successful at either.
This is why MSHTML is dangerous, and wrong, and why I joined Mozilla, the aim was to try and create a standards compatible browser, with enough "market share" to make a difference.
No, but, if Al Gore's work directly starts translating to a reduction of CO2, and in the future his efforts are seen to have really made a difference, he would indeed be eligible. His crusade against Global Climate change has been there for 30 years.
Its a pity I don't have mod points, but if I did , I would definitely mod you insightful. Its very true that true success is often unnoticed, simply because it "works".
Well the key is, Sir Tim did a LOT to make it accessible. Sure some of the ground work was already done, namely: TCP/IP, SGML, MIME, etc.
What Sir Tim and his team did is: - Created HTML, which was arguably much simpler than SGML (yes it also allowed some mediocre "designers" to also design pages, but ultimately it lead to greater adoption) - Created the HTTP protocol, which by far and large was the greatest "enabler" of the technology, ie allow anonymous access to the information held in a ordered and secure manner. - Still actively in charge of W3C, and creating new standards, largely without breaking old ones. - Helped begat XML. - Did not try and patent it.
So his contributions are large, and he is still actively participating. More importantly, he didnt try to patent it, but freed it.
I am a "Hindu" and you are generally right; the only thing that you said which is not 100% true is saying it captures every "non-monothiestic" belief, because at core Hinduism believes in a single supreme being that takes different forms. It is also the core difference between Hindu philosophy differentials and Bhuddist philosophy, which does not believe in a supreme being, but the nature of us as a whole spirit (which is a philosophy I like too).
As you rightly said, Hinduism (and bhuddism/jainism etc) is not a religion, and should not be seen as such. Its only a philosophy and guide. IT doesn't have dogma as a core facet, and is very pluralistic, and is supposed to view everyone as maybe having different beliefs, but humanist in nature. (Interestingly you an be an atheist and still follow Hindu philosophy, by refusing to believe in god, that is what Bhuddists aim for)
However, I would not categorise Islam (yes I am aware of what happened in the past, but past is past, lets not live in that) or socialism as the core problem for misery and strife across the planet. The core problem is "smart" people using religion to mobilise the less educated and enlightened to cause misery to others, and this happens across ALL religions, and the political spectrum.
As a Hindu, I can totally say this is nothing to do with religion. Within Hindu Philosophy, it is actually stated very clearly and strongly, that debate and criticism should be honoured. Of course, such criticism should be constructive, and in a debatable form. However, such "censorship" is actually against the philosophy of what is taught, as we are taught to go forth, and study different view points, and come to our own conclusions of the faith we wish to follow, as opposed to being fed a line.
It is through debate, we realised the total idiocy of things such as the caste system, as well as learned from other religions, such as Christianity.
Unfortunately, like many places in the world, there are people who high jack religion for their own means, and propagated by people who do not have the understanding, yet a lot of anger, and feelings of misrepresentation., and Hinduism is not immune from that. It has been known throughout history, for example the persecution of the Bhuddists (a very appalling action by Hindus). However, in all cases, saner minds have always prevailed.
The key point here is that the Hindu priests and Scholars are completely distancing themselves from this, so there is hope that this "mob rule" censorship should cease.
Unfortunately, Hinduism does not have a central authority, unlike other religions; its very similar to the bazaar methodology of Open source, as opposed to the cathedral, with freedom of faith a core principle. So it may take longer. If a priest was to stand up and put down a "law" or "rule" as such, it would have repercussions on the freedom of faith that we hold dear.
Well said, I am from London, And I simply see Americans as just normal people, with a little bit different culture, and a slight accent.. other than that... just normal.
I was a little disappointed, my "premium sound" car Alpine Radio, despite the great sound didn't have a line in port, nor did it support MP3 CDs, or any form of digital input! Grr Jaguar, especially considering Jaguar's parent company, ford, fits an MP3 CD into their Focus:(
The disappointment didn't last too long though, when I took it for the service, I was told that as part of the service, my car radio was going to have the Jaguar Audio Enhancement fitted for free as a "compensation", as I had certain issues with my car over the last year.
Now, I have a line in, a usb port (plug in a standard USB Key with MP3s) and a Ipod connector! and all fits nicely inside the armrest, and doesnt dangle anywhere!
Asa, a lot of the people commenting here have not had much experience of Mozilla in the early days.
