Have people really had problems with Firefox showing a memory leak? The worst I've seen with half a dozen tabs open is probably around 75 megabytes, which is still better than I get with 6 IE windows open at 25+ megs each. 400 sounds beyond ridiculous.
The gripping tale of love, lust, and betrayal. When James T. Picard (Shatner) meets and falls in love with Grand Canyon Alli (Loken) over internet chat, he thinks he's found the cyber love of his life. After hearing her sing the Rice-a-Roni jingle one too many times, however, he begin's to suspect something is terribly wrong. Frightened, he tries to break it off, but instead finds she's taking over his life: his email, his chat client, even his myspace page! Suddenly, the supreme court supoena's his web search records. Desperate, he tries to delete his Google tool bar history and chat logs, only to discover they're stored, not locally, but on the main server cluster, a formidable array of 30,000 processors protected by one obsessed web-spider: Alli.
This is definitely another example of Google taking an existing, established service that most people wouldn't think could be improved on to the point that significant numbers of people would switch to a new rendition from their old provider, and approaching it in a new way. Map service? Give users the ability to "fly" dynamically around the map. Email? Give them a buttload of storage and handle common operations client side to give the impression of blazing speed. Chat? Integrate it almost seemlessly into their email so users don't even need a seperate program. Talk about effective thinking outside the box.
When rumors started floating around that Google was working on a chat service, I yawned. "Another service, another client, a handful of friends using it." Looks like Google managed to get around that block. I don't think I'll stop using GAIM (especially not if it supports this), but I'll definitely be giving this a try.
Westinghouse orginally was a power company. Westinghouse himself was a major proponent of using AC current for the US electrical grid, versus Edison's preference for DC, which was less efficient. It's not really a big stretch.
Wow, you pretty much echoed all of my thoughts in elegant form
I actually still use Winamp 2.73. I keep meaning to upgrade to 2.95, but I guess that'll probably happen next time I buy a computer.
I do find the comments others have made about being able to disable/delete in version 5+ the extra useless crap that was added in version 3, and may actually try that. I did stick version 5 on my computer at work, and I definitely appreciate the fact that I can keep my classic skins.
PS - I believe an alpaca is a particular breed of llama. That is, they are all the same species and can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.
In fact the Big Bang is almost required for a creationist type of event.
Hardly. The Big Bang is subtly elegant as a means of creation, but I don't see how an alternative theory invalidates creation. Consider those who believe God created the world 6,000 years ago yet it looks as though the earth were 4.5 billion years old. What is fundementally different between that belief and the possibility that God could create the universe to look as if it had "no beginning, no end", but had really been created in a single big bang 13-some billion years ago (or even 6,000 years)? We are talking about omnipotence here (obligatory Stewie: "gotta get me some of that").
Did you read the article ("Why photoshop tops linux most wanted apps list")? Nobody suggested that Dreamweaver is more important than Photoshop.
The survey, no. The article, yes. Let me pull the quote out for you. It's from the first couple lines even.
Scott Morris and I were both surprised to find Adobe Photoshop anywhere near the top of the list in early results.
Quicken, my own favorite, QuickBooks, Dreamweaver -- sure. But Photoshop?
Well I was half-trying to joke, but apparently I either missed or you didn't read the article before typing out your response...
I wasn't speaking to the business case for Linux, which I admit is shaky in a lot of areas. The thing that gets me is the suggestion that a Dreamweaver port is more of a holdback for Linux adoption than a Photoshop port is.
After a few quick hours fooling around with GIMP, I got a pretty good handle on where everything is, and I have no trouble using GIMP for all my image work. Granted, I've used photoshop only on rare occasions, so my experience is far from enough to allow me to trash talk it, but I think it's more a matter of what people are familiar with than serious flaws in GIMP.
Actually my first thought was that he was going to use the whiskey in a liquid cooling system
He seems to be reasonably sharp, despite the minor intoxication. I noticed in his closeups that he cut rounded edges into the glass where the main panel is set into the bottle, to reduce the stress concentration versus matching the square shape of the panel.
Apparently, you missed that part of the summary. My first thought was how much of my memory would I have to give up to run the basic service, and how much of a performance hit would I take and for how long when it's doing a full scan. I haven't bothered with Norton for a couple years now, and it was bad enough then.
