There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
Apparently, this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and, indeed, many do. When used properly, the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history. I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.
If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension.
"...but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser"
Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean ?
This isn't a slashvertisement; by "app in a browser," they mean the dazzling display of massive AJAX that is characteristic of Google Apps. AbiCollab is not this; if you looked into it more, you'd see you actually need a plug-in to make this work.
Thus, AbiCollab really isn't an "app in the browser" in the traditional sense of a Web application--it's a desktop application hosted by a Web browser via a plug-in. That is what they meant. Of course, whether this is a good or bad thing is another story, since unlike Google Apps, you can use this only on platforms that are supported by some desktop application (and that have the AbiCollab plug-in).
You're lucky: zero of my textbooks are available in electronic form. Additionally, I carried my Kindle around in my backpack for one day, in a case, and apparently a glass (?!) layer below the screen developed a crack, which Amazon refuses to place under the standard warranty.
When I did use mine, I often found it too slow at turning pages (not that I do it frequently, but it's nice to be able to quickly flip through pages to find the one you want). PDF reading was decent at best but often practically unusuable--and I have a DX. (It works best if you make your own PDFs and format them specifically to the screen dimensions.) Not that any of this matters now; now I have a $489 paperweight.
Note to future owners: get "accident" protection from SquareTrade or, if you must, Amazon itself. It will be worth it (although I'm not convinced I was rough at all with mine). Also, be sure to check availability if you plan to use it for any particular book; not everyone will be as lucky as the parent poster. Theoretically, the weight reduction would be nice; practically, you probably can't get every last book electronically, and you'll also have to deal with the fact that you're carrying a fragile sheet of glass in your bag instead.
The document viewing area by default in Word 97 and Word 2007 is literally the exact same, except 2007 actually gives you slightly more space horizontally. PowerPoint is the exact same. The only significat difference is that you do lose a row with Excel, but as someone who works with Excel on a daily basis, I'd gladly take the ribbon over the menu any day. Additionally, you can collapse the ribbon (double-click a tab or hit Ctrl+F1) to save space. I'd guess this would save at least as much space as collapsing the old two-row Word toolbar into one, if not more.
Space, my friend, is not an issue. (Not to mention that Mozilla isn't really going to the "ribbon," anyway, but that's another story.)
This is not surprising, and now that it's confirmed, we can expect Apple to release an 802.11n enabler for iPod touch in the future and charge $.9.95 for it. They're so predictable these days...
What's more interesting than this is that the new iPod touch, while almost identicial to the old one aside from a faster processor and some other things, is almost the exact same inside except for one small change: a space big enough to fit the same camera found on the iPod nano (in previous generations there was an antenna cable socket, which has been moved and, in its absence is now just plastic spacer).
There were rumors of an iPod touch camera before it came out, even rumors that pinpointed the camera to this exact location in the device, and there was also a recent rumor that they pulled it due to some problems at the last minute. Looks like this confirms that, and I'm sure we can expect an updated iPod touch in the future with a camera. That, in my opinion, is far more interesting.
I guess my school was somewhat unusual: I was a tour guide, a senior (I don't even think they hire freshman), and just happened to be a CS major. Alas, nobody asked me about Linux--but if they did, I would have been able to tell them we had a Linux lab (although only for CS majors/minors or people in CS courses), a local mirror of several OSS projects (most notably Ubuntu), and that--while we used mostly Windows with a few Macs--our IT department was quite friendly to Linux and open-source in general. (Our online course management system was based on Moodle; we actually hired people to contribute to the project so we could make better use of it.)
The only problem I had with Linux was trying to find a working driver for my wireless network adapter--and that definitely wasn't my school's fault. (In general, I'd say if the school supports at least Macs besides just Windows, Linux shouldn't be ridiculously difficult to get at least most computing-related goodies to work...awkard required software [you could use a VM for that if Wine doesn't work] and network-registration requirements [hopefully they aren't dumb enough to think people use only Windows and OS X and require verification software that runs only on these two OSes] aside.)
