I remember the step from 16 to 32 bit was enormous. There were many benefits for everyday situations. 32 bit still seems pretty good right, which couldn't be said about Win3.1 at anytime. What will a 64 bit version of Windows offer to the average Wordprocessor user? The comment on the story claims that Linux will have 64 bit apps before Windows... what are the benefits to the majority of people of 64 bit apps? Not many of us need to address more than 4 GB of memory.
Who the hell is stupid enough to drive in London? That's what public transport is for. Try basing your ignorant opinions on fact, it helps.
Re:US already taxes commercial truckers on mileage
on
Every Road a Toll Road
·
· Score: 1
"Of course, this is the same country that taxed TV viewing"
If you're referring to the license fee, it's much better than what you get in the US. It's a fraction the cost of annual cable TV. Amongst other things, it supplies commercial free TV that is of higher quality than US TV, and probably has more viewable content than the 70+ channels that is common in the US.
"so what can you expect from the crazy socialists there."
They're hardly socialist compared with other countries. You must be from Fascist States of America to espouse such an ignorant knee-jerk viewpoint.
Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like it. An odometer tax is effectively no different than a petrol tax, although it doesn't penalise polluters in the same beneficial way. The article pointed out very clearly why pump taxes aren't effective, including:
1) It doesn't discourage congestion as it costs the same to travel at any time of the day.
2) It unfairly penalises rural people who not only depend more heavily on their vehicles, but also have to drive bigger distances.
Road building is not a solution. Increasing infrastructure increases demand. That's like pouring gasoline on the fire. The goal is to reduce congestion and pollution, and the only way to do that is change people's habits, not by temporarily making it easier and reinforcing current habits. Besides, in this case, have you ever been to Britain? They're running out of countryside that can be covered with concrete and tarmac. In numbers, the whole country has an AVERAGE population density of 242 residents per km^2, versus the US's 29.1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Populat ion/demo01.htm).
So they want to send an encrypted signal to the TV to avoid copying. Are they crazy? Once they choose their standard and are locked in to it, it's only a matter of time before there's either a set top box or computer PCI card + software that mimics the display device. Look how long we've been using the current TV standards... it will take a fraction of that time to circum-navigate the protection scheme. The DMCA is an American thing, and doesn't effect people developing devices abroad. Perhaps the DMCA will already have been thrown out when such a "TV proxy" comes along, or perhaps this will be the device that consumers stand behind to get the law changed.
No there isn't static on digital cable, but there is over-compression. I get the impression that my digital cable provider has their MPEG compression ratio set too high - the picture is worse than regular cable. For example, I was watching some rugby the other day on Fox Sports World: it looked like they were playing on green carpet. The grass was all the same shade of green with no detail in it. Normally one expects a little variation and texture.
I was going to use Escrow.com recently, but their fees suddenly went up. So I used Escrow.ca instead. Much lower fees, and for me being in Canada, I was able to walk 2 mins down the road and direct deposit cash into their bank account (lower fee than CC, and just as quick). I really like how things work. It certainly cuts down the possible number of ways of be defrauded.
WinZip compressed my current work unit by 24%. I think compression would make a difference for them. Of course, then they need more CPU to compress the work units going out!
Sorry, you're wrong. Although I didn't explain it, you didn't even imagine why I saw irony.
Many open-source/Linux people are very anti-Windows. Mozilla is supposed to be a jewel in the crown of open-source. Hence I find it humourous in an ironical way that the performance is better under Windows than Linux.
"Grammar checker: They suck. Grammar checkers have no imagination at all. "
They're not completely useless. They are good at finding those common errors that rapid proof-reading can sometimes overlook. They will catch things like "they're", "their", and "there"; "its and "it's"; repeated words; etc.
"Other protocols: The idea of having a single app that handled all the different protocols would be nice. But as important as Mozilla is to the world of Linux, the project shouldn't be courting legal trouble by reimplementing proprietary protocols. IIRC, IRC is an open standard. Legal issues aside, the Yahoo, MSN, and AOL people could change their protocols any time, and the Mozilla people would have to play catch up. "
That's a good point. The IM arena seems to be rather lacking in open standards, making it a bit of a moving target ensuring that standards compliance and compatibility are problematic.
Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer Mozilla to Outlook. I still use Netscape 4.x for my personal mail at home. I plan to switch to Mozilla and uninstall Netscape at some point.
The one feature that Outlook has that I need is that it is the only mail tool I can use at work. Well, I can run Mozilla mail, but without an Exchange connector, my messages will go nowhere! I doubt the corporate policies will change - in fact, my request for the enabling of IMAP on the server fell flat it's face.
No, if you need a lighter-weight browser, there are other choices. Lynx works really well on my P-75 Debian box. I want a modern fully-featured browser, mail/news tool, etc, and the only way that's going to happen is on modern hardware. Sure, you can do it on old hardware, but you have make trade-offs somewhere in functionality.