Depending on the source you refer to, the human audible range is quoted as being as large as 16-22,000 Hz, meaning this falls short of ultrasonic.
What the article ultimately seems to say, is that listening to Mariah Carey can improve the effectiveness of topical cancer treatments. I say it's not worth it.
Not just antitank in specific, but guided missiles in general we don't have the tech to defend against yet. Guided missiles (ground to ground, sea to ground, air to ground) are the most deadly things on the battlefield currently- an ICGM is a formidable opponent indeed.
I believe the army looked briefly into antitank missile intercepters in the 80's, then decided it wasn't worth the cost of development vs. improved armor and simply not letting the enemy fire the missile in the first place (shoot first, ask questions later). Plus, when anti-tank missiles like the TOW cost $25,000 or so, you can basically count on the enemy having a few spare shots.
Cruise missiles are roughly as hard to shoot down as airplanes, which is something that's been done for almost 100 years, now. In fact, despite being a bigger target, an airplane is in some respects more difficult since the pilot may be aware that a missile is after him and take action that is specifically appropriate to the circumstance. I don't believe any current cruise missile does anything beyond programmed manuevering. The forte of cruise missiles is that they are relatively cheap, and they are hard to spot, especially Tomahawks and ALCM's because they fly so darn close to the ground.
Current generation ballistic missiles follow very predictable flight paths. The difficulty in hitting them comes from the fact that they are generally a long ways away from anything that can hit them, and they move very fast. Future missiles will still have limited manuverability.
It's always nice to have a financial magazine writing an article on a technical subject based off of political comments made by the leader of another nation on a project whose practical details are classified.:-/
The article doesn't state it, but it appears to be talking about the ground based interceptor (GBI). This is only one part of the missile defense project. Other portions under development include the THAAD (tactical interceptors), the airborne laser, the Naval Standard upgrade, and a guided boost phase interceptor (which I haven't read much on). Even if you can guarantee that you can defeat the GBI's, that doesn't guarantee that a warhead will get through.
Of course, there's not really any more guarantee that they can defeat the GBI's than there is that the GBI can hit the missile. Presumably, Putin's "non-ballistic" missiles are simply ballistic missiles that have the ability to make a mid-course trajectory change. This, of course, also means the missile will land somewhere else. I assume the added navigational considerations are primarily what has kept such missiles from being developed earlier, but I digress.
Everything I've read on the GBI indicates it is terminally guided. That means it tracks its target continuously from the time it begins "end-game" until the instant of impact (and subsequent disintegration of both the interceptor and the target, non-explosively). If the sensors indicate that the interceptor will not hit its target, it fires its thrusters to correct the problem. If the target is going to avoid the interceptor it either has to count on luck (not a bad bet based on the test success rate so far), or change it's own velocity faster than the interceptor can. Furthermore, if the target performs its "jinking" too early or too late, it will have either already exhausted its bag of tricks before the GBI begins tracking it, or it will be space dust before it can try. There is nothing about this announcement that fundementally invalidates the GBI concept.
Because the Nike used a nuclear warhead, and everybody knows those are bad. The last thing you want when 5000 nuclear warheads are raining down on your head is for somebody to launch a missile armed with a...oh. Nevermind.
On a serious note, I don't think the Nike was ever tested against a realistic target. There's also some concern about high altitude nuclear explosions playing havoc with communications.
I maintain my site using VIM, but a WYSIWYG html editor with syntax highlighting of PHP for my initial development efforts would be kind of handy for working on my local machine. Do either of these editors happen to include that feature?
Prompt to save passwords on forms defaults to off? Bleh.
I very strongly feel that saving passwords on forms should be off by default, given the number of shared computers out there (why not handle that option during the "advanced user" install?). I recently sat down at a computer in a school lab and the Gmail login page loaded up with someone elses username and password already filled in, no doubt because they'd gone to login, and the dialog had popped up asking them if they wanted it to remember their password, and they clicked yes without thinking about it. Yes, that would be a stupid move, but a lot of users have gotten used to "Yes, load the insecure website,"; "Yes, accept the third party content"; etc. Keep in mind this episode happened with Slashdot's favorite "secure" browswer, Firefox. Anyway, since it happened to be a friend's email account, I logged in and sent him a mysterious email from his own account letting him know, but other people could've done much worse.
