I have absolutely no experience with accelerometers, so here goes my n00b question for today:
Would it be possible for the phone's software to adjust the sensitivity of the hardware? Or just interpret it different? As in, would it be possible that, when first used, the telephone would ask you how much 'strength' or acceleration is needed for the activation of this feature? Doesn't seem to difficult to me, and would solve some of the more obvious problems, IMHO.
Not that I would have ANY use for this.
PS. I have the feeling this kind of interface to a telephone could cause a lot of mis-communication between people;D
While I agree most accessibility problems with Flash can be overcome by the creator, it still requires an extensive knowledge of ActionScript / JavaScript / etc. So the fact remains that Flash does not promote accessibility. I don't think you can blaim this on the designers alone. If Flash would have provided these options in a standard way, they would have been used... At least, that's what I like to think.
I assume the previous post was referring to Flash's vector based animations, and not it's JPG compression... The example sucked, but he/she's got a point saying that "Flash brings good graphics with low file sizes to the masses".
Most graphics programs alow you to choose a palette:
Standard / Existing palette
Optimized Median Cut
Optimized Octree
So it's not that GIF's are limited to the standard 256 color palette, but rather to a 256 color palette you choose. Most graphics with an optimized median cut palette look rather good in GIF format.
Been using it for 3 months now, but yesterday I deleted all of my messages (after forwarding them to my personal address) and I'm not planning on using it anymore. Though I really like it's interface, and some really nice features (1GB for example;-), I didn't like what I've read on google-watch.org.
Not saying anyone else shouldn't use it, but at the least know what your doing when you're using Gmail!
I will no doubt be modded down by the Google fanbase, but don't say I didn't warn you
Internet Explorer is free. Mozilla Firefox is free.
Outlook Express is free. Thunderbird is free.
Outlook, however, is not free, for as far as I know.
How do you expect a free, open-source, just at version 1.0 e-mail client to compete with a commercial product like Outlook (that's been around for quite a while I think)?
Don't get me wrong, I like Thunderbird better then I do Outlook. But you have to understand Thunderbird just reached 1.0...
The -IMHO- best filter to use:
Get it here. Scroll down the page to get the latest version. You can save the textfile and import it from the Adblock dialog (Menu: Tools / Adblock / Preferences ).
Way better than IE or Opera or a HOSTS file! Believe me!
I used to smoke quite a lot of marihuana. But once I realised I was smoking another one just to get some nicotine, I bought a vaporiser. And since then, well, I'm just very glad I did,:D. Saves me from tearing up my lungs. I'd recommend it to anyone, who's already into Mary Jane anyways of course.
Erm, home-users won't see the 0.10.1, because Firefox updates itself. And the only way people will see the patch-version is when they actually check all information, something most users won't even bother to do. Then again, you're right that it should be absolutely clear this patch is for the 1.0 PR release.
No, but since it seems this whole patenting-hell is happening right now, it's for the better to have some support for the OSS-side of the business. Don't you think? I mean, if people are unable to stop it [software-patenting as an absurd way of destroying the smaller players], they should at least try not to miss the boat. This way they will have done what they could to prevent things from going bad.
Sounds nice... Don't know if this could eventually turn against OSS, but it sure does sound nice to have one of the bigger company's supporting OSS this way. I'm against software-patents (as in "a scrollbar" or "task-grouping", I'm sure there are even worse examples out there), but if they do turn legitimate in the EU, it sure counts to have some defense on the side of OSS. Go Novell!
The reason (for as far as I know) that Firefox uses this versioning scheme:
If 1.0PR would have a version-tag with 1.0 in it, it would be more complicated for (for example) extensions to differentiate 1.0PR and the real 1.0. And home-users would probably not even get to see these version-numbers. They would just notice there is a new update.
And about the bugs, I know I'm stating the obvious, and that it's been said before in this thread, but I'll try again:
First of all, because Firefox performs so well people tend to forget this is still beta-software! Second, these bugs are discovered partially because of the bughunting program with rewards. So these bugs could well have existed for months before being discovered. It's good news they have already been squashed! And third, some of these bugs actually appeared because of the way Windows fucks up! (Remember the shell:// protocol?)
Slashdot Mirror
I think originally it implied forced penetration: rape (irrespective of gender). That should explain its offensiveness.
Thanks for your reply, but I know the difference between background noise from a soundcard and low bitrate mp3's.
See, when I play them at 320kilobytes p/s, or when I play a FLAC file, there's no noise.....
Get the point?
- XoloX
I you've truly heard musicians say such things, well, fuck man, their in the wrong business!