I was a volunteer of sorts from the day that Netscape announced that they were to release the code. Though I dived into the slightly later released Raptor code (which became NG-Layout/Gecko). I Participated for idealist reasons, I was highly disappointed with the disrespect for established web standards, and felt that having one extremely dominant browser was a detriment overall.
Although the coding I did was limited between 1999 and very early 2000, after which I switched more to testing, and Advocacy.
I have seen the "bad times", during the huge rewrite, when all the IT press were dissmissing the Mozilla Project as "too little too late". I was also cheering when in 2002/2003, as the project matured it received more support.
Having been through the whole project lifecycle, and not a new-comer, I am very aware just how open the development was. Everything was out in the open, including the legendary bitch-fest by JWZ.
When Google offered that cash, I was probably one of the few who readily felt that it was a good thing. I know the effort put in, and I know the costs. It really hurt when AOL disposed of Netscape. Dont get me wrogn, I really do appreciate AOL for putting in a lot of resources into the Mozilla project, especially at a time, when it wasnt immediately adding to their bottom line. They did release the project at the right time.
When the Foundation was set free, I was worried, because, Mozilla matters. I was concerned about what would happen when the cash run out. Seeing the "Donate" appear on Mozilla's web site was a real eye opener, because we are building something that needs to be seen by business. Seeing a donate button might scare some businesses away, that are expecting a certain degree of longevity.
The Google deal gives a sense of credibility.
As far as I am concerned, Mozilla has created a decent Layout Engine, and work is continuing on that. Sure I have some minor quibbles about FireFox, but FireFox is only one implementation. There are many others.
I for one, applaud all the folks at Mozilla (everyone, including advocates), persevering at a time when everyone else was dismissing the project; for bringing out a world class browser that actually mattered, and made a big change. A special mark of respect for Mitch Baker who really developed a huge rapport amongst everyone.
I for one will not even accept ANY "slice of the pie" from participating. I just hope you all spend it wisely and transparently. As for me, I am happy with the karma!
That is correct, provided it has NOT been deleted from the particular software license. Remember the GPL allows parts to be recommended but optional, and the version 2 or later clause is one of those optional parts.
I believe there are some major stuff that is V2 only, such as major parts of the Linux Kernal, and even Java
Well thoguht out gearing makes a LOT of difference, together with modern Deisel Technology
I don't know about the type of Diesel engine his Jetta uses, but here in Europe, Diesel has come a LONG way from old. Common rail high pressure delivery, direct injection, variable vane geometry turbochargers (effective on both low and high RPMs), 16 valve engines, and smart gearing, have pretty much eliminated all the past issues with diesel engines.
My own car, is a Jaguar X-Type 2.2 Diesel Sports Premium, with a 6 speed gearbox, and Maximum speed of 135mph.
The 6 speed gearbox keeps the engine in a sweet RPM spot right up to 75mph (highest speed limit in the UK is 70mph) at 1800 - 2200 RPM.
Together with the effective turbos, the car starts pulling like crazy at 1500, and doesn't start tapering off until 3900 (redline is at 4500).
Sure it doesnt have the insane high RPM of petrol, but considering a petrol needs at least about 3500 to start showing muscle, in reality both work out the same.
In Terminator 1, a Robot was sent back in time, to kill Sarah Connor, preventing the birth of John Connor, leader of the resistance. The resistance sent a human back into time as well, who then impregnated Sarah, to create John Connor. Although the terminator is nearly destroyed, at the end of the film, Judgement day still was to exist. A paradox was formed in the sense that, Johns father is a person who only met Sarah because of judgement day, interesting, a circular action, technically should not be possible (imagine recursion)
In Terminator 2. supposedly all traces of the terminators were destroyed, and Judgement day was averted. But, if Judgement day was averted, then those terminators would have no longer existed and they would not have come back in time. Another paradox, or did the new universe that got formed at that instant, simply shift its path?
I agree about the SonyEricssons, I love developing for the SE platforms (non symbian) and the best part is, SE provides a pretty decent developers website.
Remember hardware wise, SonyEricssons, despite the Sony part of the name, are at heart still Ericsson Mobile phones, and Ericsson has always been pretty good at using existing standards than trying to push its own standards, where existing ones existed.
