Basically, it's like this: if you want a light browser, run a light browser. Try out Epiphany, for example, or Chromium. When Firefox started (back when it was called 'Phoenix'), it was designed to remove the bloat from Mozilla Seamonkey by making a browser that's just a browser.
People saw it as a potential "IE Killer," so they began implementing features that would make it an IE killer. Today, Firefox is designed around being a 'full-featured' browser, which, if we follow Zawinski's law, means that it will eventually be able to read mail again.:)
If you want speed and a small memory footprint, there are browsers that do that. Firefox can give you speed if you have enough RAM and CPU, but it doesn't really do small anymore.
I, myself, have, as well, always thought, among other things, that key, then, to good writing, something we should all, absolutely, be striving for, is good, judicial use of, or control of, parenthentical phrases, set off by commas.
That's a good reason to use Firefox's multiple profiles feature. Use one profile for development (with Firebug, etc. installed) and another for general browsing.
Then again, you could always run 64-bit and stock up on memory. If you haven't noticed, memory is cheap, with prices running around US $20/gigabyte.
One of the reasons that the media, and people in general, have seemingly become obsessed with autism is that there has been a very significant rise in diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Furthermore, autism spectrum disorders are often misdiagnosed as other problems. Finally, the public is not aware that autism spectrum disorders cover a range of different, distinct disorders, from very low functioning varieties to very high functioning varieties.
Furthermore, I've always adopted the best tools for the job, and ignored blatant fads such as twitter.
Exactly. I was born in the early 1970s and I've used the Net and electronic communications in general since the early-to-mid 1980s. I use text messages. I used to pay much more attention to the TV than I do now.
These distinctions, I think, are artificial at best, and at worst, stereotyping.
No, certainly not. This is just the next logical progression of mouse/pointer -> touch screen -> gestures above the screen. Too many people here are thinking "Wii," but that's not it: think "iPhone" without having to touch the screen. I'm no Apple fanboy, but I think Apple has already foreseen this by adding the G-force sensor in the iPhone/iPod Touch; I think they just haven't moved on it yet because they're waiting to see what other vendors are coming up with. I predict the next iteration of the iPhone will include technology along these lines.
Discussion of how to pronounce it reminds me of the little-known trivia about how the inventor of SCSI wanted it to be pronounced as the "Sexy Interface" rather than the "Scuzzy Interface".
The inventor of SCSI was Larry Boucher at Shugart Associates (and later Adaptec). They've always pronounced it 'scuzzy'. Apple was the player that wanted it to be pronounced 'sexy' because they were (at the time) pushing SCSI as a technology that made their machines superior to IBM and the clone makers, who were generally not including SCSI interfaces. Apple used SCSI for HDDs, FDDs, and CD-ROMs, and the inclusion of SCSI on the Mac was the biggest reason why early scanners always used a SCSI interface, Other players in the early days of SCSI (around 1986 or so) included Commodore, who included in the Amiga, and Sun Microsystems, who included it in their Unix workstations and servers.
Google uses a far more distributed network. Your 'host google.com' won't return the same addresses every time. For example from my network:
$ host google.com google.com has address 74.125.45.99 google.com has address 74.125.45.103 google.com has address 74.125.45.104 google.com has address 74.125.45.105 google.com has address 74.125.45.106 google.com has address 74.125.45.147
Exactly. They found p and q for one 768-bit n, and it took them 2.5 years, 3 supercomputers and 5 terabytes of data. If your data is important enough for someone to spend these kind of resources, you simply choose a 1024-bit n, or, even better, a 2048-bit n.
If your data is not important enough for someone to spend those kind of resources, then you can continue with 768-bit RSA and suffer no ill effects. If Moore's law holds true, you may want to consider upgrading to 1024-bit. The truly paranoid will want to use 2048-bit n or larger.
To put it very briefly: nothing to see here, move along.
Blah blah blah. Look, I don't want to hear about how observations matched predictions. That's not science.
