Firefox 0.9.2 takes up 16Mb on my programs drive, 3Mb in my documents and settings on the win drive (that's with 15 extensions and shitloads of bookmarks), and whatever I limit it to on the drive that has the cache on. You're griping at that? (Obviously the full Mozilla suite will take up more, but you'd be better off switching as it sounds like you're unlikely to use all the extra features). IE can't really be removed as it has hooks into the OS all over the place, and you'll probably want to keep it around for windows update, the one site that really requires IE. (You could if you really really want remove the directory that holds the exe and so forth, but that's under 2Mb.) Wipe the IE cache, you won't need it any more, and think of the space you will save not downloading all the spyware (speaking of which, you should get something to remove all that to save you that space) and also the endless updates for IE (Seriously, I mean it!).
If you're really pushed for space, take a long, hard look at every single application that you don't use every day, you'll be surprised how much wasteage you have accumulated. Also, TreeSize Pro is very small to install and is absolutely invaluable for seeing where all the space goes, it will save you many Gb very quickly.
TabBrowser extensions are massively bloated, and the number of options is bewildering, even to an experienced user. It is best to use some of the smaller extensions writtent to duplicate the functions you need.
For opening new window link in new tabs, use Single Window
I also use rue's rewritten implementation of Pike's Session Saver for the recovery of tabs after a crash (only happened once in recent memory, but useful still), and disable all the other features as they annoy me. This version is repackaged for 0.9
The last extension I use to do with tabs (don't think it was in TBE, but essential for me still) is Flowing Tabs, which shrinks the sizes of the tabs to the title text if it is short (otherwise keeps them default size), and continues many tabs onto a second or third and so forth line rather than shrinking them until you can't see what's written.
Original (or as close as I know it) Naval Institute's Proceedings (1989) version:
"Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on manoeuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the Captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities. Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, "Light, bearing on the starboard bow."
"Is it steady or moving astern?" the Captain called out.
Lookout replied, "Steady, Captain," Which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship.
The Captain then called to the signalman, "Signal that ship: We are on a collisoon course, advise you change course 20 degrees."
Back came the signal "Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees."
In reply, the Captain said, "Send: I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees."
"I'm a seaman second class," Came the reply, "You had better change course 20 degrees."
By that time, the Captain, was furious. He spat out, "Send: I'm a battleship, change course 20 degrees."
Back came the flashing light: "I'm a lighthouse!"
I rarely have my browser window wider than 900 pixels
Why?? Not trying to be irritating, but I really can't imagine. Surely when you have a high resolution set, you have it because you want to fit lots of stuff onto the screen at the same time?
I have my monitor set to 1600*1200, and damn near everything is maximised whenever I use it. (As an aside, I have quite good eyes, at least with my glasses, as the monitor is 17" and will do that at 75Hz).
I realise that this is rare and most non-geek users will have much lower resolution. However, 800*600 is a shrinking minority among the computers I see. TFTs are becoming more and more common (not mention laptops), and I've never seen one of those with a native resolution below 1024*768.
Re:Caps Lock? Who cares about Caps Lock?
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Whilst scroll lock is merely useless, capslock is useless AND (note I held shift there without even thinking) irritating as hell. How many times in a week do you use caps lock? How many times do you hit it accidentaly? Even worse for those of us who don't touch-type (not because I can't, mind, just I prefer to see the keys), you don't notice for a whole sentence or more...
Seriously, why should any country, no matter how small or no matter how little of the population have access to the internet (6% in this case, according to the article), not have a TLD? Okay, I know that there will be an increasing number forever, but this is an old 'who can say where the line is drawn?' situation and the solution is the same as always: there should be no line. Every country should have a TLD.
Anybody see the need (well, want) for a real open source FPS engine? People could build their own maps for it to start out with, teams could build entire games based upon it...