I'm a little surprised. I remember a story several months back saying that IE7 would only work on Vista. Is this just a special build with limited features, or will we see IE7 be backwards compatible? More importantly, I'm dying to know if there has been any improvement to the CSS support since beta 1.
It really bugs me when people complain about how the first time we went to the moon it took less than 10 years from Kennedy's speech and now it takes us 13 years, or worse, that it's taking us half a century to return to the moon. Well read his answer and shutup!
People keep asking me 'Why are you taking until 2018 or whatever it takes us to get back to the moon when we did it in eight years the first time?' The reason is that we're not being given the kind of money necessary to do that in eight years, but we are being given the kind of money necessary to do that in 12, 13, 14 years.
The mess, of course, comes from the fact that two mexican hats (scientifically known as sombreros) occupying the same space violate the Pauli exclusion principle. This is believed to be made possible by the low value of the peso.
Actually, the fact is, "greenhouse gasses" can theoretically cause global warming. There is a loose correlation between the increase in C02 production over the last century and the roughly 0.5 degree increase in the global average temperatures over that same time period. However, I daresay the processes involved are much complicated than those of, for example, cholesterol medications, and despite the millions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical companies studying those, questions are continuously raised about their effectiveness and side effects. Another fact to consider is the recognized possibility that the data does not properly account for readings taking in so-called "urban heat islands", which can be up to 10 degrees warmer due to differences in they way concrete and asphalt absorb heat compared to vegetation, not due to CO2. Furthermore, I contend that references to climate changes in the earth's past are valid considerations since people want to declare authoratively what has caused the current 1/2 degree rise in temperatures when non-human related effects already caused the earth to warm by around 10 degrees coming out of the last ice age.
All of that said, the basic contentions of the theory of global warming have been well-considered and it is definitely possible. Therefore, it definitely makes sense to take serious steps to understand the issue further, and we're seeing quite a bit of money invested in this. It also makes sense to take pre-emptive steps to operate more cleanly, all the more so since other motivations exist such as reducing dependence on foreign oil. Billions of dollars are invested annually in that. The investment is, of course, is not made without objection, because it makes it harder for companies in the more advanced countries (which already operate relatively cleanly) to compete with companies in developing nations (who tend not to care much about CO2 production or mercury spills, etc).
My main point here is, people throw fits and tantrums about what a huge problem this is and how nothing is being done, when the true case is that we think it might be a problem, and a lot is being done about it. This sort of thing pisses me off. Worse though, is how poorly educated the people who are loudest about global warming are. Next time you hear someone ranting about it, ask them how much the average global temperature has risen in the last century or by what percentage CO2 emissions have increased.
There's one final thing I want to say, and I admit it's not a very elegant or charitable point and it does not properly reflect my true position, but it will give people around here something to detest me for. "So what?" In the grand scheme of things, how much does it really matter if it warms up by a couple degrees over the next hundred years? Some equatorial areas become practically un-inhabitable and some species die out, yes, but life will not become impossible. It's not like species extinctions are by any means a new thing, and such a change doesn't even stand a chance of toppling civilization. There are far more dramatic things that can happen, like nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid, or that crazy guy on the street corner being right and the end of the world is tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Have people really had problems with Firefox showing a memory leak? The worst I've seen with half a dozen tabs open is probably around 75 megabytes, which is still better than I get with 6 IE windows open at 25+ megs each. 400 sounds beyond ridiculous.
A William Shatner special!
Date With the AdBot
The gripping tale of love, lust, and betrayal. When James T. Picard (Shatner) meets and falls in love with Grand Canyon Alli (Loken) over internet chat, he thinks he's found the cyber love of his life. After hearing her sing the Rice-a-Roni jingle one too many times, however, he begin's to suspect something is terribly wrong. Frightened, he tries to break it off, but instead finds she's taking over his life: his email, his chat client, even his myspace page! Suddenly, the supreme court supoena's his web search records. Desperate, he tries to delete his Google tool bar history and chat logs, only to discover they're stored, not locally, but on the main server cluster, a formidable array of 30,000 processors protected by one obsessed web-spider: Alli.
Coming soon to an email account near you.
