I use mine at the local market all the time - I'm actually extremely surprised that they have the RFID reader system in place. I've got half a mind to hold my whole wallet up to the thing and see if it reads through the leather and the other cards, but I think my Amex also has one (I have to assume that's what that little chip in the Blue cards is) and I'd really like to not charge a card at random from my wallet. Though truth be told, I'm probably better off using the Amex than the MC (though stores pay significantly higher processing fees on them, so I save the local guys a buck).
Nowhereville, NH for what it's worth. It's not the only place I've seen them, though they're fairly uncommon.
Umm... you do realize that FSM followers are just religious satirists mocking the whole thing, right? I expect the whole idea came from the acid trip of an outspoken atheist.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
If they needed to develop their own rendering API, then where the hell does WebKit come into play? Obviously I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that it was the renderer.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
I think this would be an appropriate point to go on some mindless yet valid rant against DRM. If ESPN can't get their shit together to make a form show up properly that's one thing (and presumably it doesn't work in any of the Webkit-based browsers out there, and there are quite a few these days - they go well beyond Safari and Chrome), but I think it would be preaching to the choir to point out that content providers tend to be just a little bit overprotective with videos.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Chrome has out of the box some basic features that are really useful and ought to be default in others —cough-FF3,IE-cough— such as spell check enabled by default
I'm not sure what version of Firefox you've got installed, but mine's had inline spellcheck since I first installed it at around version 0.8 (I think they were still having the naming wars back then).
I agree about the plugins though. I've got Chrome in my XP VM (relatively minimal install) and the Click Here To Install Flash Automagically actually worked, something I've NEVER seen in ANY other browser - and I didn't even have to restart the thing afterwords. Now that obviously doesn't cover extensions, but like you said some cross-pollination here would be a Good Thing.
Of course, that's kind of what you'd expect to happen when you start with a fresh codebase for an existing type of product. It's twice as bad with open-source products it seems, but if you've ever looked through the source of, for example, most of the PHP-based web apps out there, you'll really wondering what the hell they were thinking from an architectural standpoint.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It all comes down to personal preference, really. * Chrome's UI is growing on me a little bit the second time playing around (though I think there's a lot of wasted space with how the tabs are angled). The downloads tab is fairly slick, but the progressbars at the bottom go away if you open the downloads tab and don't come back if you close it. There's certainly work to be done, but not bad for the first beta.
* Firefox is much better in 3.x; at least in OS X, it's a fairly solid theme (not without its quirks, but there you go). Camino still looks a little more OS-native on the Mac than Firefox, but that's what happens when you wrap the Gecko rendering engine in Cocoa rather than XUL.
* I think Safari has the best UI, whereas Opera's makes me slightly nauseous - I honestly like that browser less every time I end up trying it.
* IE, in usual MS fashion, looks a lot better if you've switched XP to classic mode, rather than the gaudy baby-blue you'll otherwise get; I hate most of its design elements and true to the IE name, it's behavioral inconsistencies compared to every other browser on the market are second only to its rendering inconsistencies (it's no IE6, but even still...).
Obviously though, design and aesthetic are very personal things, YMMV, etc.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
I'm a little curious as to what version of WebKit Chrome is running, anyways. Either it's not the latest, or somehow the text-shadow CSS property ended up exclusive to OS X Safari.
I know, it's an oddball thing with limited support, but if they're all using the same rendering engine underneath (and they claim that's the case) then that should be consistent. At least everything else works the same, and I suppose it serves me right for giving a little extra fun with a poorly-implemented CSS property. Whatever.
Re:Good analysis. MOD PARENT UP.
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You must not be aware that Google's advertisement program has supported image-based ads for several years at least. Many sites choose to have text-only, but what you said is quite a... wrong statement.
And yes, ABP can and does block Google's ads. The only thing it tends not to get are the small custom affiliate program links (those 125px blocks), not that anyone in their right mind could expect an extension to know what directory holds the ad images on any website out there.
Maybe it's a location thing. For me, flickr is always slow as hell where Facebook is usually pretty speedy. I'd say they both suck for the photo interfaces (which, suffice to say, isn't what you'd expect from a photo sharing site; I'm pretty sure FB and flickr are numbers 1 and 2 in terms of sheer volume).
Not that either site has a lot of gems, for the prospective thief. flickr has more than FB for sure (especially if you know where to look), but it's the "pro" sites (SmugMug, etc) that will tend to have the good stuff.
If you're a professional photographer, then you're not giving out jpegs like candy in the first place. But hypothetically speaking... unless you registered the copyright on the photos (and if you took the time to do so, then you know enough to avoid the situation), there's next to nothing you could actually do in terms of claiming damages. You should be able to get them DMCA'd off the web, but that's about the limit. Certainly your friend uploading your photos couldn't legally transfer any rights as he didn't have any to begin with, but I don't think that Facebook's TOS have ever been tested in this matter.