I thought 10.2 was free, or maybe was as cheap as $20 (incl. shipping and handling) or something. I remember one of the OSX versions being cheap or free...
You're thinking of 10.1 (for owners of 10.0). That was because Apple realized there were bugs and other issues with 10.0 (not that 10.1 was perfect...) and allowed users to upgrade for free. In fact, Apple didn't even use OS X as the default OS on new machines until 10.1.2, even though they shipped with both.
Apple took out zfs support in the middle of development....
No, they didn't. They only advertised that for Mac OS X 10.6 *Server*, never for the consumer edition. So, I guess you're right that they did take it out--but it doesn't really matter unless you were planning on getting the server edition, anyway.
I don't know about the OP, but whenever we move machines where I work, it's almost always because the machine is being repurposed or reassigned. When doing so, we almost always have to RIS the machine anyway (or Ghost, if the network is acting funny...), and we can just change the name associated with a machine's GUID so it automatically gets that new name with the new install. It just takes a few seconds. Also, there's no need to manually update the database since we have a discovery service run that reports back information about the computer (keyed by, since we use Dells exclusively, service tags--otherwise S/N would be a good key as well) and populates the database itself.
All our computers start with the department name (because there are other departments on our domain) followed by some description of the person's job--e.g., (DepartmentName)-INFODESK. Before I worked here, we used numeric names (probably related to the serial number or randomly generated), but this has the added advantage of being significantly more readable--and easier to read over the phone if, for example, we need to do a remote login to someone's computer. It's also less prone to typos, and we all like it a lot better than having computers with names like 4FXG8B02.
The "no suitable codec" blurb is a quote from Hixie. I (the submitter) left out the part that qualified this statement with "no suitable codec that all browser vendors are willing to ship," which is more or less what you mentioned. I probably should have mentioned that to make the meaning of "suitable" more clear.
...So it doesn't remain to be seen whether Google's acquisition of On2 has any bearing on their plans for video on the Web.
Actually, their blog seems to be pretty vague:
Although we're not in a position to discuss specific product plans until after the deal closes, we are committed to innovation in video quality on the web, and we believe that On2 Technologies' team and technology will help us further that goal.
I get that they want to do something with video and the Web...but that really doesn't tell us anything about their future plans, the most interesting one of which could be whether they plan to open any of these formats or push for any in HTML 5. (If anyone has the power to do this, it's Google with YouTube. Whatever YouTube chooses, browsers must support to keep users happy.)
Exactly: as the submitter of this story, I thought it was odd that BetaNews seems to think it has something to do with Google liking Theora. On2 really has nothing to do with it anymore; they disclaimed and open-sourced VP2 long ago. (If there are any supposed patent issues with Theora, On2 certainly has nothing to do with it.)
What is, of course, more interesting is the relationship of On2's newer formats to Flash...
But this doesn't explain why the spleen was so difficult: what would I see if I looked at a slide of spleen under the microscope (or if more advanced equipment than my eye and a microscope did the same thing)? If not a noticeably larger proportion of white blood cells than elsewhere, why not (e.g., did preparation destroy them, are the hidden or stored elsewhere, etc.)?
Clearly, something must have been going on for us not to have realized this sooner. (Or, perhaps, we've discovered only part of the story--it's happened a lot over history and still happens today, as much as we like to pride ourselves with our knowledge and technology.)
Re:Caizen is actually spelt with a K
on
KDE 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Lately, a lot of bars and brands in Japan are trying to use the 'c' instead of the 'k'-
Why is that? What's wrong with 'k'? In languages using latin-based alphabets, 'k' is usually better because it's always a hard consonant, unlike 'c' which varies a lot depending on the language and the word.... If you want to use a Latin alphabet to show non-native speakers how a word is pronounced, and the word has a hard 'k' sound, why not just use a 'k'?
The biggest reason is probably that it looks less "foreign." Docomo looks at least a bit more Anglicized than Dokomo, which for whatever reason may be more appealing to some people.
