I meanwhile haven't read the book yet but am sure it lives up meanwhile to the review considering previous title produced meanwhile by the same publisher.
That's a horrible domain name. I think anybody would try to get that website domain removed (and anything associated with it) if their name was used in it, whether or not they did anything.
Isn't it open source, so missing someone's use case is okay because they will be able to do it themselves. The core development community certainly cannot meet everybody's use case no matter how hard they try. What they need is a product that works well, that is suitable for recognition IMO.
It's easy to speculate "it seems no great challenge at all, to design buildings, even domes, that don't collapse under heavy snow loads" but in practicality just Google the news for a quick start...
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22heavy%20snow%22%20collapse
And remember the proposed dome will potentially have a very large surface area. The notion of collapse shouldn't be quickly discarded. It's a problem from many aspects.
But of course those search plugins in Explorer provide an answer to the question. If the built-in ones don't work, customized providers can be built because it's extensible. Where you think GP doesn't know what is being talked about, rather he does and your comment is short-sighted especially considering the link you gave provides this answer.
My laptop always travels in my backpack wherever I go because I use it all the time, I'm always out and about. Before a movie I don't want to go all the way home to drop it off, and I cannot leave it at work without losing access to it until the next work day. The policy really puts a damper on portability for anyone who wants to be entertained by a movie. It's a step backward for a foolish reason.
The moral of the required reading is we should accept Christianity through a cartoon instead of Satan through a board game. I guess Satan must be in the DDO marketing dept and God at Marvel in illustration otherwise this epic battle on the entertainment media couldn't be taking place. It's just too bad God dabbled with magic in the Narnia series because that really confuses the church's current message about sorcery being evil. Oh well we all make mistakes.
The levels of indirection present to support this system -- distributed clients, incentives for being a distributed client, power supply vs demand, payment for custom spidering -- make the system many things at the same time and unnecessarily complex, because those things already exist for free and in less complex ways. Many needs are sufficed by the simpler mechanisms and always have been.
Often the term bloated is misused meaning the speaker is at a point where he/she personally starts to find a technology confusing to wade through. Different people perceive different "bloat" points, so it's often relative. When it comes down to it, bloat is just software. As long as the pieces are loaded and run efficiently enough that the end-user, sysadmin, etc is happy then bloat is often a moot point and each person only needs to understand their own role and related facets of the software. We work as a team.
For the kind of apps touting touch technology, the same can often be done with a well-placed mouse click combined with one or more modifiers keys (e.g. Ctrl, Alt, Shift) without getting the screen dirty!
Touch technology has found its place in small devices (e.g. iPhone, Palm Pre) because it's a more useful interface than the small keyboard, and the technology has found its place in large devices (e.g. Surface) where there are new features to be implemented on a flat table-top surface. But for the desktop or laptop computer... there's really no need for multi-touch technology. It's cool but coolness fades quickly if there's no usefulness to it.
I'm unsure the mechanism used by Mono but when programming.NET on Windows there is a utility -- named ILMerge -- which allows multiple assemblies including Framework assemblies (dlls) to be compiled into one executable file; allowing a.NET app to without the need for a Framework's file to be spread about, kind of erasing the fact a Framework exists. (I.E. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mbarnett/ilmerge.aspx )
Also on the Windows side the Common Language Runtime (CLR) of the.NET Framework is always needed to interpret the Microsoft Intermediate Language Code (MSIL) "byte code" which is the result of explicit compilation of any.NET application's source code files (C#, VB.NET, COBOL.NET, IronPython, etc). This is a sort of on-the-fly compilation or translation to machine code that occurs as needed.
Even when a native executable for the Windows machine is generated by the ngen.exe utility, in order to bypass MSIL translation at runtime, (I.E. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t9t5wcf(VS.71).aspx )...the CLR is still required to manage the native executable (memory management, garbage collection, security, type enforcement, etc).
Much C# code is compiled in managed mode (requires management by the CLR) and I'm sure the C# implementation for the iPhone would express this simplified programming model too. However I'd be interested to know what Novell/Mono team does with the CLR in the iPhone given the fact Apple does not like frameworks, interpreters or compilers. Does Mono compile the CLR feature into iPhone app, or get rid of it in favour of C# on top of a different concept, or something else?
But wouldn't it be nice to have the full-featured and expected GUI browser experience with these additions? With Uzbl the choice it using it for advanced features, a second browser for ease-of-use (full GUI) but most users will choose one and not bother running both. Personally I'd like to see the Uzbl features made available as advancements to existing browsers instead of creating a new one which has inherent GUI limitations. Regular users won't ever see this programmable browser and yet we as developers would like to cause them to benefit from it.
However popular market share often brings other side-effects and benefits like project longevity, involvement and significance. I wouldn't mind running Uzbl's awesome features on any platform that (for example) Chrome runs on, and I likely won't use two browsers at the same time to get both sets of features.
...with the exception that Chrome and Firefox are similar browsers whereas Uzbl is comparatively obtuse. I'd suggest Uzbl work with an existing "normal" (may I use that word?) browser because it seems they provide an addition/enhancement/supplement to the rendered browsing experience. Firefox and Chrome were meant to compete not enhance.
Slashdot Mirror
.. the ./ community, or on the mailing list thread. Bets anyone?
I meanwhile haven't read the book yet but am sure it lives up meanwhile to the review considering previous title produced meanwhile by the same publisher.
"German Killers Sue Wikipedia To Remove Their Names, Or Else..."
Oh IE will try to catch up when they realize their browser seems suddenly and even much much slower than the others.