Generally speaking, the intent of this kind of thing is that you can't sue them for not sharing ad revenue with you. "Publish" includes displaying them on the website, and as they WILL be shown on an ad-laden page, then they're technically being published by Facebook (etc) for FB's profit.
Six seconds? I've got an 8-core Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM and it still takes 30-40min to rip a movie with handbrake (at ~500% CPU usage; h.264 1.5Mbit). I imagine it's largely limited by the speed of the optical drive, but whatever.
Maybe six seconds of user interaction, but that's certainly nowhere near the whole process.
Not really. Amazon's affiliate rates are relatively low; regardless, sales increase as a result of having the program in place. The small amount that's lost on affiliate commissions is more than made up for in the additional volume. If that wasn't the case, the program wouldn't exist.
Now that would almost be a valid argument if Amazon had significantly higher prices than most. More often than not, they're either the cheapest or within two percent or so of the cheapest vendor (and Amazon's reputation is easily worth the 2%).
I always thought anything that required a point-and-click interface was extremely clumsy on the Wii, prior to selling mine. Maybe it was more of an issue with early games, but I found that you'd tire your arm pretty quickly unless you were just resting your hand on your crotch and aiming from there. [insert 'joystick' remark] Even the bow and arrow in Zelda felt much less natural than it should have as compared to swinging around the controller for swordplay.
Well there are SCUMM VM players for most "PC" platforms (which is to say, Win/Mac/Linux/others), but I agree that a new interface for consoles would be foolish. It could conceivably work on the iPhone (I played a bit of the SCUMM-based Day of the Tenticle on mine when I had it jailbroken) and other touch-based devices as well as point-and-click desktops, provided there's a lower-resolution version available or it scales nicely.
Granted the interface to get into the game itself on the iPhone was quite clumsy (very much a bad desktop port), but that could be handled automatically by the whole app store thing. Truth be told, that's the kind of game that would be great on the device with only a little bit of interface tweaking (ex. landscape orientation for normal gameplay, flipping to portrait would put you into the savegame menu). As far as resources go, the old stuff runs fine, though obviously anything that requires a precise input gets to be very clunky very fast.
Go watch the Mythbusters on it, then build your own damn rocket out of the tinfoil. I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but this one is very thoroughly debunked.
You're right, but there's still the complete lack of visual appeal that can/will bring. I don't particularly like the implementation of tabs on any of the browsers from an aesthetics standpoint, but I imagine this will end up looking like some sort of grotesque Rolodex.
That's certainly true to a point; however, rigging up a monetized Google Custom Search is all of five minutes work. The behavior to a search at google.com is a tiny bit different (you can also weight the results with keywords; I find this quite helpful for my development work), but the biggest change for them would be that they'd have to change the default home page from google.com/mozillasearch to mozilla.com/googlesearch, and the search box accordingly.
Do know that the Google search isn't anything near their only source of funding. The Amazon search in that top-right search box is an Amazon Affiliate search - tag=mozilla-20 gets added into your Amazon search URL, and they get a minimum of 4% of the purchase price provided you went through their affiliate link last (I don't see why people gripe about this kind of thing so often, it only costs Amazon money, not the purchaser). With the volume that probably does, it's more like 6-8% on most items.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other sources of income for Mozilla, though I'd expect those are the biggest two. And both are structured in such a way that they'd have to be personally blocked from using the affiliate program (unlikely, especially given the bad press), or the program itself would have to be shut down entirely (even more unlikely, as half the internet gets its funding from these things).
Other than it using Webkit rather than Gecko, it sounds like it pretty much will end up as Firefox with a few default extensions and a custom theme. Their interpretation of the awesome bar sounds extremely similar, at the very least.
That depends very much on location. My options here are cable and dial-up. If satellite is even an option (I'm not sure it is, hinted by the complete absence of cell reception), it'd be more than prohibitively expensive, and most certainly capped (my aunt and uncle have sat since they live in the middle of nowhere; there's a very low cap I tripped just getting some software updates once, it's slow to start, and hella expensive).
I'm neither capped nor would I tolerate one (while I think it's against their TOS, my ISP has done nothing to block incoming traffic on any of the 'important' ports, 80 included), but many people at least within the US only have a single broadband option.
Unfortunately, the free market tends to fail when the only option out there can buy out either the competition or the laws that would enable said competition to exist. I applaud Verizon on the whole FIOS thing (not only competition, but great service and pricing from what I hear), but I expect it'll be a cold day in hell before it comes to where I live.
Slashdot Mirror
I use mine at the local market all the time - I'm actually extremely surprised that they have the RFID reader system in place. I've got half a mind to hold my whole wallet up to the thing and see if it reads through the leather and the other cards, but I think my Amex also has one (I have to assume that's what that little chip in the Blue cards is) and I'd really like to not charge a card at random from my wallet. Though truth be told, I'm probably better off using the Amex than the MC (though stores pay significantly higher processing fees on them, so I save the local guys a buck).