If somebody's just got a P4-2.2GHz, they can dual boot and get a modern equivalent to Windows. If they want to use their old box to run Linux, they can. Linux already supports older hardware, you just can't use the latest apps. Windows is no different, and in fact, is somewhat worse as there is no support or continued development for legacy systems. There are people out there developing for legacy Linux systems, they're just not using the same stuff that the more modern people are.
I think it's great having a browser that looks and behaves the same on multiple platforms. It provides a familiar base everywhere one goes. It kind of harks back to the days when there was talk of the browser being the platform, not the OS, which would of course render MS Windows irrelevant.
What do people think of the following ideas. Are they even feasible? If they've been discussed before, or are already available, please provide pointers.
Grammar checker - now that the spellchecker is coming along, a grammar checker would be nice. I see that there are bugs open for spell checking in textareas - this will be good too, and a significant bonus feature over IE.
Looser integration - Mozilla, like Netscape before it, only seems to like using its own mail component. It would be nice if this were configurable. This is fine for me everywhere but work where there's no choice: it has to be Outlook.
Window cloning. This is a feature that IE has that I really miss when using Mozilla. Basically, hitting Ctrl+N opens a complete clone of the current window, including history and page position (scroll). Window cloning has changed the way I browse the web, and it makes it harder to lose your session history by accidentally closing the wrong window.
More protocols in Chatzilla to allow interoperation with other networks, such as MSN and Yahoo.
Multiple processes! I suspect that this might be rather harder to achieve. However, IE has an option for browsing in separate processes. If one thing fails (that's not supposed to happen, right?;)), it doesn't bring down everything.
I upgraded my dual P2-450 to dual P3-850 last week. That seems to have fixed the Mozzila performance problems I was having under Linux (mainly long delays rendering pages).
"E is fast because it's a tidy little COM object that's intertwined so closely with Windows."
I think this is twaddle. I suspect the real reason IE loads quickly is because many of its components are in the disk cache. How did they get into the disk cache? By extensive re-use by other applications, including Windows Explorer. Now, most Linux people don't call the GUI front-end part of the OS, although most Windows people do.
Did you not read the story dickhead? He has fixed the problem, but unlike what you claimed would happen, he hasn't been "de-blacklisted". Next time, engage your brain before posting.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the step from 16 to 32 bit was enormous. There were many benefits for everyday situations. 32 bit still seems pretty good right, which couldn't be said about Win3.1 at anytime. What will a 64 bit version of Windows offer to the average Wordprocessor user? The comment on the story claims that Linux will have 64 bit apps before Windows... what are the benefits to the majority of people of 64 bit apps? Not many of us need to address more than 4 GB of memory.
Who the hell is stupid enough to drive in London? That's what public transport is for. Try basing your ignorant opinions on fact, it helps.
"Of course, this is the same country that taxed TV viewing"
If you're referring to the license fee, it's much better than what you get in the US. It's a fraction the cost of annual cable TV. Amongst other things, it supplies commercial free TV that is of higher quality than US TV, and probably has more viewable content than the 70+ channels that is common in the US.
"so what can you expect from the crazy socialists there."
They're hardly socialist compared with other countries. You must be from Fascist States of America to espouse such an ignorant knee-jerk viewpoint.
Oh great, another idiot who didn't read the article.. My response.
Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like it. An odometer tax is effectively no different than a petrol tax, although it doesn't penalise polluters in the same beneficial way. The article pointed out very clearly why pump taxes aren't effective, including:
1) It doesn't discourage congestion as it costs the same to travel at any time of the day.
2) It unfairly penalises rural people who not only depend more heavily on their vehicles, but also have to drive bigger distances.
Road building is not a solution. Increasing infrastructure increases demand. That's like pouring gasoline on the fire. The goal is to reduce congestion and pollution, and the only way to do that is change people's habits, not by temporarily making it easier and reinforcing current habits. Besides, in this case, have you ever been to Britain? They're running out of countryside that can be covered with concrete and tarmac. In numbers, the whole country has an AVERAGE population density of 242 residents per km^2, versus the US's 29.1 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Populat ion/demo01.htm).
So they want to send an encrypted signal to the TV to avoid copying. Are they crazy? Once they choose their standard and are locked in to it, it's only a matter of time before there's either a set top box or computer PCI card + software that mimics the display device. Look how long we've been using the current TV standards... it will take a fraction of that time to circum-navigate the protection scheme. The DMCA is an American thing, and doesn't effect people developing devices abroad. Perhaps the DMCA will already have been thrown out when such a "TV proxy" comes along, or perhaps this will be the device that consumers stand behind to get the law changed.
You might consider an escrow service, such as http://www.escrow.ca/. Much harder to scam somebody that way, I'm sure.
No there isn't static on digital cable, but there is over-compression. I get the impression that my digital cable provider has their MPEG compression ratio set too high - the picture is worse than regular cable. For example, I was watching some rugby the other day on Fox Sports World: it looked like they were playing on green carpet. The grass was all the same shade of green with no detail in it. Normally one expects a little variation and texture.
Is your name in reference to that Orb tune with woman going on about the little fluffy clouds in Arizona?