That's a horrible domain name. I think anybody would try to get that website domain removed (and anything associated with it) if their name was used in it, whether or not they did anything.
Equally as bad as the scent producing peripheral devices from 2007 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/day-smelly-computer-has-arrived.html
Isn't it open source, so missing someone's use case is okay because they will be able to do it themselves. The core development community certainly cannot meet everybody's use case no matter how hard they try. What they need is a product that works well, that is suitable for recognition IMO.
It's easy to speculate "it seems no great challenge at all, to design buildings, even domes, that don't collapse under heavy snow loads" but in practicality just Google the news for a quick start ...
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22heavy%20snow%22%20collapse
And remember the proposed dome will potentially have a very large surface area. The notion of collapse shouldn't be quickly discarded. It's a problem from many aspects.
But of course those search plugins in Explorer provide an answer to the question. If the built-in ones don't work, customized providers can be built because it's extensible. Where you think GP doesn't know what is being talked about, rather he does and your comment is short-sighted especially considering the link you gave provides this answer.
A fly was given a faked bad memory associated with an odour. How screwed up is that when flies like shit.
Um... I haven't made up my mind yet. Can you post a picture first?
My laptop always travels in my backpack wherever I go because I use it all the time, I'm always out and about. Before a movie I don't want to go all the way home to drop it off, and I cannot leave it at work without losing access to it until the next work day. The policy really puts a damper on portability for anyone who wants to be entertained by a movie. It's a step backward for a foolish reason.
The moral of the required reading is we should accept Christianity through a cartoon instead of Satan through a board game. I guess Satan must be in the DDO marketing dept and God at Marvel in illustration otherwise this epic battle on the entertainment media couldn't be taking place. It's just too bad God dabbled with magic in the Narnia series because that really confuses the church's current message about sorcery being evil. Oh well we all make mistakes.
One idea is for the test makers to force test takers to use school issued calculators for the duration of the test.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the equivalent of the entire Internet was accessible using direct memory addressing instead of IP addressing.
The levels of indirection present to support this system -- distributed clients, incentives for being a distributed client, power supply vs demand, payment for custom spidering -- make the system many things at the same time and unnecessarily complex, because those things already exist for free and in less complex ways. Many needs are sufficed by the simpler mechanisms and always have been.
Wherever the tablet PC went, the multitouch will likely follow, and for the same reasons, many I'm sure are posted in here somewhere by others.
Often the term bloated is misused meaning the speaker is at a point where he/she personally starts to find a technology confusing to wade through. Different people perceive different "bloat" points, so it's often relative. When it comes down to it, bloat is just software. As long as the pieces are loaded and run efficiently enough that the end-user, sysadmin, etc is happy then bloat is often a moot point and each person only needs to understand their own role and related facets of the software. We work as a team.
These rats are getting better medical treatment that I am!
For the kind of apps touting touch technology, the same can often be done with a well-placed mouse click combined with one or more modifiers keys (e.g. Ctrl, Alt, Shift) without getting the screen dirty! Touch technology has found its place in small devices (e.g. iPhone, Palm Pre) because it's a more useful interface than the small keyboard, and the technology has found its place in large devices (e.g. Surface) where there are new features to be implemented on a flat table-top surface. But for the desktop or laptop computer ... there's really no need for multi-touch technology. It's cool but coolness fades quickly if there's no usefulness to it.
Thanks.
I'm unsure the mechanism used by Mono but when programming .NET on Windows there is a utility -- named ILMerge -- which allows multiple assemblies including Framework assemblies (dlls) to be compiled into one executable file; allowing a .NET app to without the need for a Framework's file to be spread about, kind of erasing the fact a Framework exists.
(I.E. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mbarnett/ilmerge.aspx )
Also on the Windows side the Common Language Runtime (CLR) of the .NET Framework is always needed to interpret the Microsoft Intermediate Language Code (MSIL) "byte code" which is the result of explicit compilation of any .NET application's source code files (C#, VB.NET, COBOL.NET, IronPython, etc). This is a sort of on-the-fly compilation or translation to machine code that occurs as needed.
Even when a native executable for the Windows machine is generated by the ngen.exe utility, in order to bypass MSIL translation at runtime, ...the CLR is still required to manage the native executable (memory management, garbage collection, security, type enforcement, etc).
(I.E. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t9t5wcf(VS.71).aspx )
Much C# code is compiled in managed mode (requires management by the CLR) and I'm sure the C# implementation for the iPhone would express this simplified programming model too. However I'd be interested to know what Novell/Mono team does with the CLR in the iPhone given the fact Apple does not like frameworks, interpreters or compilers. Does Mono compile the CLR feature into iPhone app, or get rid of it in favour of C# on top of a different concept, or something else?
But wouldn't it be nice to have the full-featured and expected GUI browser experience with these additions? With Uzbl the choice it using it for advanced features, a second browser for ease-of-use (full GUI) but most users will choose one and not bother running both. Personally I'd like to see the Uzbl features made available as advancements to existing browsers instead of creating a new one which has inherent GUI limitations. Regular users won't ever see this programmable browser and yet we as developers would like to cause them to benefit from it.
However popular market share often brings other side-effects and benefits like project longevity, involvement and significance. I wouldn't mind running Uzbl's awesome features on any platform that (for example) Chrome runs on, and I likely won't use two browsers at the same time to get both sets of features.
...with the exception that Chrome and Firefox are similar browsers whereas Uzbl is comparatively obtuse. I'd suggest Uzbl work with an existing "normal" (may I use that word?) browser because it seems they provide an addition/enhancement/supplement to the rendered browsing experience. Firefox and Chrome were meant to compete not enhance.