Dreamweaver is a tool. vi is a tool. I use both of them and they rock.
If you don't like Dreamweaver, get over it. Or learn to use it. It writes nice clean code and the WYSIWYG factor is invaluable, even if you know how to code by hand. I know if I tried laying out some of the stuff I've done from scratch with a text editor, I'd be wasting a whole lot of time counting tags, setting colours, adjusting column widths, etc. DW used to be a bit awkward and buggy but it's definitely grown into an extremely useful tool, whether you're laying up a simple page or doing something more complex.
My point is - you should find, learn and use the tools that maximise your productivity. Too many people slag off particular methods they don't find personally useful, but it doesn't mean the program is crap.
Some fundamental things are often overlooked. Water is not simply H2O and behaves in many, very interesting ways.
Electrolysis of water in the simplest form is application of a DC current, which evolves the 2 substituent gases. In order for this to happen, ions must be present (usually in the form of impurities in hard water, or with the addition of an electrolyte). But an electrolyte isn't necessary to electrolyse water.
On the molecular level, hydrogen bonding also takes place, and with the shape of a water molecule, provides many possible arrangements of molecules and redistribution of ions within the molcules. Endothermic ionisation occurs, as well as proton-tunnelling (the Grotthuss mechanism) and the existence of many types of Hydrogen-Oxygen molecules.
So, if you're intent on pumping enough electrons into water ("brute-force", via DC current) to break the H-O bonds, you are going to expend X amount of energy. When you recombine the H and O, you can understandably expect to release the same amount of energy.
As I see it, there is much research to do in the study of excitation (by electrical, magnetic, mechanical and optical stimulation) of liquid water to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen. Another thing that is frequently overlooked is power, as opposed to work.
Power is work over time, and from the "macro" level of waiting for your collected solar panels to electrolyse enough hydrogen to run your car to the shop, to the molecular level of applying stimulation to a substance to excite and evolve the readily available ions for release in their atomic form, time is a factor.
The wavelength used in microwave ovens is far higher than that used by many of the experimenters in the "water-car" circles, that have found the frequency of around 42kHz (among other frequencies) has some surprising effects on the electrolysis of water, and yet I have seen no explanation of these types of resonance. This only tells us that we simply do not know enough about the behaviour of water.
I personally think it would be foolish to say that electrolysing water is the wrong to way to go about producing Hydrogen efficiently, when it seems it's behaviour is only so recently beginning to be understood.
All said and done, discounting the many conspiracy theorists and frauds that only serve to confuse the subject, there is a small army of people out there already, producing variants of Hydrogen-Oxygen mixes, "Browns gas", and who knows what else and attempting to run their vehicles on it. I am so far disappointed that nobody has come up with anything approaching the ideal, but I'd say the future is promising.
Anyway, that's my 2c. I'd like to hear more from anyone that can offer further enlightenment.
Re:It's good, but it's not that good
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Methinks somebody needs to do some research on the difference in concept of "chrome" and "theme", as applied to application interfaces.
Some study of context might also be useful.
By the by, I have just downloaded version 2 of GIMP and it almost makes me want to switch from Photoshop .
And if you automatically assume my nick has something to do with "leet-speak", then you, "sir", are the lamer.
OK, I haven't actually checked out the latest version of GIMP yet, but I did play around with version 1 quite a bit when it came out.
I have to admit, I was impressed with the GIMP, but it just made me feel like I was writing with my feet. I'm not averse to learning to use a bit of new software, especially if it's OSS, but it's difficult to wipe 9 years of Photoshop habits and start afresh..
Hopefully, the developers take a few suggestions from/. opinions and factor them into their next version or major version change.
It'd be nice to see an interface not unlike that of Photoshop. This would go a long way towards getting users to switch from the Adobe product.
Even better would be the ability to install a chrome for the interface (satisfy both the old and faithful GIMP users as well as designers wanting to switch to a nice open source app.)
Like many others, I switched to Firefox (I waited until 1.0 was released though..) and haven't looked back. Why? For all the obvious reasons, but also because it looks like something I'm so familiar with already. (Similarly with OpenOffice).
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our new, bespectacled, trendy bluetooth overl.. arrrr, I don't think so.