Except, um, that is science. You make observations, study those observations, and come up with a hypothesis about why those observations are occurring. You make a falsifiable prediction, and test that prediction, making more observations. If the observations match your predictions, bam! You now have a working theory.
Now about my racecar on a train thought experiment....
As a smart company, don't you think there's a REASON that Adobe continues product development on Acrobat? Or do you think they're just throwing away their money without any profit expectation?
Of course they have profit expectation. But Acrobat is more of a sideline business for Adobe and it always has been. Acrobat will likely continue being a standard bearer, to be sure, but I have personally witnessed at least 5 different enterprises in the past few years cut their number of Acrobat licenses. IT management has realized that Acrobat simply isn't necessary for every employee that must generate PDFs and that there are plenty of alternative tools with either a zero cost or very cheap licensing -- there's at least one shareware tool I can think of in use at Ford Motor Co. and Xerox has a tool included with their DocuCenter workgroup/enterprise-class multifunction devices (printer/fax/scan/email) for generating PDFs as well. Tools like this are deemed "good enough" for most purposes.
Why don't you try working in an actual corporate IT environment before you go spouting off.
Many enterprises use alternative tools for generating PDFs such as PDF Creator to minimize the number of Acrobat Pro licenses required -- or even to eliminate the cost associated with the tool at all.
It's not as if they're making much money on PDF now. Adobe's largest revenue stream comes from their design applications like Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Flash, etc. Acrobat is a side business, if anything.
Right. Because switching users to a safer browser (Firefox) has had no impact on security because most people were using Microsoft's (Internet Explorer)? People switching to Linux and OS X has also had no impact on security either, I suppose?
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it's like this: if you want a light browser, run a light browser. Try out Epiphany, for example, or Chromium. When Firefox started (back when it was called 'Phoenix'), it was designed to remove the bloat from Mozilla Seamonkey by making a browser that's just a browser.
People saw it as a potential "IE Killer," so they began implementing features that would make it an IE killer. Today, Firefox is designed around being a 'full-featured' browser, which, if we follow Zawinski's law, means that it will eventually be able to read mail again. :)
If you want speed and a small memory footprint, there are browsers that do that. Firefox can give you speed if you have enough RAM and CPU, but it doesn't really do small anymore.
Total memory of Firefox in the instance I'm using right now is around 1.19 G ^&^()&_*&*(&(_)*_*
I, myself, have, as well, always thought, among other things, that key, then, to good writing, something we should all, absolutely, be striving for, is good, judicial use of, or control of, parenthentical phrases, set off by commas.
That's a good reason to use Firefox's multiple profiles feature. Use one profile for development (with Firebug, etc. installed) and another for general browsing.
Then again, you could always run 64-bit and stock up on memory. If you haven't noticed, memory is cheap, with prices running around US $20/gigabyte.
Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...
Did I hear someone say they wanted a browser with less bloat?
You're welcome.
One of the reasons that the media, and people in general, have seemingly become obsessed with autism is that there has been a very significant rise in diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Furthermore, autism spectrum disorders are often misdiagnosed as other problems. Finally, the public is not aware that autism spectrum disorders cover a range of different, distinct disorders, from very low functioning varieties to very high functioning varieties.
Exactly. I was born in the early 1970s and I've used the Net and electronic communications in general since the early-to-mid 1980s. I use text messages. I used to pay much more attention to the TV than I do now.
These distinctions, I think, are artificial at best, and at worst, stereotyping.
Not for the FDD built-in to the Macintoshes, but it was used for external floppy drives for both the Mac and the IIgs.
You can already plug a keyboard into the iPhone, but you need a jailbroken iPhone before you can use it.
(Note: I don't own an iPhone, only reporting what I've heard)
I thought this was 2010. Where's my mind control? Fail.
Not to worry. We have that.
Thanks,
The CIA
No, certainly not. This is just the next logical progression of mouse/pointer -> touch screen -> gestures above the screen. Too many people here are thinking "Wii," but that's not it: think "iPhone" without having to touch the screen. I'm no Apple fanboy, but I think Apple has already foreseen this by adding the G-force sensor in the iPhone/iPod Touch; I think they just haven't moved on it yet because they're waiting to see what other vendors are coming up with. I predict the next iteration of the iPhone will include technology along these lines.