For example, which nokia, et al, required proprietry software and formats for creating ringtones, pictures, etc. Ericsson used existing formats (wbmp, GIF, JPG, Midi, XML, MP3, MPA) and transfered via bluetooth, OBEX, or even simple infrared, requirign no special software. Its Themes, were simple a XML file, with a bunch of gifs/jpegs, and then TARed up with a thm extension. It was the first platform to support SVG.
Where they had to create their own standards, again they are usually good at being open. their iMelody format for monophonic ringtones is very simple to use and understand. They invented Bluetooth, and have one of the best bluetooth implementations on a phone, with Bluetooth PAN network, HCI, OBEX Synchml, and simply "just work".
So their Java has had a great head start, as the native firmware has pretty much a lot of stuff already, and the JVM uses native stuff where it can to implement the J2ME standard.
WHen developing for and SE i don't have to usually do hacks, that I have to do for other phones.
Small correction, On the new SonyEricsson k800i, it is indeed possible to run Java Midlets at start-up or even in the background, provided the user grants permission, and the midlet is coded to allow it. A VERY useful feature.
But as you said, the phone always prioritises its primary function (a phone) and the phone hardware/software has no hesitation to dump the JVM if it feels something is wrong.
My crashes so far has always been due to bugs in the phone firmware, not the java side of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they were very successful with the 3.5 inch floppy.. also Trinitron screens, and the CD, which was co-developped with philips. They were also very successfull at putting DV/Firewire video in the hands of ordinary customers.
yeah they made some lemons too, but like any tech company, that actually tries to invent stuff.
Well that is the equation, and its more abotu trying to proove it, in both directiosn. We have already prooven that matter can be broken down to energy (nuclear bombs.. etc) can the opposite also be true? if so, then we coudl therise matter is matter is just energy,and vice versa.
Erm, with regards to Hindus and other Dharmic Beliefs, they dont's say that we are the "only ones". read a post i wrote above about Dharmic beliefs. But at heart it understands that our notion of Intelligence and life is constrained to our perceptions and that we should keep an open mind.
I agree which you. In fact what you talk about is also true of the deistic "Dharma" philosophy.
Dharma, is the diestic philosophy, of the thestic "religions" of Bhuddism, Jainism, Siehkism, and vedism (aka Hinduism).
Dharma describes everything (of which the universe is a part of) as a single entity, that morphs and forms. This "entity" does not have a "known" personality nor anything that can be attributed to human factors, and nuances, and we are all part of it. The universe forms, disforms, destroys and rebuilds. its just a huge never ending cycle. Life cannot truely be defined, as we only can define life as what we "know".
To take your "men in black principle", there is a more readily available description of describing it. Our bodies are made of millions of individual cells. Each of them have life on their own, as well as a purpose. Some die after 2 weeks and are replaced, some live much longer, and are not replaced when they die (eg brain cells). Each individual cell may not be "aware" of the implications on each other. However, formed together, they make us. Our lives, our emotions, our being, as a singular compounded organism. With this in mind, there is nothing to say that we are not part of a bigger so called organism, its just that we don't understand it if it does exist, and maybe its not even REQUIRED to understand it.
I agree with your views of deism can itself support science. Dhramic philosophy has never discouraged the pursuit of science, unlike it appears of Abrahamic religions (such as Chistiantiy, Islam). Indeed, thousands of years ago Dharmic "scientists" (of all the main dharmic religions) worked out things such as the fact that Earth revolved around the sun, that there are other planets, and indeed other stars, and galaxys, etc, even as others still viewed the earth as flat, surrounded by a "dome". One particular assertion by Dharmism is that energy and matter are the same thing, in that energy "clumps" together to form matter. Recent works on quantum physics, have agreed somewhat to that idea, including a recent experiment at CERN, where "energy" were accelerated and then "smashed" together, and for a split second formed "matter".
Frankly i find all this rather interesting, and somewhat overwhelming. What we have is such a large concept, that is difficult to sometimes comprehend with our limited minds, and consciences. However, i woudl rather not go back to the "safe cocoon" of thestic views.
I get web'n'walk plus for £12 add on, which allows everything (inc im/pop/imap/telnet) excluding VoIP with 3 GB fair use.
the only problem is its only whilst in the UK, and doesnt include roaming, but while you are in the UK, you can use GPRS/3g, High speed 3g, for almost anything, except VoIP....
