Apparently it took you around a half-an-hour to type in this reply.
Nonetheless, the off-the-cuff "math" was totally wrong (I was trying to remember when I had a shitty job at a retail music store, creating a website when websites were still rare. My occupational math was wrong, but the case stands that using brushed metals as a background is very, very old, and was the cheapest and most common original-web background).
how the hell do you make brushed metal when there are almost no graphics programs capable of doing that (save Adobe Photoshop).
By 1990 the Atari ST and Amiga had already been out for 5 years, both featuring a wide variety of paint/raster graphics applications, and up to several megabytes of memory. We had the 386, and people were already generating 3D worlds with the newly ported POV-Ray.
Brushed aluminum, one of the cheapest and oldest effects, is generally achieved by a couple of shades of grey in horizontal bands, hardly requires Photoshop CS. Memory? Brushed aluminum type graphics are flipping tiny. Again PCs already had a MB 5 years earlier.
I have already retracted the 15-year statement, but nonetheless it disturbs me to think that people apparently believe that Google invented the internet, and we lived in the stone age until the P4, or that we need Photoshop to create such a simple effect.
Wow, 18 minutes after I posted a correction on that, even going so far as making it the title of the post. It's good that you make sure that you're not just posting redundant info needlessly.
As another poster kindly noted, I screwed up my timeline. The point, minus the timeline, was simply that using metallic backgrounds very much preceded Apple, so much so that it was the first use of the BACKGROUND tag.
Whoops, ignore my prior post. I paid more attention to the brushed aluminum part, and not to the timeline. I certainly didn't intend to say 15 years, and that was very dumbassian of me.
Mea culpa.
Anyways, to rephrase my ridiculous first post - when the BACKGROUND tag was first invented, people often used metallic backgrounds, such as brushed aluminum. Ignore my lame timeline.
As an aside, what's with the super-slowness of Slashdot?
Even putting aside your ridiculous claim of having a brushed metal website as soon as the web was invented
Are you f'n kidding? Brushed metal as a background graphic was one of the first background graphics that people cluttered their websites with. Metallic backgrounds were pretty much standard upon the creation of the BACKGROUND tag.
Oh, no, wait - Apple invented everything, didn't they?
thats ugly looking, seriously. Although I'm not found of the OSX interface either
It's not the look that really matters - we've gone through endless cycles of what looks "neat", skinnable apps, and now 3D spinning apps (though I find it hilarious that the brushed aluminum look is being attributed to Apple. I used brushed aluminum on my first website about 15 years ago. It's hardly a unique appearance).
What is really interesting, however, is that they fundamentally changed the usability of the application - the manner in which toolbars look and layout has changed, as have many of the other user-interaction elements. This is something that Microsoft has been very hesitant to do, as one of the reasons people stick with Office through the versions is consistency - Drop Office XP in front of someone who used Office 95 a decade ago, and they'll largely find it the same (just with more/better features).
With Microsoft significantly changing things, they have the risk of it being such a schism that people seriously evaluate the option of going to Open Office or other alternatives. If your users are going to need training, and are going to bitch and complain about their cheese moving, then you might as well re-evaluate the whole thing.
Never has a rush for a quasi-legitimate first post been more transparent. Would this "type of memory" be good for my digital camera? Why yes, it would! How about for USB keys! OMG, it would there too!
Of course the storage size issue really isn't that huge of an issue anymore - I have an inexpensive 1GB flash card in my 8MP digital camera, and I always transfer pictures for other reasons before I do it to clear space. This will eventually put downward pressure on the smaller capacities, but already they're low enough that it isn't a huge issue.
The real question is what new markets will open up as Flash memory super-sizes - will we replace our laptop hard drives anytime soon? Would we want to?
Science is authoritative when there is a strong confidence that the theory is correct (such that there is with gravity). Where there isn't that confidence, scientists regularly disclaim their statements, using terminology like "we believe...", or "it appears...". Few scientists immediately proclaim absolute based upon preliminary, or incomplete, information. "Bumble Bees can't fly! News at 11".
This is especially true of archaeology, a field where it is pretty difficult to place vague things like "firsts". To claim a first for something as generalized as an alcoholic drink is pretty questionable. Of course archaeology, like all other fields, has people who want attention.