I'm in an Imperial hall of residence, and for me sunsite.org.uk is pathetically slow - just started testing and I'm getting 4-7 k/s. This is in stark contrast to mirror.ac.uk, which would usually saturate the 10Mbps network connection at 800+ k/s
If you read the article (okay, okay, I know this is slashdot), then you would find that there is a switch for turning off the illumination when you want to get a (rare) couple of hours kip at night.
all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?
Simple solution: Buy all your major-label stuff from allofmp3, and buy CDs from small bands. Somehow you get the impression that more money is going to the artists if you can go up to them after a performance and buy a CD directly from them (and buy them a drink).
My story and thoughts to the letter - think I found it in somebody's sig a few months back. Works good with paypal, encoding how you like (although their lame --preset standard seems more like preset extreme, if only from the bitrates produced), and comparatively speaking legal.
Damn you all to hell, it's going to go down the drain now isn't it?
You obviously don't do any sciences (especially physical). I use OO.o all the time by default, but sometime I have to switch to excel due to the lack of anything approaching passable scattergraphing in OO.o
Okay, so this is too late for all but the most sad of slashdotters to read it, but here goes:
If the drive is 2GB, then don't be so sure that it is fast - it may have been when it was bought, but that was 6 or so years ago at least. I would be very suprised indeed to see more than 4-5MB/s sustained read and 2-3 write; there have been a lot of advances in the last few years.
My current setup (1GB physical RAM) has 2GB set aside for each of Win2k and Linux in seperate partitions right in the middle (this will speed up average access times as the heads will have the least far to travel on average from any random point over the platters) of the raid array (and hench middle of both disks, as it is RAID-0), which I know to be fast - benchmarking has pegged it at greater than 110MB/s sustained. Windows will hit the swapfile no matter what (just try setting the swap to 0, even on a well-heeled system, and watch it complain at bootup/logon), so it gets 512MB to play with just at bootup and can go all the way to the end of it's swap partition if it wants. Linux, well, that's another story (currently support for the raid array is patchy, so not running linux - the partitions are still there, though, waiting for filsystems!), but as everybody knows, linux is very aggressive about swapping stuff out and using physical RAM as a disk cache, so again I expect it to hit the swapfile after a few days (hours?) running, but be perfectly happy with 2GB.
I know this is slashdot, but RTFA: (emphasis mine)
"The dual-layer discs will be slower to burn than single-layer discs -- the drives will be rated as burning at 2.4 times faster than playback speed, versus eight times for single-layer discs.
A full 8.5 gigabytes will take about 45 minutes to burn."
A useful site for all things high(ish) quality video encoding, aimed at dvd backups to cd, is Doom9 - see their last round of codec comparisons. (Frame based, so you'll need to click through from the beginning to get the menu frames etc.)
The upgrade option in the installer (can't comment about 10.0, but previous versions...) works like a dream. Many times have I been presently suprised, and so I have even given up doing fresh installs; it even works well for cooker/partial-cooker installations...
And how, exactly, might that be accomplished? Remember, these are not results from AMD, these are independant (debate that elsewhere!) hardware labs and tech sites. They set the clock speeds, they read how much cache is accessible to the core, etc, etc.
I thought the bug with the address being wiped from a link timing out when you open it in another tab was supposed to be fixed?
It's still here, and still as annoying as all hell...
Wake up and smell the coffee. Have you never noticed how it takes 1-2 days for articles to filter through from el reg to slashdot?
People read slashdot because it collects all the important stuff together well. Yes, it may be half a day or so behind sometimes, but better that than having to go to 40 different sites to check each one individually for news on that particular subject that you are interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
The W3C Validator is your friend. There's also one for validating CSS.
It's not perfect, however, so take it with a (small) pinch of salt.
Intel has 'unleashed' new low voltage and 'ultra low voltage' Centrinos and Celerons.