The inventor of SCSI was Larry Boucher at Shugart Associates (and later Adaptec). They've always pronounced it 'scuzzy'. Apple was the player that wanted it to be pronounced 'sexy' because they were (at the time) pushing SCSI as a technology that made their machines superior to IBM and the clone makers, who were generally not including SCSI interfaces. Apple used SCSI for HDDs, FDDs, and CD-ROMs, and the inclusion of SCSI on the Mac was the biggest reason why early scanners always used a SCSI interface, Other players in the early days of SCSI (around 1986 or so) included Commodore, who included in the Amiga, and Sun Microsystems, who included it in their Unix workstations and servers.
Google uses a far more distributed network. Your 'host google.com' won't return the same addresses every time. For example from my network:
$ host google.com
google.com has address 74.125.45.99
google.com has address 74.125.45.103
google.com has address 74.125.45.104
google.com has address 74.125.45.105
google.com has address 74.125.45.106
google.com has address 74.125.45.147
it's an entirely differeent set of IP addresses.
Since then, however, ITAR regs have been altered; I don't think the Fast Elliptic Encryption in NeXTStep 2 would be subject to todays ITAR regs.
Two words: high-def movies
Sure. But the 5 TB of storage you can buy from Walmart comes blank.
5 TB is a lot of data to generate when you're not using BitTorrent to do it. :->
Exactly. They found p and q for one 768-bit n, and it took them 2.5 years, 3 supercomputers and 5 terabytes of data. If your data is important enough for someone to spend these kind of resources, you simply choose a 1024-bit n, or, even better, a 2048-bit n.
If your data is not important enough for someone to spend those kind of resources, then you can continue with 768-bit RSA and suffer no ill effects. If Moore's law holds true, you may want to consider upgrading to 1024-bit. The truly paranoid will want to use 2048-bit n or larger.
To put it very briefly: nothing to see here, move along.
Well, djb wrote a particular algorithm, Curve25519, that's in the public domain.
(Yeah, yeah, save your comments about djb's personality. Like it or not, the guy's a crypto and security genius.)
Dynamical? Dynamical? That's not even a word! How are we supposed to take your opinions seriously if you just keep making words?
In any respect, does anyone really know how much time a galaxy takes to form?
Blah blah blah. Look, I don't want to hear about how observations matched predictions. That's not science.
Except, um, that is science. You make observations, study those observations, and come up with a hypothesis about why those observations are occurring. You make a falsifiable prediction, and test that prediction, making more observations. If the observations match your predictions, bam! You now have a working theory.
Now about my racecar on a train thought experiment ....
Of course they have profit expectation. But Acrobat is more of a sideline business for Adobe and it always has been. Acrobat will likely continue being a standard bearer, to be sure, but I have personally witnessed at least 5 different enterprises in the past few years cut their number of Acrobat licenses. IT management has realized that Acrobat simply isn't necessary for every employee that must generate PDFs and that there are plenty of alternative tools with either a zero cost or very cheap licensing -- there's at least one shareware tool I can think of in use at Ford Motor Co. and Xerox has a tool included with their DocuCenter workgroup/enterprise-class multifunction devices (printer/fax/scan/email) for generating PDFs as well. Tools like this are deemed "good enough" for most purposes.
Why don't you try working in an actual corporate IT environment before you go spouting off.
No, you're not. I've seen the exact same behavior at several different clients over the past several years.
Many enterprises use alternative tools for generating PDFs such as PDF Creator to minimize the number of Acrobat Pro licenses required -- or even to eliminate the cost associated with the tool at all.
It's not as if they're making much money on PDF now. Adobe's largest revenue stream comes from their design applications like Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Flash, etc. Acrobat is a side business, if anything.
Right. Because switching users to a safer browser (Firefox) has had no impact on security because most people were using Microsoft's (Internet Explorer)? People switching to Linux and OS X has also had no impact on security either, I suppose?