It's most amazing how conclusively these findings are presented. I guess it doesn't sound as interesting to say "The first cocktail appears to be 5,000 years old and made with these ingredients, based upon current archeological knowledge, which of course is almost certain to change as we uncover more information in the future".
Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I've seen these sort of absolute statements proven wrong countless times.
If Windows wasn't so difficult for Joe Sixpack to lock down...
To be fair, Microsoft has made huge headway in regards to security with XP SP2. It isn't perfect, but a slipstreamed install of SP2 is a world more secure than a copy of Windows Me. Now that it's an actual focus (after well deserved criticism), Microsoft really seems to have made it a priority.
In any case, how many Slashdotters, who we know largely run Windows, are running Firefox with the IDN hole waiting to be exploited? Uh oh, I brought up a fault in Firefox, so I'm going to be moderated a troll by one of my karma-stalkers (even though I run and prefer Firefox).
Rather than innovate, I think we'll see more companies resorting to attacks of competitors' information systems. Innovation costs real money. You have to hire really smart people and they're not as inexpensive as the dullards who willingly participate in these schemes.
Hiring some dullard might be cheap, but civil lawsuits and potentially jail time isn't. It'd be quite the idiot (such as those demonstrated in the article) to think this was a credible business scheme.
The thing about human beings, especially criminals for hire, is that they always rat you out. There is no honor among theives, and that cheap dullard will quickly get caught (the illusion of anonymity on the net, even behind botnets, is mostly a mirage), and they'll cough up your name like a cat with a hairball.
Information published on the web is generally published in a crazy format called HTML (at a MINIMUM in both, so those who want to take it offline can resort to PDF without hindering accessibility). Or are you reading Slashdot in PDF documents?
I'm sorry, was this article talking about a breeder reactor? No, it appears it wasn't. Breeder reactors don't make fuel that is usable by normal reactors - it is usable by other breeder reactors. And if it was such a panacea that would be all people would be building (which it isn't).
Let's take a look at this. 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt...daaaannnnng.
I like and believe in nuclear power, but it is always oversold and underpriced. In reality every project component will go over budget, every refurbishment will cost billions more, and every cost of operation will be stated as "unanticipated". Nuclear energy is vastly more expensive than it is made out to be. Add in the fact that the world's uranium supply is just as finite as oil, and is quickly being exhausted.
Actually it should be -1 Offtopic for being a spelling/wrong-wording post. The submitter presumably intended to say "hot on the heels", as "hot on the heals" is nonsense.
Ah, good Slashdot.... Now it warns us that TFA is "long", even.
There have warnings accompanying long related articles for time eternal - some people come here primarily for discussion (sort of like an online book club). The article is a "necessary nuisance" for this bunch, hence the disclaimer. For those who actually come for information it isn't so much of a concern.
Now since I'm here for discussion, what's the deal with.pdf's? It seems to be a running belief that putting one's poorly thought out, poorly edited words into pdf forms makes it professional - just like the big boys! It reminds me of the idiotic days when a couple of big boys put flash intro pages, with the nonsense scrolling/zooming in text that became so cliched. Suddenly every small shop did the same, as if this cargo cult would make them a big shop. Really was silly.
They're trying to make people think of productive, credible uses of the internet, rather than just porn. Just like every kid tried to convince their parents to buy a computer so they could "balance their checkbook and save recipes!".
In any case, the quote from the article is confusing - many, many, many people already have cable modems with speeds of 1-10Mbps, and to the best of my knowledge no individual WiMax connection (unless they're going to put a channel/WAP for every single subscriber?) is going to offer anything close to that in the real world, so what's with the over-eager blanket "100s of times faster!" Wireless has, and always will be, a compromise when you can't or don't want to run wires. In this case it is a brilliant solution because you drop in a couple of WAPs and you have city-wide access, but if it's a credible alternative now, then would it have been before the disaster? (to replace the wired infrastructure) If not, then it sounds like some people are spewing some BS, sort of like how 3G phones circa 2000 was bringing multi-Mbps connections to every cell phone.
Fiber optic is of course pretty promising, but running fiber optic to every home is extraordinarily cost prohibitive (especially given that many of those that live in New Orleans don't even have computers), and if not to every home then what's the point? Much of the existing infrastructure (such as the phone and cable system) is extensively fiber optic equipped, with classic copper for the last mile. Again, if this problem was so easy to solve in the wake of a disaster, then why isn't it solved anywhere else?