Firefox 0.9.2 takes up 16Mb on my programs drive, 3Mb in my documents and settings on the win drive (that's with 15 extensions and shitloads of bookmarks), and whatever I limit it to on the drive that has the cache on. You're griping at that? (Obviously the full Mozilla suite will take up more, but you'd be better off switching as it sounds like you're unlikely to use all the extra features). IE can't really be removed as it has hooks into the OS all over the place, and you'll probably want to keep it around for windows update, the one site that really requires IE. (You could if you really really want remove the directory that holds the exe and so forth, but that's under 2Mb.) Wipe the IE cache, you won't need it any more, and think of the space you will save not downloading all the spyware (speaking of which, you should get something to remove all that to save you that space) and also the endless updates for IE (Seriously, I mean it!).
If you're really pushed for space, take a long, hard look at every single application that you don't use every day, you'll be surprised how much wasteage you have accumulated. Also, TreeSize Pro is very small to install and is absolutely invaluable for seeing where all the space goes, it will save you many Gb very quickly.
I use fuck@off.com (285) for rudeness. Plus handily it's nice and short to type.
If I want to be more polite or to get my message across to even the simplest of minds, I use none.of@your-business.com (39).
TabBrowser extensions are massively bloated, and the number of options is bewildering, even to an experienced user. It is best to use some of the smaller extensions writtent to duplicate the functions you need.
For opening new window link in new tabs, use Single Window
I also use rue's rewritten implementation of Pike's Session Saver for the recovery of tabs after a crash (only happened once in recent memory, but useful still), and disable all the other features as they annoy me. This version is repackaged for 0.9
The last extension I use to do with tabs (don't think it was in TBE, but essential for me still) is Flowing Tabs, which shrinks the sizes of the tabs to the title text if it is short (otherwise keeps them default size), and continues many tabs onto a second or third and so forth line rather than shrinking them until you can't see what's written.
Hence "Original (or as close as I know it)..."
Original (or as close as I know it) Naval Institute's Proceedings (1989) version:
"Two battleships assigned to the training squadron had been at sea on manoeuvers in heavy weather for several days. I was serving on the lead battleship and was on watch on the bridge as night fell. The visibility was poor with patchy fog, so the Captain remained on the bridge keeping an eye on all activities. Shortly after dark, the lookout on the wing of the bridge reported, "Light, bearing on the starboard bow."
"Is it steady or moving astern?" the Captain called out.
Lookout replied, "Steady, Captain," Which meant we were on a dangerous collision course with that ship.
The Captain then called to the signalman, "Signal that ship: We are on a collisoon course, advise you change course 20 degrees."
Back came the signal "Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees."
In reply, the Captain said, "Send: I'm a captain, change course 20 degrees."
"I'm a seaman second class," Came the reply, "You had better change course 20 degrees."
By that time, the Captain, was furious. He spat out, "Send: I'm a battleship, change course 20 degrees."
Back came the flashing light: "I'm a lighthouse!"
We changed course."
I rarely have my browser window wider than 900 pixels
Why?? Not trying to be irritating, but I really can't imagine. Surely when you have a high resolution set, you have it because you want to fit lots of stuff onto the screen at the same time?I have my monitor set to 1600*1200, and damn near everything is maximised whenever I use it. (As an aside, I have quite good eyes, at least with my glasses, as the monitor is 17" and will do that at 75Hz).
I realise that this is rare and most non-geek users will have much lower resolution. However, 800*600 is a shrinking minority among the computers I see. TFTs are becoming more and more common (not mention laptops), and I've never seen one of those with a native resolution below 1024*768.
...run Firefox from removable media. I'm sure a similar stunt could be pulled for Thunderbird or Mozilla if you need mail.
Whilst scroll lock is merely useless, capslock is useless AND (note I held shift there without even thinking) irritating as hell. How many times in a week do you use caps lock? How many times do you hit it accidentaly? Even worse for those of us who don't touch-type (not because I can't, mind, just I prefer to see the keys), you don't notice for a whole sentence or more...
Seriously, why should any country, no matter how small or no matter how little of the population have access to the internet (6% in this case, according to the article), not have a TLD? Okay, I know that there will be an increasing number forever, but this is an old 'who can say where the line is drawn?' situation and the solution is the same as always: there should be no line. Every country should have a TLD.