Sometimes in this current "DRM/stupid patents/bullying" days, I forgot that Sony is primarily a electronics company that have actually invented some amazing stuff, and some of them have become VERY successful in their own right (eg the 3.5inch floppy drive, Trinitron TV)
That was either the A300, or the A310, neither of which are Fly-By-Wire....
Check your facts.
You are ignoring one important fact, that makes all the difference. "Lock-in".
First things first, I am one of the early volunteers for Mozilla. I joined to held create and promote a "W3C standards based browser". Note this down....
Firstly the "Text Edit" control, (and also the Rich Text Edit control), take in a known standard, work with a standard, and send out to that standard. In the case of the Text Edit, it works with plain Ascii text files (and has been recently updated to include Unicode, etc) It is not usurping a standard, then extending it in a way to make output files that have proprietary extentions that prevent interoperation. The Rich Text control Inputs and outputs the RTF format, which is created by Microsoft, and largely is open, and compatible as an interchange format. Sure the Rich Text format has been somewhat extended by Microsoft, but only Word or other "optional" software handles the extensions. The standard built in Rich Text control reads and outputs Standard RTF.
HTML is a standard originally created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee who made it open, with the core view of Interoperability. The idea was to be as ubiquitous as Text.
Microsoft was not the first to "Bastardise" HTML. Netscape first tried to ruin the standard, by adding proprietary Tags, which where only compatible with their browser, and protected by Copyright, or other shenanigans to prevent other browsers from using those tags. Later, towards Netscape 4, they introduced their proprietary Layers tag. However, to Netscape's credit, up until Netscape 3, they did at least include all the standard tags of HTML up to the latest standard of the time. Things did go wrong from Netscape 4 onwards, but arguable it was due to a pretty poor rendering engine.
Microsoft did a whole lot worse. They did everything Netscape did, such as introduce proprietary Tags and stuff, but they also failed to implement standards. Take for example, the CSS spec. IT was originally created and submitted to the W3C by Microsoft, yet now, even their most current browser, IE7, has one of the least support of CSS amongst all major browsers. Not only is the lack of support worrying, it also intentionally or otherwise, through "bugs", broke some of the standards.
So the largest software company in the world, with the most widely used operating system in the world, decided to "include" a "broken" implementation of HTML into the Operating system, forcing web designers to code to that "broken" and "Extended" form of html, which then requires tricks and stunts to be compatible with other browsers. This is not good for interoperability, and ask any Copmetant web designer for the current state of play.
Yes, it is not a requirement to support every single standard, but W3C guidelines state that browsers should degrade gracefully over stuff they do not support, and should not break any tag they do support. IE, in almost all versions was not successful at either.
This is why MSHTML is dangerous, and wrong, and why I joined Mozilla, the aim was to try and create a standards compatible browser, with enough "market share" to make a difference.
No, but, if Al Gore's work directly starts translating to a reduction of CO2, and in the future his efforts are seen to have really made a difference, he would indeed be eligible. His crusade against Global Climate change has been there for 30 years.
Its a pity I don't have mod points, but if I did , I would definitely mod you insightful. Its very true that true success is often unnoticed, simply because it "works".
Well the key is, Sir Tim did a LOT to make it accessible. Sure some of the ground work was already done, namely: TCP/IP, SGML, MIME, etc.
What Sir Tim and his team did is:
- Created HTML, which was arguably much simpler than SGML (yes it also allowed some mediocre "designers" to also design pages, but ultimately it lead to greater adoption)
- Created the HTTP protocol, which by far and large was the greatest "enabler" of the technology, ie allow anonymous access to the information held in a ordered and secure manner.
- Still actively in charge of W3C, and creating new standards, largely without breaking old ones.
- Helped begat XML.
- Did not try and patent it.
So his contributions are large, and he is still actively participating. More importantly, he didnt try to patent it, but freed it.
You owe me a new keyboard!
I am a "Hindu" and you are generally right; the only thing that you said which is not 100% true is saying it captures every "non-monothiestic" belief, because at core Hinduism believes in a single supreme being that takes different forms. It is also the core difference between Hindu philosophy differentials and Bhuddist philosophy, which does not believe in a supreme being, but the nature of us as a whole spirit (which is a philosophy I like too).