So in this case, it SHOULD have been replaced due to its age, not to mention its insecurity.
No, it sould have been replaced due to its insecurity. Period.
The age thing is the same sort of lame distraction that makes crypto-naives rush to whatever newly announced algorithm comes out, burning themselves when it is vetted and found to have dozens of weaknesses. You original message clearly put all of the emphasis on the age factor as if we all need to carbon date all of the technologies we use to determine worthiness.
Age means absolutely nothing (for any technology), and instead any calls for replacement need to detail exactly what the weaknesses are and how they've been resolved in newer variants.
SSL 2.0 is so old that it should have gone the way of the Dodo bird. The point of removing 2.0 from Firefox is to force an upgrade by anyone who might be lame enough to still be running such old and insecure technology.
Good point. Hopefully they can catch the morons running TCP/IP and HTTP as well, those idiots.
but it is real sex movies which have driven DVD sales because, unlike videotape
Do you have any sort of numbers or references to back that up? Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.
We all realize that the porn industry is a big industry, but being an early adopter of DVDs and being an active watcher of the industry, I'd say porn played a negligible role in the ascent of the format. Indeed, the porn industry is (this is a generalization, and is NOT an absolute) largely frequented by the lower economic sphere, with a large degree or piracy. DVD wasn't a good choice for either.
Re:Mod down, same kaleidojewel spam as always
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Chalk up another "GIVE ME MAH AFFILIATE DOLLAHZ!!!" post to spammer-boy.
So? Seriously, if it's less expensive than a given alternative, and if you don't care about commissions or affiliate dollars (e.g. if jealousy doesn't drive you), then what does it matter? Is it one of those "if I don't don't get it then nobody should?".
I don't have any interest in the book, but if I did want it I wouldn't be adverse to using some random guy's affiliate link.
Slashdot Mirror
Get your facts straight.
Apparently it took you around a half-an-hour to type in this reply.
Nonetheless, the off-the-cuff "math" was totally wrong (I was trying to remember when I had a shitty job at a retail music store, creating a website when websites were still rare. My occupational math was wrong, but the case stands that using brushed metals as a background is very, very old, and was the cheapest and most common original-web background).
how the hell do you make brushed metal when there are almost no graphics programs capable of doing that (save Adobe Photoshop).
By 1990 the Atari ST and Amiga had already been out for 5 years, both featuring a wide variety of paint/raster graphics applications, and up to several megabytes of memory. We had the 386, and people were already generating 3D worlds with the newly ported POV-Ray.
Brushed aluminum, one of the cheapest and oldest effects, is generally achieved by a couple of shades of grey in horizontal bands, hardly requires Photoshop CS. Memory? Brushed aluminum type graphics are flipping tiny. Again PCs already had a MB 5 years earlier.
I have already retracted the 15-year statement, but nonetheless it disturbs me to think that people apparently believe that Google invented the internet, and we lived in the stone age until the P4, or that we need Photoshop to create such a simple effect.
Wow, 18 minutes after I posted a correction on that, even going so far as making it the title of the post. It's good that you make sure that you're not just posting redundant info needlessly.
As another poster kindly noted, I screwed up my timeline. The point, minus the timeline, was simply that using metallic backgrounds very much preceded Apple, so much so that it was the first use of the BACKGROUND tag.
Whoops, ignore my prior post. I paid more attention to the brushed aluminum part, and not to the timeline. I certainly didn't intend to say 15 years, and that was very dumbassian of me.
Mea culpa.
Anyways, to rephrase my ridiculous first post - when the BACKGROUND tag was first invented, people often used metallic backgrounds, such as brushed aluminum. Ignore my lame timeline.
As an aside, what's with the super-slowness of Slashdot?
Even putting aside your ridiculous claim of having a brushed metal website as soon as the web was invented
Are you f'n kidding? Brushed metal as a background graphic was one of the first background graphics that people cluttered their websites with. Metallic backgrounds were pretty much standard upon the creation of the BACKGROUND tag.