Plus, it's usually not that hard to figure out. A handful of exceptions aside, c (and g, for that matter) is generally hard except when proceeded by e or i (formerly the non-low front consonants of English, which they still were when this phonological change took place and which they still are in other languages that also do this, such as Spanish). The combination ch is usually a digraph representing/tS/ (XSAMPA, not IPA--apparently Slashdot doesn't play well with Unicode), sometimes/k/, but rarely, if ever (in English)/kh/. Plus, if you know that the word is Japanese...
But basically, I would guess that the use of c appeals to more people because it looks more like an English(-ish) word.
Cookies expire at end of session according to my preference.
That's fine for session management, but when sites start storing preferences, I get reset to the bone-headed defaults every time.
Then I leave and never return.
How else do you expect a site to store your preferences, then? I'd rather have a cookie on my computer than have the site force me to make an account (e-mail address and all) with them and store it on their server. (Of course, "bone-headed defaults" are another story...)
The difference is that Microsoft wasn't giving you an option. When you start IE 8 for the first time, if you choose "Express Setup" rather than "Custom," it makes IE the default--and not only does it not give you an option, it doesn't even tell you that it's going to make it default, either.
This update addresses this issue by including a "Make IE default browser" checkbox right under the "Express Setup" radio button. It's still checked by default (as it is for most browsers), but at least you can't say you didn't know what you were getting into.
For the record, you could always choose with custom setup, but that involves a way-too-long wizard asking you questions ranging from whether you want Suggested Sites turned on to if you want Bing as your default search provider (if not, too bad, we don't include Google by default, and you'll have to guess that "Google search suggestions," despite the odd name, is the one you'll want from our website). Most users won't bother with that.
I almost forgot about that, but you're right: and they use H.264 for that, which is probably also the reason they wrote the HTML 5 test page with H.264 as well.
Unfortunately, some videos just aren't available on the iPhone/iPod touch. But more importantly, these non-Flash videos are accessible only to iPhones and iPod touches: there's no way to view YouTube with H.264 from your desktop browser.
Now, if YouTube would only phase out support for Flash...
I know, I know, wishful thinking. But I do secretly think that YouTube could single-handedly decide which video format(s) become supported (or, if not in the specification, at least popular) for HTML 5. Chrome supports both Theora and H.264, but their HTML 5 test page uses H.264. Not my personal first choice, but certainly a lot better than Flash.
In any case, I can't wait for this imaginary day when YouTube goes Flash-less.:)
They had to chance a code base from around 5+ years only because they didn't things right 5+ years ago. Remember, back then they were doing a complete code rewrite anyway.
Complete rewrite? I don't think I'd say that much. While they scrapped large portions of the old Mozilla suite code (like the "suite" part) due to software bloat, they kept almost everything the same under the hood, including the use of XUL and Gecko. It is esentially a trimmed-down browser UI running on top of the old Mozilla framework. (Or was a trimmed-down browser; it's got a hefty feature set these days. And, as part of *bird/fox development, they've made tons of helpful changes to the Mozilla codebase along the way.)
Eleven years ago, of course, there was a complete rewrite. I don't know how practical or helpful it would have been at that time, however.
This article is wrong: AOL isn't shutting down the entirety of CompuServe.
AOL simulatenously operated both CompuServe 2000 (the AOL-based network) and CompuServe Classic, as it came to be called. AOL isn't "pulling the plug" on the entire company as this summary says; they're merely shutting down the CompuServe Classic service, which they have hardly touched one bit in the last ten years anyway. There are no plans to shut down CompuServe 2000, and users have the option of migrating to this service.
So, while your comment is mostly on the mark, it's important to note that AOL neither shut down CompuServe when they bought it (they operated Classic simultaneously with the new service for 10 years!), nor are they shutting down the service (CompuServe 2000) to which you refer.
Also, this was announced in April, so it's hardly news, other than the June 30 shutdown date--which already happened.
It's like all the various mutli-column HTML/CSS tricks that people use because HTML just doesn't directly support columns.