As you rightly said, Hinduism (and bhuddism/jainism etc) is not a religion, and should not be seen as such. Its only a philosophy and guide. IT doesn't have dogma as a core facet, and is very pluralistic, and is supposed to view everyone as maybe having different beliefs, but humanist in nature. (Interestingly you an be an atheist and still follow Hindu philosophy, by refusing to believe in god, that is what Bhuddists aim for)
However, I would not categorise Islam (yes I am aware of what happened in the past, but past is past, lets not live in that) or socialism as the core problem for misery and strife across the planet. The core problem is "smart" people using religion to mobilise the less educated and enlightened to cause misery to others, and this happens across ALL religions, and the political spectrum.
As a Hindu, I can totally say this is nothing to do with religion. Within Hindu Philosophy, it is actually stated very clearly and strongly, that debate and criticism should be honoured. Of course, such criticism should be constructive, and in a debatable form. However, such "censorship" is actually against the philosophy of what is taught, as we are taught to go forth, and study different view points, and come to our own conclusions of the faith we wish to follow, as opposed to being fed a line.
It is through debate, we realised the total idiocy of things such as the caste system, as well as learned from other religions, such as Christianity.
Unfortunately, like many places in the world, there are people who high jack religion for their own means, and propagated by people who do not have the understanding, yet a lot of anger, and feelings of misrepresentation., and Hinduism is not immune from that. It has been known throughout history, for example the persecution of the Bhuddists (a very appalling action by Hindus). However, in all cases, saner minds have always prevailed.
The key point here is that the Hindu priests and Scholars are completely distancing themselves from this, so there is hope that this "mob rule" censorship should cease.
Unfortunately, Hinduism does not have a central authority, unlike other religions; its very similar to the bazaar methodology of Open source, as opposed to the cathedral, with freedom of faith a core principle. So it may take longer. If a priest was to stand up and put down a "law" or "rule" as such, it would have repercussions on the freedom of faith that we hold dear.
Well said, I am from London, And I simply see Americans as just normal people, with a little bit different culture, and a slight accent.. other than that... just normal.
I was a little disappointed, my "premium sound" car Alpine Radio, despite the great sound didn't have a line in port, nor did it support MP3 CDs, or any form of digital input! Grr Jaguar, especially considering Jaguar's parent company, ford, fits an MP3 CD into their Focus:(
The disappointment didn't last too long though, when I took it for the service, I was told that as part of the service, my car radio was going to have the Jaguar Audio Enhancement fitted for free as a "compensation", as I had certain issues with my car over the last year.
Now, I have a line in, a usb port (plug in a standard USB Key with MP3s) and a Ipod connector! and all fits nicely inside the armrest, and doesnt dangle anywhere!
nice!
Asa, a lot of the people commenting here have not had much experience of Mozilla in the early days.
I was a volunteer of sorts from the day that Netscape announced that they were to release the code. Though I dived into the slightly later released Raptor code (which became NG-Layout/Gecko). I Participated for idealist reasons, I was highly disappointed with the disrespect for established web standards, and felt that having one extremely dominant browser was a detriment overall.
Although the coding I did was limited between 1999 and very early 2000, after which I switched more to testing, and Advocacy.
I have seen the "bad times", during the huge rewrite, when all the IT press were dissmissing the Mozilla Project as "too little too late". I was also cheering when in 2002/2003, as the project matured it received more support.
Having been through the whole project lifecycle, and not a new-comer, I am very aware just how open the development was. Everything was out in the open, including the legendary bitch-fest by JWZ.
When Google offered that cash, I was probably one of the few who readily felt that it was a good thing. I know the effort put in, and I know the costs. It really hurt when AOL disposed of Netscape. Dont get me wrogn, I really do appreciate AOL for putting in a lot of resources into the Mozilla project, especially at a time, when it wasnt immediately adding to their bottom line. They did release the project at the right time.
When the Foundation was set free, I was worried, because, Mozilla matters. I was concerned about what would happen when the cash run out. Seeing the "Donate" appear on Mozilla's web site was a real eye opener, because we are building something that needs to be seen by business. Seeing a donate button might scare some businesses away, that are expecting a certain degree of longevity.
The Google deal gives a sense of credibility.
As far as I am concerned, Mozilla has created a decent Layout Engine, and work is continuing on that. Sure I have some minor quibbles about FireFox, but FireFox is only one implementation. There are many others.
I for one, applaud all the folks at Mozilla (everyone, including advocates), persevering at a time when everyone else was dismissing the project; for bringing out a world class browser that actually mattered, and made a big change. A special mark of respect for Mitch Baker who really developed a huge rapport amongst everyone.