This is definitely another example of Google taking an existing, established service that most people wouldn't think could be improved on to the point that significant numbers of people would switch to a new rendition from their old provider, and approaching it in a new way. Map service? Give users the ability to "fly" dynamically around the map. Email? Give them a buttload of storage and handle common operations client side to give the impression of blazing speed. Chat? Integrate it almost seemlessly into their email so users don't even need a seperate program. Talk about effective thinking outside the box.
When rumors started floating around that Google was working on a chat service, I yawned. "Another service, another client, a handful of friends using it." Looks like Google managed to get around that block. I don't think I'll stop using GAIM (especially not if it supports this), but I'll definitely be giving this a try.
Westinghouse orginally was a power company. Westinghouse himself was a major proponent of using AC current for the US electrical grid, versus Edison's preference for DC, which was less efficient. It's not really a big stretch.
Westinghouse Electric Company
Wow, you pretty much echoed all of my thoughts in elegant form
I actually still use Winamp 2.73. I keep meaning to upgrade to 2.95, but I guess that'll probably happen next time I buy a computer.
I do find the comments others have made about being able to disable/delete in version 5+ the extra useless crap that was added in version 3, and may actually try that. I did stick version 5 on my computer at work, and I definitely appreciate the fact that I can keep my classic skins.
PS - I believe an alpaca is a particular breed of llama. That is, they are all the same species and can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.
It's so simple, yet the grandparent poster's question had me scratching my head for a second, too.
Why do you say that? Exacerbate is a perfectly cromulent word.
Well I was half-trying to joke, but apparently I either missed or you didn't read the article before typing out your response...
I wasn't speaking to the business case for Linux, which I admit is shaky in a lot of areas. The thing that gets me is the suggestion that a Dreamweaver port is more of a holdback for Linux adoption than a Photoshop port is.
After a few quick hours fooling around with GIMP, I got a pretty good handle on where everything is, and I have no trouble using GIMP for all my image work. Granted, I've used photoshop only on rare occasions, so my experience is far from enough to allow me to trash talk it, but I think it's more a matter of what people are familiar with than serious flaws in GIMP.
In which case the firm they hired might not be getting a very big paycheck then, would they?
...when the author suggests that Linux using webdevelopers need Dreamweaver to create sites?
Actually my first thought was that he was going to use the whiskey in a liquid cooling system
He seems to be reasonably sharp, despite the minor intoxication. I noticed in his closeups that he cut rounded edges into the glass where the main panel is set into the bottle, to reduce the stress concentration versus matching the square shape of the panel.
Apparently, you missed that part of the summary. My first thought was how much of my memory would I have to give up to run the basic service, and how much of a performance hit would I take and for how long when it's doing a full scan. I haven't bothered with Norton for a couple years now, and it was bad enough then.
Depending on the source you refer to, the human audible range is quoted as being as large as 16-22,000 Hz, meaning this falls short of ultrasonic.
What the article ultimately seems to say, is that listening to Mariah Carey can improve the effectiveness of topical cancer treatments. I say it's not worth it.
So what if it took a while, because now it's ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum...and it's all out of gum.
Cruise missiles are roughly as hard to shoot down as airplanes, which is something that's been done for almost 100 years, now. In fact, despite being a bigger target, an airplane is in some respects more difficult since the pilot may be aware that a missile is after him and take action that is specifically appropriate to the circumstance. I don't believe any current cruise missile does anything beyond programmed manuevering. The forte of cruise missiles is that they are relatively cheap, and they are hard to spot, especially Tomahawks and ALCM's because they fly so darn close to the ground.
Current generation ballistic missiles follow very predictable flight paths. The difficulty in hitting them comes from the fact that they are generally a long ways away from anything that can hit them, and they move very fast. Future missiles will still have limited manuverability.
It's always nice to have a financial magazine writing an article on a technical subject based off of political comments made by the leader of another nation on a project whose practical details are classified. :-/
The article doesn't state it, but it appears to be talking about the ground based interceptor (GBI). This is only one part of the missile defense project. Other portions under development include the THAAD (tactical interceptors), the airborne laser, the Naval Standard upgrade, and a guided boost phase interceptor (which I haven't read much on). Even if you can guarantee that you can defeat the GBI's, that doesn't guarantee that a warhead will get through.