Oh, no, wait - Apple invented everything, didn't they?
thats ugly looking, seriously. Although I'm not found of the OSX interface either
It's not the look that really matters - we've gone through endless cycles of what looks "neat", skinnable apps, and now 3D spinning apps (though I find it hilarious that the brushed aluminum look is being attributed to Apple. I used brushed aluminum on my first website about 15 years ago. It's hardly a unique appearance).
What is really interesting, however, is that they fundamentally changed the usability of the application - the manner in which toolbars look and layout has changed, as have many of the other user-interaction elements. This is something that Microsoft has been very hesitant to do, as one of the reasons people stick with Office through the versions is consistency - Drop Office XP in front of someone who used Office 95 a decade ago, and they'll largely find it the same (just with more/better features).
With Microsoft significantly changing things, they have the risk of it being such a schism that people seriously evaluate the option of going to Open Office or other alternatives. If your users are going to need training, and are going to bitch and complain about their cheese moving, then you might as well re-evaluate the whole thing.
Never has a rush for a quasi-legitimate first post been more transparent. Would this "type of memory" be good for my digital camera? Why yes, it would! How about for USB keys! OMG, it would there too!
Of course the storage size issue really isn't that huge of an issue anymore - I have an inexpensive 1GB flash card in my 8MP digital camera, and I always transfer pictures for other reasons before I do it to clear space. This will eventually put downward pressure on the smaller capacities, but already they're low enough that it isn't a huge issue.
The real question is what new markets will open up as Flash memory super-sizes - will we replace our laptop hard drives anytime soon? Would we want to?
Science is authoritative...
Science is authoritative when there is a strong confidence that the theory is correct (such that there is with gravity). Where there isn't that confidence, scientists regularly disclaim their statements, using terminology like "we believe...", or "it appears...". Few scientists immediately proclaim absolute based upon preliminary, or incomplete, information. "Bumble Bees can't fly! News at 11".
This is especially true of archaeology, a field where it is pretty difficult to place vague things like "firsts". To claim a first for something as generalized as an alcoholic drink is pretty questionable. Of course archaeology, like all other fields, has people who want attention.
Other than that, though, it is pretty amazing...
It's most amazing how conclusively these findings are presented. I guess it doesn't sound as interesting to say "The first cocktail appears to be 5,000 years old and made with these ingredients, based upon current archeological knowledge, which of course is almost certain to change as we uncover more information in the future".
Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I've seen these sort of absolute statements proven wrong countless times.
If Windows wasn't so difficult for Joe Sixpack to lock down...
To be fair, Microsoft has made huge headway in regards to security with XP SP2. It isn't perfect, but a slipstreamed install of SP2 is a world more secure than a copy of Windows Me. Now that it's an actual focus (after well deserved criticism), Microsoft really seems to have made it a priority.
In any case, how many Slashdotters, who we know largely run Windows, are running Firefox with the IDN hole waiting to be exploited? Uh oh, I brought up a fault in Firefox, so I'm going to be moderated a troll by one of my karma-stalkers (even though I run and prefer Firefox).
Rather than innovate, I think we'll see more companies resorting to attacks of competitors' information systems. Innovation costs real money. You have to hire really smart people and they're not as inexpensive as the dullards who willingly participate in these schemes.
Hiring some dullard might be cheap, but civil lawsuits and potentially jail time isn't. It'd be quite the idiot (such as those demonstrated in the article) to think this was a credible business scheme.
The thing about human beings, especially criminals for hire, is that they always rat you out. There is no honor among theives, and that cheap dullard will quickly get caught (the illusion of anonymity on the net, even behind botnets, is mostly a mirage), and they'll cough up your name like a cat with a hairball.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
I'd say the same about your reply.
Information published on the web is generally published in a crazy format called HTML (at a MINIMUM in both, so those who want to take it offline can resort to PDF without hindering accessibility). Or are you reading Slashdot in PDF documents?
Jesus...it's like I'm a published author now! I think I'm going to print that out, frame it, and put it on the wall in the entryway!
I'm sorry, was this article talking about a breeder reactor? No, it appears it wasn't. Breeder reactors don't make fuel that is usable by normal reactors - it is usable by other breeder reactors. And if it was such a panacea that would be all people would be building (which it isn't).
Let's take a look at this. 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt...daaaannnnng.