Phew: that's horrible in Mozilla. The text runs into the box edges and is hard to read. Oh, I was only supposed to look at the pictures?
I was going to use Escrow.com recently, but their fees suddenly went up. So I used Escrow.ca instead. Much lower fees, and for me being in Canada, I was able to walk 2 mins down the road and direct deposit cash into their bank account (lower fee than CC, and just as quick). I really like how things work. It certainly cuts down the possible number of ways of be defrauded.
WinZip compressed my current work unit by 24%. I think compression would make a difference for them. Of course, then they need more CPU to compress the work units going out!
1) Encryption has a tendency of being cracked.
2) Nothing can be trusted from the client side, so there needs to be a mechanism to verify things.
After reading Bug 18808 (wow! it's long), I found Bug 110535 which relates to providing an implementation.
If anybody else believes in this feature, please vote on it:
Bug 18808
Bug 110535
Sorry, you're wrong. Although I didn't explain it, you didn't even imagine why I saw irony.
Many open-source/Linux people are very anti-Windows. Mozilla is supposed to be a jewel in the crown of open-source. Hence I find it humourous in an ironical way that the performance is better under Windows than Linux.
"Grammar checker: They suck. Grammar checkers have no imagination at all. "
They're not completely useless. They are good at finding those common errors that rapid proof-reading can sometimes overlook. They will catch things like "they're", "their", and "there"; "its and "it's"; repeated words; etc.
"Other protocols: The idea of having a single app that handled all the different protocols would be nice. But as important as Mozilla is to the world of Linux, the project shouldn't be courting legal trouble by reimplementing proprietary protocols. IIRC, IRC is an open standard. Legal issues aside, the Yahoo, MSN, and AOL people could change their protocols any time, and the Mozilla people would have to play catch up. "
That's a good point. The IM arena seems to be rather lacking in open standards, making it a bit of a moving target ensuring that standards compliance and compatibility are problematic.
Don't get me wrong, I would much prefer Mozilla to Outlook. I still use Netscape 4.x for my personal mail at home. I plan to switch to Mozilla and uninstall Netscape at some point.
The one feature that Outlook has that I need is that it is the only mail tool I can use at work. Well, I can run Mozilla mail, but without an Exchange connector, my messages will go nowhere! I doubt the corporate policies will change - in fact, my request for the enabling of IMAP on the server fell flat it's face.
So, you want to live in the past?
No, if you need a lighter-weight browser, there are other choices. Lynx works really well on my P-75 Debian box. I want a modern fully-featured browser, mail/news tool, etc, and the only way that's going to happen is on modern hardware. Sure, you can do it on old hardware, but you have make trade-offs somewhere in functionality.
If somebody's just got a P4-2.2GHz, they can dual boot and get a modern equivalent to Windows. If they want to use their old box to run Linux, they can. Linux already supports older hardware, you just can't use the latest apps. Windows is no different, and in fact, is somewhat worse as there is no support or continued development for legacy systems. There are people out there developing for legacy Linux systems, they're just not using the same stuff that the more modern people are.
I think that you've hit the nail on the head: Mozilla seems to perform much better under Windows! I find it kind of funny, in an ironical way.
So, you don't want choices, or competition?
I think it's great having a browser that looks and behaves the same on multiple platforms. It provides a familiar base everywhere one goes. It kind of harks back to the days when there was talk of the browser being the platform, not the OS, which would of course render MS Windows irrelevant.
What do people think of the following ideas. Are they even feasible? If they've been discussed before, or are already available, please provide pointers.
;)), it doesn't bring down everything.
Grammar checker - now that the spellchecker is coming along, a grammar checker would be nice. I see that there are bugs open for spell checking in textareas - this will be good too, and a significant bonus feature over IE.
Looser integration - Mozilla, like Netscape before it, only seems to like using its own mail component. It would be nice if this were configurable. This is fine for me everywhere but work where there's no choice: it has to be Outlook.
Window cloning. This is a feature that IE has that I really miss when using Mozilla. Basically, hitting Ctrl+N opens a complete clone of the current window, including history and page position (scroll). Window cloning has changed the way I browse the web, and it makes it harder to lose your session history by accidentally closing the wrong window.
More protocols in Chatzilla to allow interoperation with other networks, such as MSN and Yahoo.
Multiple processes! I suspect that this might be rather harder to achieve. However, IE has an option for browsing in separate processes. If one thing fails (that's not supposed to happen, right?
I upgraded my dual P2-450 to dual P3-850 last week. That seems to have fixed the Mozzila performance problems I was having under Linux (mainly long delays rendering pages).
"E is fast because it's a tidy little COM object that's intertwined so closely with Windows."
I think this is twaddle. I suspect the real reason IE loads quickly is because many of its components are in the disk cache. How did they get into the disk cache? By extensive re-use by other applications, including Windows Explorer. Now, most Linux people don't call the GUI front-end part of the OS, although most Windows people do.
Did you not read the story dickhead? He has fixed the problem, but unlike what you claimed would happen, he hasn't been "de-blacklisted". Next time, engage your brain before posting.