HTML shouldn't support columns--they do not relate to the structure of the document, only to its presentation, and HTML is really only a way to mark up a document's structure--i.e., it's structure in terms of headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, etc. (If the columns are part of the structure, it's probably a table you're after.)
CSS, on the other hand, should support columns--it's just that CSS 1 and 2/2.1 both don't really do it and make you rely on any of various "tricks" to create them. CSS 3, finally, will include a non-crazy way of doing this.
I contemplated not even saying it, and I guess I shouldn't have: when I said "organic," I didn't mean "USDA organic," because the USDA managed to mess even that up by allowing some of the things you mentioned. I guess I really meant "natural," although that word probably doesn't mean anything anymore, either. This means imitating a natural rotation of crops and animals--Polyface Farm is a famous (well, as famous as a farm can be) example of this. It can be done. Most of the problems you mention are problems with "organic" (USDA-certifiable organic, I mean) farms that try to operate like conventional farms, just without the prohibited pesticides and fertlizers. There are better ways. Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.
In light of this, I'm not convinced that conventional farming's use of fertilizers and pesticides is somehow greener than not using them (except in some "industrial organic"--dare I call them Big Organic?--farms like those I mentioned; you're certainly right that their excessive tilling [often used as a non-pesticidal form of weed control] and other practices is not necessarily better). While it may be purely in terms of the amount of energy you consume on the farm (which, again, is only a problem on "industrial organic" farms), it certainly doesn't take into account the fact that these pesticides and fertilizers run off the fields and into our water, not to mention the plants themselves, and eventually our bodies. (And even if you don't think they do anything to us [we've certainly been wrong in the past, by the way], there are other problems that don't involve just us, like algal blooms.)
Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there. (Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum. And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass. Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.
If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need for something like awesomebar to be core, is there?
Apparently, this is something the Mozilla folks thought people would like--and, indeed, many do. When used properly, the AwesomeBar nearly lets you forget about bookmarks and history. I really miss this feature in other browsers or in computer labs with older versions of Firefox.
If you don't like it (or if you're just too set in your ways), you can tweak it do be Firefox 2-ish by changing some preferences--just Google it. Also, there is the oldbar extension.
"...but featuring a real word processor rather than an app in a browser" Seriously, what on earth is that supposed to mean ?
This isn't a slashvertisement; by "app in a browser," they mean the dazzling display of massive AJAX that is characteristic of Google Apps. AbiCollab is not this; if you looked into it more, you'd see you actually need a plug-in to make this work.
Thus, AbiCollab really isn't an "app in the browser" in the traditional sense of a Web application--it's a desktop application hosted by a Web browser via a plug-in. That is what they meant. Of course, whether this is a good or bad thing is another story, since unlike Google Apps, you can use this only on platforms that are supported by some desktop application (and that have the AbiCollab plug-in).
You're lucky: zero of my textbooks are available in electronic form. Additionally, I carried my Kindle around in my backpack for one day, in a case, and apparently a glass (?!) layer below the screen developed a crack, which Amazon refuses to place under the standard warranty.
When I did use mine, I often found it too slow at turning pages (not that I do it frequently, but it's nice to be able to quickly flip through pages to find the one you want). PDF reading was decent at best but often practically unusuable--and I have a DX. (It works best if you make your own PDFs and format them specifically to the screen dimensions.) Not that any of this matters now; now I have a $489 paperweight.
Note to future owners: get "accident" protection from SquareTrade or, if you must, Amazon itself. It will be worth it (although I'm not convinced I was rough at all with mine). Also, be sure to check availability if you plan to use it for any particular book; not everyone will be as lucky as the parent poster. Theoretically, the weight reduction would be nice; practically, you probably can't get every last book electronically, and you'll also have to deal with the fact that you're carrying a fragile sheet of glass in your bag instead.
Afaict there is no way to reduce the space the ribbon takes up.
No, there is a way to make the ribbon take up less space. You can collapse it, which I mentioned in my post that you quoted.
