_Why_ is it that this so-called free-software "revolution" tries so hard to make ripoffs of the software that it constantly decries as inferior?
MS publishes lowest-common-denominator corporate apps. Why duplicate them? Let's leapfrog them. The software world is so stagnant... let's shake things up, not by ripping them off (who cares about "market share" when we're not in the market) but by beating them with our superior design and engineering. Otherwise, we will BY DEFINITION be one step behind MS.
Don't copy.NET, _skip_.NET. Do the next great thing!
Excuse the abuse of the abused term, but let's INNOVATE! There are Free Software apps that are best-of-breed, hands down. Let's make more, not ripoffs of Exchange. Exchange sucks! Just because "everyone uses it" doesn't mean they like it!
Let's stop reverse engineering the damn Start button and make a better mousetrap!
Ahem. Sorry. I'm just more and more depressed that all of us geeks keep bitching about Windows and MS, but we love it when Gnome et al basically just copies Windows et al.
We had a few small troubles doing similar things to what you're attempting... not in Japanese, but still in Unicode.
MSSQL2000 seems to do just about everything in Unicode, and python (2.02 then) did choke on a few things.
We basically solved the problem by casting and coercing fields as they came out; staring out things with a
tempStr = u""
and then appending database fields to that. It didn't seem to like adding unicode data to a plain string, but initializing the string as unicode helped that.
We did notice that it wasn't a good idea to try and set Python variable names with unicode strings, but simple str(field) stuff worked in our case, because the fields coming out of the DB were basically plain english.
We also noticed that Python doesn't seem to like 'exec()' on unicode strings, so we re-wrote the code to avoid exec() (should have done that anyway).
Perhaps with more expertise with the various Unicode encodings one could really get everything working transparently, but in the meantime, the above explicit band-aid translation worked fine.
You'd think that will all of the money they throw at PR, they could at least *hide* their inconsistency and fear a little better. Isn't that what PR is for?
I for one am happy to see some nice (read: not these endless chiseled grey blocks) graphic design going into interfaces.
They're using color coding to good effect, they're putting appropriate visual attention in the right places, they're using easy-to-read labels and typefaces...
It's impressive looking. I wonder if it's real, or if it's some illustrator RIP...
Look at the two images from the Matrix... yes, the mpeg4 one is quite respectable, but it's NOT nearly as good. I'd say this DOESN'T measure up to mp3, in compression vs. "seems-almost-as-good"-ness.
Look in particular at the tip of her nose, the color in her cheecks, the stalk of the phone cord, the hand; it looks like the image was scaled by 50% in both directions, and then blown back up, leaving blocky pixels (much like the photoshop joke in this thread).
Even at extremely high ppi, on a 1600x1200 display, I can see the loss of chroma detail and the blockiness of the pixels... it must be VERY noticeable when the same image is blown up to full screen. And I'm not even a home-theater geek!
Sure, sure, this is a still, and it would be less noticeable moving (or maybe it would be worse... humans can see "noise" pretty well around edges).
Don't get me wrong, this is very cool tech, and I'm glad it leaked into our hands... this tech has it's place, but it is NOT a drop-in replacement for DVD discs...
Google.com is really just the calling card/flagship site of Google Inc. It's proof of technology, proof of goodness, proof of pudding.
They can make money by selling their tech to Yahoo, MSN, whatever. Even by selling their tech to us for our small sites (like Excite did a few years ago).
Advertising is FUNDAMENTALLY anathema to a good user experience. Google provides a very good user experience. Fast, direct, simple, unconfused, and best of all, USEFUL. Their utility has tremendous value for the customer. Specifically because it chooses ONE THING and does that one thing very well.
Sure, their results are better (usually) than the other engines, but I for one mostly use it because it doesn't try and get me to sign up for a calendar or a horoscope, and therefore it loads quickly. The other engines are swamped under the weight of desperately trying to be portals.
When you're on Excite or Lycos, it FEELS like the site has tremendous value to/them/ and to their advertisers. You feel like you're being served up to Lexus as "eyeballs". You feel like they want you to sit down and stay a while, whereas Google just wants to give you your search and send you on your way.
There are alternatives to advertising for making money online. It seems that Google has been using them. Here's hoping that they continue to do so.
-------------
I don't think that standard JPEG files have resolution; they just have pixels. There are those bastards out there, like a TIFF with JPEG compression, but that's a goofy thing.
You're right, though. Browsers just read pixels. Of course, because no image formats that are web-centric have built-in resolution yet (not even PNG!) it doesn't matter.
You can specify an embedded flash in "em" units, or inches, or whatever. It works! Hopefully, SVG will work the same way. It should.
I suppose that you could also specify that an image was 1 inch by 2 inches, via style/DOM, but I'm not sure it would look very good. Bitmap scaling code in browsers sucks. It works well when printing from a browser, though... I've done that, it works.
SO, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the infrustructure for resolution independent display is in there, it's just not hooked up to the right places to make images work.