So that's what that pounding noise is after a hard night out drinking.. "S O S" "S O S"
"There's data under them statues!"
Dreamweaver is a tool. vi is a tool.
I use both of them and they rock.
If you don't like Dreamweaver, get over it. Or learn to use it. It writes nice clean code and the WYSIWYG factor is invaluable, even if you know how to code by hand.
I know if I tried laying out some of the stuff I've done from scratch with a text editor, I'd be wasting a whole lot of time counting tags, setting colours, adjusting column widths, etc.
DW used to be a bit awkward and buggy but it's definitely grown into an extremely useful tool, whether you're laying up a simple page or doing something more complex.
My point is - you should find, learn and use the tools that maximise your productivity. Too many people slag off particular methods they don't find personally useful, but it doesn't mean the program is crap.
Some fundamental things are often overlooked.
Water is not simply H2O and behaves in many, very interesting ways.
Electrolysis of water in the simplest form is application of a DC current, which evolves the 2 substituent gases. In order for this to happen, ions must be present (usually in the form of impurities in hard water, or with the addition of an electrolyte). But an electrolyte isn't necessary to electrolyse water.
On the molecular level, hydrogen bonding also takes place, and with the shape of a water molecule, provides many possible arrangements of molecules and redistribution of ions within the molcules. Endothermic ionisation occurs, as well as proton-tunnelling (the Grotthuss mechanism) and the existence of many types of Hydrogen-Oxygen molecules.
So, if you're intent on pumping enough electrons into water ("brute-force", via DC current) to break the H-O bonds, you are going to expend X amount of energy. When you recombine the H and O, you can understandably expect to release the same amount of energy.
As I see it, there is much research to do in the study of excitation (by electrical, magnetic, mechanical and optical stimulation) of liquid water to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Another thing that is frequently overlooked is power, as opposed to work.
Power is work over time, and from the "macro" level of waiting for your collected solar panels to electrolyse enough hydrogen to run your car to the shop, to the molecular level of applying stimulation to a substance to excite and evolve the readily available ions for release in their atomic form, time is a factor.
The wavelength used in microwave ovens is far higher than that used by many of the experimenters in the "water-car" circles, that have found the frequency of around 42kHz (among other frequencies) has some surprising effects on the electrolysis of water, and yet I have seen no explanation of these types of resonance. This only tells us that we simply do not know enough about the behaviour of water.
I personally think it would be foolish to say that electrolysing water is the wrong to way to go about producing Hydrogen efficiently, when it seems it's behaviour is only so recently beginning to be understood.
All said and done, discounting the many conspiracy theorists and frauds that only serve to confuse the subject, there is a small army of people out there already, producing variants of Hydrogen-Oxygen mixes, "Browns gas", and who knows what else and attempting to run their vehicles on it. I am so far disappointed that nobody has come up with anything approaching the ideal, but I'd say the future is promising.
Anyway, that's my 2c. I'd like to hear more from anyone that can offer further enlightenment.
Methinks somebody needs to do some research on the difference in concept of "chrome" and "theme", as applied to application interfaces. Some study of context might also be useful. By the by, I have just downloaded version 2 of GIMP and it almost makes me want to switch from Photoshop . And if you automatically assume my nick has something to do with "leet-speak", then you, "sir", are the lamer.
OK, I haven't actually checked out the latest version of GIMP yet, but I did play around with version 1 quite a bit when it came out. I have to admit, I was impressed with the GIMP, but it just made me feel like I was writing with my feet. I'm not averse to learning to use a bit of new software, especially if it's OSS, but it's difficult to wipe 9 years of Photoshop habits and start afresh.. Hopefully, the developers take a few suggestions from /. opinions and factor them into their next version or major version change.
It'd be nice to see an interface not unlike that of Photoshop. This would go a long way towards getting users to switch from the Adobe product.
Even better would be the ability to install a chrome for the interface (satisfy both the old and faithful GIMP users as well as designers wanting to switch to a nice open source app.)
Like many others, I switched to Firefox (I waited until 1.0 was released though..) and haven't looked back. Why? For all the obvious reasons, but also because it looks like something I'm so familiar with already. (Similarly with OpenOffice).