Good thing that the ribbon takes up the exact same amount of space as the old toolbars and menu did, then: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/17/577485.aspx
The document viewing area by default in Word 97 and Word 2007 is literally the exact same, except 2007 actually gives you slightly more space horizontally. PowerPoint is the exact same. The only significat difference is that you do lose a row with Excel, but as someone who works with Excel on a daily basis, I'd gladly take the ribbon over the menu any day. Additionally, you can collapse the ribbon (double-click a tab or hit Ctrl+F1) to save space. I'd guess this would save at least as much space as collapsing the old two-row Word toolbar into one, if not more.
Space, my friend, is not an issue. (Not to mention that Mozilla isn't really going to the "ribbon," anyway, but that's another story.)
This is not surprising, and now that it's confirmed, we can expect Apple to release an 802.11n enabler for iPod touch in the future and charge $.9.95 for it. They're so predictable these days...
What's more interesting than this is that the new iPod touch, while almost identicial to the old one aside from a faster processor and some other things, is almost the exact same inside except for one small change: a space big enough to fit the same camera found on the iPod nano (in previous generations there was an antenna cable socket, which has been moved and, in its absence is now just plastic spacer).
There were rumors of an iPod touch camera before it came out, even rumors that pinpointed the camera to this exact location in the device, and there was also a recent rumor that they pulled it due to some problems at the last minute. Looks like this confirms that, and I'm sure we can expect an updated iPod touch in the future with a camera. That, in my opinion, is far more interesting.
I guess my school was somewhat unusual: I was a tour guide, a senior (I don't even think they hire freshman), and just happened to be a CS major. Alas, nobody asked me about Linux--but if they did, I would have been able to tell them we had a Linux lab (although only for CS majors/minors or people in CS courses), a local mirror of several OSS projects (most notably Ubuntu), and that--while we used mostly Windows with a few Macs--our IT department was quite friendly to Linux and open-source in general. (Our online course management system was based on Moodle; we actually hired people to contribute to the project so we could make better use of it.)
The only problem I had with Linux was trying to find a working driver for my wireless network adapter--and that definitely wasn't my school's fault. (In general, I'd say if the school supports at least Macs besides just Windows, Linux shouldn't be ridiculously difficult to get at least most computing-related goodies to work...awkard required software [you could use a VM for that if Wine doesn't work] and network-registration requirements [hopefully they aren't dumb enough to think people use only Windows and OS X and require verification software that runs only on these two OSes] aside.)
I thought 10.2 was free, or maybe was as cheap as $20 (incl. shipping and handling) or something. I remember one of the OSX versions being cheap or free...
You're thinking of 10.1 (for owners of 10.0). That was because Apple realized there were bugs and other issues with 10.0 (not that 10.1 was perfect...) and allowed users to upgrade for free. In fact, Apple didn't even use OS X as the default OS on new machines until 10.1.2, even though they shipped with both.
Apple took out zfs support in the middle of development....
No, they didn't. They only advertised that for Mac OS X 10.6 *Server*, never for the consumer edition. So, I guess you're right that they did take it out--but it doesn't really matter unless you were planning on getting the server edition, anyway.
I don't know about the OP, but whenever we move machines where I work, it's almost always because the machine is being repurposed or reassigned. When doing so, we almost always have to RIS the machine anyway (or Ghost, if the network is acting funny...), and we can just change the name associated with a machine's GUID so it automatically gets that new name with the new install. It just takes a few seconds. Also, there's no need to manually update the database since we have a discovery service run that reports back information about the computer (keyed by, since we use Dells exclusively, service tags--otherwise S/N would be a good key as well) and populates the database itself.
All our computers start with the department name (because there are other departments on our domain) followed by some description of the person's job--e.g., (DepartmentName)-INFODESK. Before I worked here, we used numeric names (probably related to the serial number or randomly generated), but this has the added advantage of being significantly more readable--and easier to read over the phone if, for example, we need to do a remote login to someone's computer. It's also less prone to typos, and we all like it a lot better than having computers with names like 4FXG8B02.