------------------------
Modern browsers (heh) are supposed to actually retrieve the logical ppi (pixels per inch) from the OS, and render type that way.
Generally, it's either 96 or 72, and I'm sure that if it were 200 ppi it would work just fine.
Of course, those designers who insist on rendering every little thing as a bitmap are screwing this pooch... bitmaps don't scale or have a "size" per-se, outside of their pixel dimensions.
Some others have mentioned that Opera's renderer can zoom on the fly... which solves both problems.
It's possible that most people who have decent bandwidth are using some kind of firwall or proxy to get online. This may hamper their ability to upload.
While some of you may be able to do ipchains in your sleep, some of us cannot, and it may be beyond our ability, patience, or security clearance to open up enough holes in the firewall to let Gnutella through.
This is the case with me; I've got a recently installed DSL line, and used to share all kinds of stuff, till I put a simple, floppy-disc based firewall between my workstation and the world. Now, it seems that I can download, but not upload.
I will fix this some weekend, but that's because I'm also interested in figuring out how the firewall works. Maybe not everyone is willing to take that step.
I have a VAIO, and I made a "case" for it, using a standard "sidepack" type of pack.
Most of these packs have a main pocket, and a smaller flapped-in pocket. Well, I took some foam packing material and made a sleeve that fit around the VAIO and fit into the smaller pocket. I used toothpicks and model-airplane glue to make the sleeve (high tech). The sleeve comes out when I need the pouch for something besides the laptop.
The result is a real book-bag that happens to also carry my laptop. There's also room for the AC adapter or the extra battery. The myriad of pockets and zippers usually makes room for things like USB mice, PCMCIA cards, etc., but they're not tailor-made for them.
It's nice, because I don't feel like I'm wearing a sign that says "rob me, I'm carrying something worth $2000 on my arm". And, I live in New York. I've also done a lot of travelling with it.
I've been meaning to make a web page with instructions on this. Maybe I will soon.
It's pretty amazingly flexible, and runs on all (?) platforms. You've gotta feed it a huge regex file for it to work on ads, but I those are easy to find.
I haven't done exactly what you're asking for, but I expect it's possible and even trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
The real question:
.NET, _skip_ .NET. Do the next great thing!
_Why_ is it that this so-called free-software "revolution" tries so hard to make ripoffs of the software that it constantly decries as inferior?
MS publishes lowest-common-denominator corporate apps. Why duplicate them? Let's leapfrog them. The software world is so stagnant... let's shake things up, not by ripping them off (who cares about "market share" when we're not in the market) but by beating them with our superior design and engineering. Otherwise, we will BY DEFINITION be one step behind MS.
Don't copy
Excuse the abuse of the abused term, but let's INNOVATE! There are Free Software apps that are best-of-breed, hands down. Let's make more, not ripoffs of Exchange. Exchange sucks! Just because "everyone uses it" doesn't mean they like it!
Let's stop reverse engineering the damn Start button and make a better mousetrap!
Ahem. Sorry. I'm just more and more depressed that all of us geeks keep bitching about Windows and MS, but we love it when Gnome et al basically just copies Windows et al.
We had a few small troubles doing similar things to what you're attempting... not in Japanese, but still in Unicode.
MSSQL2000 seems to do just about everything in Unicode, and python (2.02 then) did choke on a few things.
We basically solved the problem by casting and coercing fields as they came out; staring out things with a
tempStr = u""
and then appending database fields to that. It didn't seem to like adding unicode data to a plain string, but initializing the string as unicode helped that.
We did notice that it wasn't a good idea to try and set Python variable names with unicode strings, but simple str(field) stuff worked in our case, because the fields coming out of the DB were basically plain english.
We also noticed that Python doesn't seem to like 'exec()' on unicode strings, so we re-wrote the code to avoid exec() (should have done that anyway).
Perhaps with more expertise with the various Unicode encodings one could really get everything working transparently, but in the meantime, the above explicit band-aid translation worked fine.
Good luck!
"If anything, small 'hot spots' on the CPU could be avoided by strategic placement of microcoolers, thus helping all of us overclockers out."
And we all know how much they want to help us overclockers out. Heh.
Would be a real boon to getting a quiet PC, though.
Does that ring a bell to anyone?
I thought that I heard that somewhere.
You'd think that will all of the money they throw at PR, they could at least *hide* their inconsistency and fear a little better. Isn't that what PR is for?
I for one am happy to see some nice (read: not these endless chiseled grey blocks) graphic design going into interfaces.
They're using color coding to good effect, they're putting appropriate visual attention in the right places, they're using easy-to-read labels and typefaces...
It's impressive looking. I wonder if it's real, or if it's some illustrator RIP...
Look at the two images from the Matrix... yes, the mpeg4 one is quite respectable, but it's NOT nearly as good. I'd say this DOESN'T measure up to mp3, in compression vs. "seems-almost-as-good"-ness.