I like and believe in nuclear power, but it is always oversold and underpriced. In reality every project component will go over budget, every refurbishment will cost billions more, and every cost of operation will be stated as "unanticipated". Nuclear energy is vastly more expensive than it is made out to be. Add in the fact that the world's uranium supply is just as finite as oil, and is quickly being exhausted.
Actually it should be -1 Offtopic for being a spelling/wrong-wording post. The submitter presumably intended to say "hot on the heels", as "hot on the heals" is nonsense.
Would this be the heals that you're talking about?
Ah, good Slashdot.... Now it warns us that TFA is "long", even.
.pdf's? It seems to be a running belief that putting one's poorly thought out, poorly edited words into pdf forms makes it professional - just like the big boys! It reminds me of the idiotic days when a couple of big boys put flash intro pages, with the nonsense scrolling/zooming in text that became so cliched. Suddenly every small shop did the same, as if this cargo cult would make them a big shop. Really was silly.
There have warnings accompanying long related articles for time eternal - some people come here primarily for discussion (sort of like an online book club). The article is a "necessary nuisance" for this bunch, hence the disclaimer. For those who actually come for information it isn't so much of a concern.
Now since I'm here for discussion, what's the deal with
What do they really mean by "medical records"?
They're trying to make people think of productive, credible uses of the internet, rather than just porn. Just like every kid tried to convince their parents to buy a computer so they could "balance their checkbook and save recipes!".
In any case, the quote from the article is confusing - many, many, many people already have cable modems with speeds of 1-10Mbps, and to the best of my knowledge no individual WiMax connection (unless they're going to put a channel/WAP for every single subscriber?) is going to offer anything close to that in the real world, so what's with the over-eager blanket "100s of times faster!" Wireless has, and always will be, a compromise when you can't or don't want to run wires. In this case it is a brilliant solution because you drop in a couple of WAPs and you have city-wide access, but if it's a credible alternative now, then would it have been before the disaster? (to replace the wired infrastructure) If not, then it sounds like some people are spewing some BS, sort of like how 3G phones circa 2000 was bringing multi-Mbps connections to every cell phone.
Fiber optic is of course pretty promising, but running fiber optic to every home is extraordinarily cost prohibitive (especially given that many of those that live in New Orleans don't even have computers), and if not to every home then what's the point? Much of the existing infrastructure (such as the phone and cable system) is extensively fiber optic equipped, with classic copper for the last mile. Again, if this problem was so easy to solve in the wake of a disaster, then why isn't it solved anywhere else?
So in this case, it SHOULD have been replaced due to its age, not to mention its insecurity.
No, it sould have been replaced due to its insecurity. Period.
The age thing is the same sort of lame distraction that makes crypto-naives rush to whatever newly announced algorithm comes out, burning themselves when it is vetted and found to have dozens of weaknesses. You original message clearly put all of the emphasis on the age factor as if we all need to carbon date all of the technologies we use to determine worthiness.
If this technology is 11 years old, then I don't think anyone would like to use it today. Especially if it's encryption standard.
RSA was designed in 1977.
Age means absolutely nothing (for any technology), and instead any calls for replacement need to detail exactly what the weaknesses are and how they've been resolved in newer variants.
SSL 2.0 is so old that it should have gone the way of the Dodo bird. The point of removing 2.0 from Firefox is to force an upgrade by anyone who might be lame enough to still be running such old and insecure technology.
Good point. Hopefully they can catch the morons running TCP/IP and HTTP as well, those idiots.
but it is real sex movies which have driven DVD sales because, unlike videotape
Do you have any sort of numbers or references to back that up? Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.
We all realize that the porn industry is a big industry, but being an early adopter of DVDs and being an active watcher of the industry, I'd say porn played a negligible role in the ascent of the format. Indeed, the porn industry is (this is a generalization, and is NOT an absolute) largely frequented by the lower economic sphere, with a large degree or piracy. DVD wasn't a good choice for either.
Chalk up another "GIVE ME MAH AFFILIATE DOLLAHZ!!!" post to spammer-boy.
So? Seriously, if it's less expensive than a given alternative, and if you don't care about commissions or affiliate dollars (e.g. if jealousy doesn't drive you), then what does it matter? Is it one of those "if I don't don't get it then nobody should?".
I don't have any interest in the book, but if I did want it I wouldn't be adverse to using some random guy's affiliate link.