Nowhereville, NH for what it's worth. It's not the only place I've seen them, though they're fairly uncommon.
Umm... you do realize that FSM followers are just religious satirists mocking the whole thing, right? I expect the whole idea came from the acid trip of an outspoken atheist.
If they needed to develop their own rendering API, then where the hell does WebKit come into play? Obviously I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that it was the renderer.
I think this would be an appropriate point to go on some mindless yet valid rant against DRM. If ESPN can't get their shit together to make a form show up properly that's one thing (and presumably it doesn't work in any of the Webkit-based browsers out there, and there are quite a few these days - they go well beyond Safari and Chrome), but I think it would be preaching to the choir to point out that content providers tend to be just a little bit overprotective with videos.
Chrome has out of the box some basic features that are really useful and ought to be default in others —cough-FF3,IE-cough— such as spell check enabled by default
I'm not sure what version of Firefox you've got installed, but mine's had inline spellcheck since I first installed it at around version 0.8 (I think they were still having the naming wars back then).
I agree about the plugins though. I've got Chrome in my XP VM (relatively minimal install) and the Click Here To Install Flash Automagically actually worked, something I've NEVER seen in ANY other browser - and I didn't even have to restart the thing afterwords. Now that obviously doesn't cover extensions, but like you said some cross-pollination here would be a Good Thing.
Of course, that's kind of what you'd expect to happen when you start with a fresh codebase for an existing type of product. It's twice as bad with open-source products it seems, but if you've ever looked through the source of, for example, most of the PHP-based web apps out there, you'll really wondering what the hell they were thinking from an architectural standpoint.
It all comes down to personal preference, really.
* Chrome's UI is growing on me a little bit the second time playing around (though I think there's a lot of wasted space with how the tabs are angled). The downloads tab is fairly slick, but the progressbars at the bottom go away if you open the downloads tab and don't come back if you close it. There's certainly work to be done, but not bad for the first beta.
* Firefox is much better in 3.x; at least in OS X, it's a fairly solid theme (not without its quirks, but there you go). Camino still looks a little more OS-native on the Mac than Firefox, but that's what happens when you wrap the Gecko rendering engine in Cocoa rather than XUL.
* I think Safari has the best UI, whereas Opera's makes me slightly nauseous - I honestly like that browser less every time I end up trying it.
* IE, in usual MS fashion, looks a lot better if you've switched XP to classic mode, rather than the gaudy baby-blue you'll otherwise get; I hate most of its design elements and true to the IE name, it's behavioral inconsistencies compared to every other browser on the market are second only to its rendering inconsistencies (it's no IE6, but even still...).
Obviously though, design and aesthetic are very personal things, YMMV, etc.
I'm a little curious as to what version of WebKit Chrome is running, anyways. Either it's not the latest, or somehow the text-shadow CSS property ended up exclusive to OS X Safari.
I know, it's an oddball thing with limited support, but if they're all using the same rendering engine underneath (and they claim that's the case) then that should be consistent. At least everything else works the same, and I suppose it serves me right for giving a little extra fun with a poorly-implemented CSS property. Whatever.
You must not be aware that Google's advertisement program has supported image-based ads for several years at least. Many sites choose to have text-only, but what you said is quite a... wrong statement.
And yes, ABP can and does block Google's ads. The only thing it tends not to get are the small custom affiliate program links (those 125px blocks), not that anyone in their right mind could expect an extension to know what directory holds the ad images on any website out there.
Maybe it's a location thing. For me, flickr is always slow as hell where Facebook is usually pretty speedy. I'd say they both suck for the photo interfaces (which, suffice to say, isn't what you'd expect from a photo sharing site; I'm pretty sure FB and flickr are numbers 1 and 2 in terms of sheer volume).
Not that either site has a lot of gems, for the prospective thief. flickr has more than FB for sure (especially if you know where to look), but it's the "pro" sites (SmugMug, etc) that will tend to have the good stuff.
If you're a professional photographer, then you're not giving out jpegs like candy in the first place. But hypothetically speaking... unless you registered the copyright on the photos (and if you took the time to do so, then you know enough to avoid the situation), there's next to nothing you could actually do in terms of claiming damages. You should be able to get them DMCA'd off the web, but that's about the limit. Certainly your friend uploading your photos couldn't legally transfer any rights as he didn't have any to begin with, but I don't think that Facebook's TOS have ever been tested in this matter.
Generally speaking, the intent of this kind of thing is that you can't sue them for not sharing ad revenue with you. "Publish" includes displaying them on the website, and as they WILL be shown on an ad-laden page, then they're technically being published by Facebook (etc) for FB's profit.