Look in particular at the tip of her nose, the color in her cheecks, the stalk of the phone cord, the hand; it looks like the image was scaled by 50% in both directions, and then blown back up, leaving blocky pixels (much like the photoshop joke in this thread).
Even at extremely high ppi, on a 1600x1200 display, I can see the loss of chroma detail and the blockiness of the pixels... it must be VERY noticeable when the same image is blown up to full screen. And I'm not even a home-theater geek!
Sure, sure, this is a still, and it would be less noticeable moving (or maybe it would be worse... humans can see "noise" pretty well around edges).
Don't get me wrong, this is very cool tech, and I'm glad it leaked into our hands... this tech has it's place, but it is NOT a drop-in replacement for DVD discs...
The quality is just not there.
------------------------------
Google.com is really just the calling card/flagship site of Google Inc. It's proof of technology, proof of goodness, proof of pudding.
/them/ and to their advertisers. You feel like you're being served up to Lexus as "eyeballs". You feel like they want you to sit down and stay a while, whereas Google just wants to give you your search and send you on your way.
They can make money by selling their tech to Yahoo, MSN, whatever. Even by selling their tech to us for our small sites (like Excite did a few years ago).
Advertising is FUNDAMENTALLY anathema to a good user experience. Google provides a very good user experience. Fast, direct, simple, unconfused, and best of all, USEFUL. Their utility has tremendous value for the customer. Specifically because it chooses ONE THING and does that one thing very well.
Sure, their results are better (usually) than the other engines, but I for one mostly use it because it doesn't try and get me to sign up for a calendar or a horoscope, and therefore it loads quickly. The other engines are swamped under the weight of desperately trying to be portals.
When you're on Excite or Lycos, it FEELS like the site has tremendous value to
There are alternatives to advertising for making money online. It seems that Google has been using them. Here's hoping that they continue to do so.
-------------
I don't think that standard JPEG files have resolution; they just have pixels. There are those bastards out there, like a TIFF with JPEG compression, but that's a goofy thing.
You're right, though. Browsers just read pixels. Of course, because no image formats that are web-centric have built-in resolution yet (not even PNG!) it doesn't matter.
You can specify an embedded flash in "em" units, or inches, or whatever. It works! Hopefully, SVG will work the same way. It should.
I suppose that you could also specify that an image was 1 inch by 2 inches, via style/DOM, but I'm not sure it would look very good. Bitmap scaling code in browsers sucks. It works well when printing from a browser, though... I've done that, it works.
SO, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the infrustructure for resolution independent display is in there, it's just not hooked up to the right places to make images work.
------------------------
Modern browsers (heh) are supposed to actually retrieve the logical ppi (pixels per inch) from the OS, and render type that way.
.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html
Generally, it's either 96 or 72, and I'm sure that if it were 200 ppi it would work just fine.
Of course, those designers who insist on rendering every little thing as a bitmap are screwing this pooch... bitmaps don't scale or have a "size" per-se, outside of their pixel dimensions.
Some others have mentioned that Opera's renderer can zoom on the fly... which solves both problems.
For anyone who's interested in this stuff, there's an excellent (in-progress) related article here:
http://style.metrius
-----------------
It's possible that most people who have decent bandwidth are using some kind of firwall or proxy to get online. This may hamper their ability to upload.
While some of you may be able to do ipchains in your sleep, some of us cannot, and it may be beyond our ability, patience, or security clearance to open up enough holes in the firewall to let Gnutella through.
This is the case with me; I've got a recently installed DSL line, and used to share all kinds of stuff, till I put a simple, floppy-disc based firewall between my workstation and the world. Now, it seems that I can download, but not upload.
I will fix this some weekend, but that's because I'm also interested in figuring out how the firewall works. Maybe not everyone is willing to take that step.
Just a thought.
-----------------
I have a VAIO, and I made a "case" for it, using a standard "sidepack" type of pack.
Most of these packs have a main pocket, and a smaller flapped-in pocket. Well, I took some foam packing material and made a sleeve that fit around the VAIO and fit into the smaller pocket. I used toothpicks and model-airplane glue to make the sleeve (high tech). The sleeve comes out when I need the pouch for something besides the laptop.
The result is a real book-bag that happens to also carry my laptop. There's also room for the AC adapter or the extra battery. The myriad of pockets and zippers usually makes room for things like USB mice, PCMCIA cards, etc., but they're not tailor-made for them.
It's nice, because I don't feel like I'm wearing a sign that says "rob me, I'm carrying something worth $2000 on my arm". And, I live in New York. I've also done a lot of travelling with it.
I've been meaning to make a web page with instructions on this. Maybe I will soon.
Junkbusters
It's pretty amazingly flexible, and runs on all (?) platforms. You've gotta feed it a huge regex file for it to work on ads, but I those are easy to find.
I haven't done exactly what you're asking for, but I expect it's possible and even trivial.