The "no suitable codec" blurb is a quote from Hixie. I (the submitter) left out the part that qualified this statement with "no suitable codec that all browser vendors are willing to ship," which is more or less what you mentioned. I probably should have mentioned that to make the meaning of "suitable" more clear.
...So it doesn't remain to be seen whether Google's acquisition of On2 has any bearing on their plans for video on the Web.
Actually, their blog seems to be pretty vague:
I get that they want to do something with video and the Web...but that really doesn't tell us anything about their future plans, the most interesting one of which could be whether they plan to open any of these formats or push for any in HTML 5. (If anyone has the power to do this, it's Google with YouTube. Whatever YouTube chooses, browsers must support to keep users happy.)
Exactly: as the submitter of this story, I thought it was odd that BetaNews seems to think it has something to do with Google liking Theora. On2 really has nothing to do with it anymore; they disclaimed and open-sourced VP2 long ago. (If there are any supposed patent issues with Theora, On2 certainly has nothing to do with it.)
What is, of course, more interesting is the relationship of On2's newer formats to Flash...
But this doesn't explain why the spleen was so difficult: what would I see if I looked at a slide of spleen under the microscope (or if more advanced equipment than my eye and a microscope did the same thing)? If not a noticeably larger proportion of white blood cells than elsewhere, why not (e.g., did preparation destroy them, are the hidden or stored elsewhere, etc.)?
Clearly, something must have been going on for us not to have realized this sooner. (Or, perhaps, we've discovered only part of the story--it's happened a lot over history and still happens today, as much as we like to pride ourselves with our knowledge and technology.)
Lately, a lot of bars and brands in Japan are trying to use the 'c' instead of the 'k'-
Why is that? What's wrong with 'k'? In languages using latin-based alphabets, 'k' is usually better because it's always a hard consonant, unlike 'c' which varies a lot depending on the language and the word. ... If you want to use a Latin alphabet to show non-native speakers how a word is pronounced, and the word has a hard 'k' sound, why not just use a 'k'?
The biggest reason is probably that it looks less "foreign." Docomo looks at least a bit more Anglicized than Dokomo, which for whatever reason may be more appealing to some people.
Plus, it's usually not that hard to figure out. A handful of exceptions aside, c (and g, for that matter) is generally hard except when proceeded by e or i (formerly the non-low front consonants of English, which they still were when this phonological change took place and which they still are in other languages that also do this, such as Spanish). The combination ch is usually a digraph representing /tS/ (XSAMPA, not IPA--apparently Slashdot doesn't play well with Unicode), sometimes /k/, but rarely, if ever (in English) /kh/. Plus, if you know that the word is Japanese...
But basically, I would guess that the use of c appeals to more people because it looks more like an English(-ish) word.
Hmm, this story sounds familiar...
Cookies expire at end of session according to my preference. That's fine for session management, but when sites start storing preferences, I get reset to the bone-headed defaults every time. Then I leave and never return.
How else do you expect a site to store your preferences, then? I'd rather have a cookie on my computer than have the site force me to make an account (e-mail address and all) with them and store it on their server. (Of course, "bone-headed defaults" are another story...)
The difference is that Microsoft wasn't giving you an option. When you start IE 8 for the first time, if you choose "Express Setup" rather than "Custom," it makes IE the default--and not only does it not give you an option, it doesn't even tell you that it's going to make it default, either.
This update addresses this issue by including a "Make IE default browser" checkbox right under the "Express Setup" radio button. It's still checked by default (as it is for most browsers), but at least you can't say you didn't know what you were getting into.
For the record, you could always choose with custom setup, but that involves a way-too-long wizard asking you questions ranging from whether you want Suggested Sites turned on to if you want Bing as your default search provider (if not, too bad, we don't include Google by default, and you'll have to guess that "Google search suggestions," despite the odd name, is the one you'll want from our website). Most users won't bother with that.
I almost forgot about that, but you're right: and they use H.264 for that, which is probably also the reason they wrote the HTML 5 test page with H.264 as well.