Six seconds? I've got an 8-core Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM and it still takes 30-40min to rip a movie with handbrake (at ~500% CPU usage; h.264 1.5Mbit). I imagine it's largely limited by the speed of the optical drive, but whatever.
Maybe six seconds of user interaction, but that's certainly nowhere near the whole process.
It's easy to ingore the built-in spellcheckers.
Not really. Amazon's affiliate rates are relatively low; regardless, sales increase as a result of having the program in place. The small amount that's lost on affiliate commissions is more than made up for in the additional volume. If that wasn't the case, the program wouldn't exist.
Now that would almost be a valid argument if Amazon had significantly higher prices than most. More often than not, they're either the cheapest or within two percent or so of the cheapest vendor (and Amazon's reputation is easily worth the 2%).
Pizza isn't trademarked.
Except that he does have a website, and there are trademark exceptions when it comes to using your own name.
I always thought anything that required a point-and-click interface was extremely clumsy on the Wii, prior to selling mine. Maybe it was more of an issue with early games, but I found that you'd tire your arm pretty quickly unless you were just resting your hand on your crotch and aiming from there. [insert 'joystick' remark] Even the bow and arrow in Zelda felt much less natural than it should have as compared to swinging around the controller for swordplay.
Well there are SCUMM VM players for most "PC" platforms (which is to say, Win/Mac/Linux/others), but I agree that a new interface for consoles would be foolish. It could conceivably work on the iPhone (I played a bit of the SCUMM-based Day of the Tenticle on mine when I had it jailbroken) and other touch-based devices as well as point-and-click desktops, provided there's a lower-resolution version available or it scales nicely.
Granted the interface to get into the game itself on the iPhone was quite clumsy (very much a bad desktop port), but that could be handled automatically by the whole app store thing. Truth be told, that's the kind of game that would be great on the device with only a little bit of interface tweaking (ex. landscape orientation for normal gameplay, flipping to portrait would put you into the savegame menu). As far as resources go, the old stuff runs fine, though obviously anything that requires a precise input gets to be very clunky very fast.
Go watch the Mythbusters on it, then build your own damn rocket out of the tinfoil. I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but this one is very thoroughly debunked.
You're right, but there's still the complete lack of visual appeal that can/will bring. I don't particularly like the implementation of tabs on any of the browsers from an aesthetics standpoint, but I imagine this will end up looking like some sort of grotesque Rolodex.
That's certainly true to a point; however, rigging up a monetized Google Custom Search is all of five minutes work. The behavior to a search at google.com is a tiny bit different (you can also weight the results with keywords; I find this quite helpful for my development work), but the biggest change for them would be that they'd have to change the default home page from google.com/mozillasearch to mozilla.com/googlesearch, and the search box accordingly.
Do know that the Google search isn't anything near their only source of funding. The Amazon search in that top-right search box is an Amazon Affiliate search - tag=mozilla-20 gets added into your Amazon search URL, and they get a minimum of 4% of the purchase price provided you went through their affiliate link last (I don't see why people gripe about this kind of thing so often, it only costs Amazon money, not the purchaser). With the volume that probably does, it's more like 6-8% on most items.
I'm sure that there are plenty of other sources of income for Mozilla, though I'd expect those are the biggest two. And both are structured in such a way that they'd have to be personally blocked from using the affiliate program (unlikely, especially given the bad press), or the program itself would have to be shut down entirely (even more unlikely, as half the internet gets its funding from these things).
It does, or something very similar to it. Or at least that's how I interpreted the drawings.
Other than it using Webkit rather than Gecko, it sounds like it pretty much will end up as Firefox with a few default extensions and a custom theme. Their interpretation of the awesome bar sounds extremely similar, at the very least.
That depends very much on location. My options here are cable and dial-up. If satellite is even an option (I'm not sure it is, hinted by the complete absence of cell reception), it'd be more than prohibitively expensive, and most certainly capped (my aunt and uncle have sat since they live in the middle of nowhere; there's a very low cap I tripped just getting some software updates once, it's slow to start, and hella expensive).
I'm neither capped nor would I tolerate one (while I think it's against their TOS, my ISP has done nothing to block incoming traffic on any of the 'important' ports, 80 included), but many people at least within the US only have a single broadband option.
Unfortunately, the free market tends to fail when the only option out there can buy out either the competition or the laws that would enable said competition to exist. I applaud Verizon on the whole FIOS thing (not only competition, but great service and pricing from what I hear), but I expect it'll be a cold day in hell before it comes to where I live.
They only get laid once. Then they get used repeatedly. I'm sure they pay for themselves & then some.
That phrase is the perfect description of Slashdot as a whole.
Right. But it's long-since been accepted as synonymous with 'quantity of data transferred', even if it's technically incorrect.