Anybody see the need (well, want) for a real open source FPS engine? People could build their own maps for it to start out with, teams could build entire games based upon it...
Well, just an idea anyway...
I'm in an Imperial hall of residence, and for me sunsite.org.uk is pathetically slow - just started testing and I'm getting 4-7 k/s. This is in stark contrast to mirror.ac.uk, which would usually saturate the 10Mbps network connection at 800+ k/s
Why? Surely it must be on JANET too??
If you read the article (okay, okay, I know this is slashdot), then you would find that there is a switch for turning off the illumination when you want to get a (rare) couple of hours kip at night.
all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?
Simple solution: Buy all your major-label stuff from allofmp3, and buy CDs from small bands. Somehow you get the impression that more money is going to the artists if you can go up to them after a performance and buy a CD directly from them (and buy them a drink).
Well, that's how I see it anyway.
My story and thoughts to the letter - think I found it in somebody's sig a few months back. Works good with paypal, encoding how you like (although their lame --preset standard seems more like preset extreme, if only from the bitrates produced), and comparatively speaking legal.
Damn you all to hell, it's going to go down the drain now isn't it?
Actually, in the UK we use commas (48,000), on the continent they mostly use spaces (48 000).
You obviously don't do any sciences (especially physical). I use OO.o all the time by default, but sometime I have to switch to excel due to the lack of anything approaching passable scattergraphing in OO.o
Okay, so this is too late for all but the most sad of slashdotters to read it, but here goes:
If the drive is 2GB, then don't be so sure that it is fast - it may have been when it was bought, but that was 6 or so years ago at least. I would be very suprised indeed to see more than 4-5MB/s sustained read and 2-3 write; there have been a lot of advances in the last few years.
My current setup (1GB physical RAM) has 2GB set aside for each of Win2k and Linux in seperate partitions right in the middle (this will speed up average access times as the heads will have the least far to travel on average from any random point over the platters) of the raid array (and hench middle of both disks, as it is RAID-0), which I know to be fast - benchmarking has pegged it at greater than 110MB/s sustained. Windows will hit the swapfile no matter what (just try setting the swap to 0, even on a well-heeled system, and watch it complain at bootup/logon), so it gets 512MB to play with just at bootup and can go all the way to the end of it's swap partition if it wants. Linux, well, that's another story (currently support for the raid array is patchy, so not running linux - the partitions are still there, though, waiting for filsystems!), but as everybody knows, linux is very aggressive about swapping stuff out and using physical RAM as a disk cache, so again I expect it to hit the swapfile after a few days (hours?) running, but be perfectly happy with 2GB.
I know this is slashdot, but RTFA: (emphasis mine)
"The dual-layer discs will be slower to burn than single-layer discs -- the drives will be rated as burning at 2.4 times faster than playback speed, versus eight times for single-layer discs.
A full 8.5 gigabytes will take about 45 minutes to burn."
A useful site for all things high(ish) quality video encoding, aimed at dvd backups to cd, is Doom9 - see their last round of codec comparisons. (Frame based, so you'll need to click through from the beginning to get the menu frames etc.)
The upgrade option in the installer (can't comment about 10.0, but previous versions...) works like a dream. Many times have I been presently suprised, and so I have even given up doing fresh installs; it even works well for cooker/partial-cooker installations...
And how, exactly, might that be accomplished? Remember, these are not results from AMD, these are independant (debate that elsewhere!) hardware labs and tech sites. They set the clock speeds, they read how much cache is accessible to the core, etc, etc.
I thought the bug with the address being wiped from a link timing out when you open it in another tab was supposed to be fixed? It's still here, and still as annoying as all hell...
Wake up and smell the coffee. Have you never noticed how it takes 1-2 days for articles to filter through from el reg to slashdot?
People read slashdot because it collects all the important stuff together well. Yes, it may be half a day or so behind sometimes, but better that than having to go to 40 different sites to check each one individually for news on that particular subject that you are interested in.
</rant>