Unfortunately, some videos just aren't available on the iPhone/iPod touch. But more importantly, these non-Flash videos are accessible only to iPhones and iPod touches: there's no way to view YouTube with H.264 from your desktop browser.
Now, if YouTube would only phase out support for Flash...
I know, I know, wishful thinking. But I do secretly think that YouTube could single-handedly decide which video format(s) become supported (or, if not in the specification, at least popular) for HTML 5. Chrome supports both Theora and H.264, but their HTML 5 test page uses H.264. Not my personal first choice, but certainly a lot better than Flash.
In any case, I can't wait for this imaginary day when YouTube goes Flash-less. :)
They had to chance a code base from around 5+ years only because they didn't things right 5+ years ago. Remember, back then they were doing a complete code rewrite anyway.
Complete rewrite? I don't think I'd say that much. While they scrapped large portions of the old Mozilla suite code (like the "suite" part) due to software bloat, they kept almost everything the same under the hood, including the use of XUL and Gecko. It is esentially a trimmed-down browser UI running on top of the old Mozilla framework. (Or was a trimmed-down browser; it's got a hefty feature set these days. And, as part of *bird/fox development, they've made tons of helpful changes to the Mozilla codebase along the way.)
Eleven years ago, of course, there was a complete rewrite. I don't know how practical or helpful it would have been at that time, however.
This article is wrong: AOL isn't shutting down the entirety of CompuServe.
AOL simulatenously operated both CompuServe 2000 (the AOL-based network) and CompuServe Classic, as it came to be called. AOL isn't "pulling the plug" on the entire company as this summary says; they're merely shutting down the CompuServe Classic service, which they have hardly touched one bit in the last ten years anyway. There are no plans to shut down CompuServe 2000, and users have the option of migrating to this service.
So, while your comment is mostly on the mark, it's important to note that AOL neither shut down CompuServe when they bought it (they operated Classic simultaneously with the new service for 10 years!), nor are they shutting down the service (CompuServe 2000) to which you refer.
Also, this was announced in April, so it's hardly news, other than the June 30 shutdown date--which already happened.
It's like all the various mutli-column HTML/CSS tricks that people use because HTML just doesn't directly support columns.
HTML shouldn't support columns--they do not relate to the structure of the document, only to its presentation, and HTML is really only a way to mark up a document's structure--i.e., it's structure in terms of headings, paragraphs, lists, tables, etc. (If the columns are part of the structure, it's probably a table you're after.)
CSS, on the other hand, should support columns--it's just that CSS 1 and 2/2.1 both don't really do it and make you rely on any of various "tricks" to create them. CSS 3, finally, will include a non-crazy way of doing this.
I contemplated not even saying it, and I guess I shouldn't have: when I said "organic," I didn't mean "USDA organic," because the USDA managed to mess even that up by allowing some of the things you mentioned. I guess I really meant "natural," although that word probably doesn't mean anything anymore, either. This means imitating a natural rotation of crops and animals--Polyface Farm is a famous (well, as famous as a farm can be) example of this. It can be done. Most of the problems you mention are problems with "organic" (USDA-certifiable organic, I mean) farms that try to operate like conventional farms, just without the prohibited pesticides and fertlizers. There are better ways. Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.
In light of this, I'm not convinced that conventional farming's use of fertilizers and pesticides is somehow greener than not using them (except in some "industrial organic"--dare I call them Big Organic?--farms like those I mentioned; you're certainly right that their excessive tilling [often used as a non-pesticidal form of weed control] and other practices is not necessarily better). While it may be purely in terms of the amount of energy you consume on the farm (which, again, is only a problem on "industrial organic" farms), it certainly doesn't take into account the fact that these pesticides and fertilizers run off the fields and into our water, not to mention the plants themselves, and eventually our bodies. (And even if you don't think they do anything to us [we've certainly been wrong in the past, by the way], there are other problems that don't involve just us, like algal blooms.)
Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.
Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there. (Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum. And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass. Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.
If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.