I for one will not even accept ANY "slice of the pie" from participating. I just hope you all spend it wisely and transparently. As for me, I am happy with the karma!
That is correct, provided it has NOT been deleted from the particular software license. Remember the GPL allows parts to be recommended but optional, and the version 2 or later clause is one of those optional parts.
I believe there are some major stuff that is V2 only, such as major parts of the Linux Kernal, and even Java
Well thoguht out gearing makes a LOT of difference, together with modern Deisel Technology
I don't know about the type of Diesel engine his Jetta uses, but here in Europe, Diesel has come a LONG way from old. Common rail high pressure delivery, direct injection, variable vane geometry turbochargers (effective on both low and high RPMs), 16 valve engines, and smart gearing, have pretty much eliminated all the past issues with diesel engines.
My own car, is a Jaguar X-Type 2.2 Diesel Sports Premium, with a 6 speed gearbox, and Maximum speed of 135mph.
The 6 speed gearbox keeps the engine in a sweet RPM spot right up to 75mph (highest speed limit in the UK is 70mph) at 1800 - 2200 RPM.
Together with the effective turbos, the car starts pulling like crazy at 1500, and doesn't start tapering off until 3900 (redline is at 4500).
Sure it doesnt have the insane high RPM of petrol, but considering a petrol needs at least about 3500 to start showing muscle, in reality both work out the same.
Also try being in the slipstream of a Lorry (I do that often on my Jaguar Diesel, and get approx 80mpg (British) at 60mph.
I get 80mpg, out of my Jaguar X-Type deisel (Manual 6-speed), when I am driving at 60mph on cruise, and in the slip stream of a lorry.
This drops to 40mpg when I am at 75mph using my foot to control speed.
whoosh..... that was the sound of sarcasm flying over your head.
The GP was simply being sarcastically humourous.
Actually, no, T2 did leave something, who anyone with a sense of logic would have picked on. Effectively a type of Grandfather Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox
In Terminator 1, a Robot was sent back in time, to kill Sarah Connor, preventing the birth of John Connor, leader of the resistance. The resistance sent a human back into time as well, who then impregnated Sarah, to create John Connor. Although the terminator is nearly destroyed, at the end of the film, Judgement day still was to exist. A paradox was formed in the sense that, Johns father is a person who only met Sarah because of judgement day, interesting, a circular action, technically should not be possible (imagine recursion)
In Terminator 2. supposedly all traces of the terminators were destroyed, and Judgement day was averted. But, if Judgement day was averted, then those terminators would have no longer existed and they would not have come back in time. Another paradox, or did the new universe that got formed at that instant, simply shift its path?
This is why there was a T3.
I agree about the SonyEricssons, I love developing for the SE platforms (non symbian) and the best part is, SE provides a pretty decent developers website.
Remember hardware wise, SonyEricssons, despite the Sony part of the name, are at heart still Ericsson Mobile phones, and Ericsson has always been pretty good at using existing standards than trying to push its own standards, where existing ones existed.
For example, which nokia, et al, required proprietry software and formats for creating ringtones, pictures, etc. Ericsson used existing formats (wbmp, GIF, JPG, Midi, XML, MP3, MPA) and transfered via bluetooth, OBEX, or even simple infrared, requirign no special software. Its Themes, were simple a XML file, with a bunch of gifs/jpegs, and then TARed up with a thm extension. It was the first platform to support SVG.
Where they had to create their own standards, again they are usually good at being open. their iMelody format for monophonic ringtones is very simple to use and understand. They invented Bluetooth, and have one of the best bluetooth implementations on a phone, with Bluetooth PAN network, HCI, OBEX Synchml, and simply "just work".
So their Java has had a great head start, as the native firmware has pretty much a lot of stuff already, and the JVM uses native stuff where it can to implement the J2ME standard.
WHen developing for and SE i don't have to usually do hacks, that I have to do for other phones.
Small correction, On the new SonyEricsson k800i, it is indeed possible to run Java Midlets at start-up or even in the background, provided the user grants permission, and the midlet is coded to allow it. A VERY useful feature.
But as you said, the phone always prioritises its primary function (a phone) and the phone hardware/software has no hesitation to dump the JVM if it feels something is wrong.
My crashes so far has always been due to bugs in the phone firmware, not the java side of things.