Of course, there's not really any more guarantee that they can defeat the GBI's than there is that the GBI can hit the missile. Presumably, Putin's "non-ballistic" missiles are simply ballistic missiles that have the ability to make a mid-course trajectory change. This, of course, also means the missile will land somewhere else. I assume the added navigational considerations are primarily what has kept such missiles from being developed earlier, but I digress.
Everything I've read on the GBI indicates it is terminally guided. That means it tracks its target continuously from the time it begins "end-game" until the instant of impact (and subsequent disintegration of both the interceptor and the target, non-explosively). If the sensors indicate that the interceptor will not hit its target, it fires its thrusters to correct the problem. If the target is going to avoid the interceptor it either has to count on luck (not a bad bet based on the test success rate so far), or change it's own velocity faster than the interceptor can. Furthermore, if the target performs its "jinking" too early or too late, it will have either already exhausted its bag of tricks before the GBI begins tracking it, or it will be space dust before it can try. There is nothing about this announcement that fundementally invalidates the GBI concept.
Because the Nike used a nuclear warhead, and everybody knows those are bad. The last thing you want when 5000 nuclear warheads are raining down on your head is for somebody to launch a missile armed with a...oh. Nevermind.
On a serious note, I don't think the Nike was ever tested against a realistic target. There's also some concern about high altitude nuclear explosions playing havoc with communications.
I maintain my site using VIM, but a WYSIWYG html editor with syntax highlighting of PHP for my initial development efforts would be kind of handy for working on my local machine. Do either of these editors happen to include that feature?
I'm a little surprised. I remember a story several months back saying that IE7 would only work on Vista. Is this just a special build with limited features, or will we see IE7 be backwards compatible? More importantly, I'm dying to know if there has been any improvement to the CSS support since beta 1.
The mess, of course, comes from the fact that two mexican hats (scientifically known as sombreros) occupying the same space violate the Pauli exclusion principle. This is believed to be made possible by the low value of the peso.
Actually, the fact is, "greenhouse gasses" can theoretically cause global warming. There is a loose correlation between the increase in C02 production over the last century and the roughly 0.5 degree increase in the global average temperatures over that same time period. However, I daresay the processes involved are much complicated than those of, for example, cholesterol medications, and despite the millions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical companies studying those, questions are continuously raised about their effectiveness and side effects. Another fact to consider is the recognized possibility that the data does not properly account for readings taking in so-called "urban heat islands", which can be up to 10 degrees warmer due to differences in they way concrete and asphalt absorb heat compared to vegetation, not due to CO2. Furthermore, I contend that references to climate changes in the earth's past are valid considerations since people want to declare authoratively what has caused the current 1/2 degree rise in temperatures when non-human related effects already caused the earth to warm by around 10 degrees coming out of the last ice age.
All of that said, the basic contentions of the theory of global warming have been well-considered and it is definitely possible. Therefore, it definitely makes sense to take serious steps to understand the issue further, and we're seeing quite a bit of money invested in this. It also makes sense to take pre-emptive steps to operate more cleanly, all the more so since other motivations exist such as reducing dependence on foreign oil. Billions of dollars are invested annually in that. The investment is, of course, is not made without objection, because it makes it harder for companies in the more advanced countries (which already operate relatively cleanly) to compete with companies in developing nations (who tend not to care much about CO2 production or mercury spills, etc).
My main point here is, people throw fits and tantrums about what a huge problem this is and how nothing is being done, when the true case is that we think it might be a problem, and a lot is being done about it. This sort of thing pisses me off. Worse though, is how poorly educated the people who are loudest about global warming are. Next time you hear someone ranting about it, ask them how much the average global temperature has risen in the last century or by what percentage CO2 emissions have increased.
There's one final thing I want to say, and I admit it's not a very elegant or charitable point and it does not properly reflect my true position, but it will give people around here something to detest me for. "So what?" In the grand scheme of things, how much does it really matter if it warms up by a couple degrees over the next hundred years? Some equatorial areas become practically un-inhabitable and some species die out, yes, but life will not become impossible. It's not like species extinctions are by any means a new thing, and such a change doesn't even stand a chance of toppling civilization. There are far more dramatic things that can happen, like nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid, or that crazy guy on the street corner being right and the end of the world is tomorrow.