I they can't distinguish between 128kbit mp3 and a cd, their cd's are very fucked up, or they should get a decent stereo!
Don't you notice the constant background noise even 192kbit gives you?
God.........
Not really the case. I've seen story's appear despite that checkbox.
I have absolutely no experience with accelerometers, so here goes my n00b question for today:
;D
Would it be possible for the phone's software to adjust the sensitivity of the hardware? Or just interpret it different? As in, would it be possible that, when first used, the telephone would ask you how much 'strength' or acceleration is needed for the activation of this feature? Doesn't seem to difficult to me, and would solve some of the more obvious problems, IMHO.
Not that I would have ANY use for this.
PS. I have the feeling this kind of interface to a telephone could cause a lot of mis-communication between people
- XoloX
By the way: Did you see "Requiem For a Dream"? If not, do so immediately! In some ways even better then Pi!
XoloX
While I agree most accessibility problems with Flash can be overcome by the creator, it still requires an extensive knowledge of ActionScript / JavaScript / etc. So the fact remains that Flash does not promote accessibility. I don't think you can blaim this on the designers alone. If Flash would have provided these options in a standard way, they would have been used... At least, that's what I like to think.
XoloX
I assume the previous post was referring to Flash's vector based animations, and not it's JPG compression... The example sucked, but he/she's got a point saying that "Flash brings good graphics with low file sizes to the masses".
So it's not that GIF's are limited to the standard 256 color palette, but rather to a 256 color palette you choose. Most graphics with an optimized median cut palette look rather good in GIF format.
Been using it for 3 months now, but yesterday I deleted all of my messages (after forwarding them to my personal address) and I'm not planning on using it anymore. Though I really like it's interface, and some really nice features (1GB for example ;-), I didn't like what I've read on google-watch.org.
Not saying anyone else shouldn't use it, but at the least know what your doing when you're using Gmail!
I will no doubt be modded down by the Google fanbase, but don't say I didn't warn you
XoloX / Peter Odding
Dude...
Internet Explorer is free.
Mozilla Firefox is free.
Outlook Express is free.
Thunderbird is free.
Outlook, however, is not free, for as far as I know.
How do you expect a free, open-source, just at version 1.0 e-mail client to compete with a commercial product like Outlook (that's been around for quite a while I think)?
Don't get me wrong, I like Thunderbird better then I do Outlook. But you have to understand Thunderbird just reached 1.0...
If anyone is interested, Adblock can be downloaded from the Adblock homepage or from update.mozilla.org
The -IMHO- best filter to use:
Get it here. Scroll down the page to get the latest version. You can save the textfile and import it from the Adblock dialog (Menu: Tools / Adblock / Preferences ).
Way better than IE or Opera or a HOSTS file! Believe me!
I used to smoke quite a lot of marihuana. But once I realised I was smoking another one just to get some nicotine, I bought a vaporiser. And since then, well, I'm just very glad I did, :D. Saves me from tearing up my lungs. I'd recommend it to anyone, who's already into Mary Jane anyways of course.
And yes, I live in the Netherlands aswell.
Erm, home-users won't see the 0.10.1, because Firefox updates itself. And the only way people will see the patch-version is when they actually check all information, something most users won't even bother to do. Then again, you're right that it should be absolutely clear this patch is for the 1.0 PR release.
No, but since it seems this whole patenting-hell is happening right now, it's for the better to have some support for the OSS-side of the business. Don't you think? I mean, if people are unable to stop it [software-patenting as an absurd way of destroying the smaller players], they should at least try not to miss the boat. This way they will have done what they could to prevent things from going bad.
Sounds nice... Don't know if this could eventually turn against OSS, but it sure does sound nice to have one of the bigger company's supporting OSS this way. I'm against software-patents (as in "a scrollbar" or "task-grouping", I'm sure there are even worse examples out there), but if they do turn legitimate in the EU, it sure counts to have some defense on the side of OSS. Go Novell!
The reason (for as far as I know) that Firefox uses this versioning scheme:
If 1.0PR would have a version-tag with 1.0 in it, it would be more complicated for (for example) extensions to differentiate 1.0PR and the real 1.0. And home-users would probably not even get to see these version-numbers. They would just notice there is a new update.
And about the bugs, I know I'm stating the obvious, and that it's been said before in this thread, but I'll try again:
First of all, because Firefox performs so well people tend to forget this is still beta-software! Second, these bugs are discovered partially because of the bughunting program with rewards. So these bugs could well have existed for months before being discovered. It's good news they have already been squashed! And third, some of these bugs actually appeared because of the way Windows fucks up! (Remember the shell:// protocol?)
Hope this helps,
XoloX