It was started by the KDE team. Sure, Apple grabbed it and did a bunch of work with it, but that does not mean saying it's good is sucking Steve's member.
The browsers that have picked it up show that it's good. Those are of course Safari and Chrome, which is part of the reason why their numbers are awfully close in the comparisons. But it doesn't stop there, WebKit has also been picked up by Epiphany, iCab, OmniWeb, and Uzbl to name a few. WebKit is also likely the most popular rendering engines on mobiles, being on the iPhone, Blackberry and Symbian.
Yes, Google's JS engine is very different and nice. Yes, there are many differences between the browsers above. Even so, one must admit the renderer has a lot to do with the overall responsiveness and quality. And, well, WebKit is the best renderer. It's being adopted by other desktop browsers, being used on many different mobiles, and is consistently very good in the accuracy and speed tests.
Finally, I don't particularly care for Apple. I have one, it's nice, but I'm using my Ubuntu box with Chrome today. So... go do whatever successful trolls do and have a wonderful day.
They like to reboot when they are low on RAM- check what you have running in the background and/or just unjailbreak it, there's not much point to a jailbroken iPhone (especially non-3GS) these days anyhow.
Specifically designed to teach tweens how to program. Essentially is Java, but with instant, graphical results, which, as a few others have pointed out, is important to keep new learners interested.
My wife took a college course which used ALICE to introduce programming- if it worked for her, it will work for anyone.
Isn't "Technology" Exactly how we created distracted drivers?
I, for one, feel that the more we try and fix this problem, and the problem of road safety in general, the more of a problem it will become. We're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver, and as such, we're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at, frankly, ridiculous speeds.
Safety innovations such as traction control, ABS, and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves (Mercedes S Class) have, no doubt, saved lives. But they've certainly helped allow for driver distraction (via safety complacency, and being able to get away with maneuvers you shouldn't) at least as much as the in-dash radio. Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.
I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them. When most people had manual transmissions, no ABS, and long braking distances. People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to.
The SRBs are not the problem, it was putting the crew compartment beside them that was the problem.
No, the problem is that solid fuel motors are difficult to control, can't be shut off or throttled, and cause massive vibration. Putting the SRB on the bottom is merely a hack to try and get around these core problems.
Ares-specific problems include the vibration causing the upper stage to be redesigned with more structural integrity, which dropped the effective payload enough that the capabilities of the Orion capsule had to be revisited and limited. There are even new launch weather requirements, because the rocket is now at the mercy of upper level winds when it approaches Max-Q. A liquid rocket could throttle back as needed, the Ares, not so much.
Someone replied to me above saying that they think these issues with solid fuel can be addressed- and I'm all for that- but as things are now, I really don't feel it's fit for human transport. Great for shooting off Estes rockets in your back yard. Not so much for sending people.
In the first accident, if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET, it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing,
Capsule Escape rockets have similar altitude limitations.
The second accident wouldn't have happened with a capsule rocket, because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack.
I don't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident.
The second accident, and for that matter, the first- would not have happened if the boosters had used liquid fuel. Challenger was due to loss of control of the burn, which pretty much doesn't happen with a liquid rocket. Columbia was due to chunks of ice being shaken free by the SRB's vibration.
There are reasons why in Soviet Russia the Buran used only liquid fuel.
The foam came from the ET. Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam (the amount of CFCs in one ET's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident.
Even after many foam changes, we still have ice falling today. Have through the entire Shuttle program. Why? Vibration. Liquid rockets vibrate less, are more controllable, and can be throttled. It's a better way to go. Sure, solid fuel rockets are simpler and cheaper, but I don't see why one couldn't build a reusable liquid bottom stage (SSMEs are reusable, obviously). The benefits should outweigh the costs.
Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime?
That's not a nice thing to assume. I have read it, I just came to different conclusions. Don't assume I'm ignorant just because my conclusions don't match up with yours.
Am still not a fan of the Ares design. I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) and as such feel that it's technology which should not be used for human flight. Ares I scales up use of the solid booster- Ares V, even more.
Don't get me wrong. I love the space program. I live in Florida and have a NASA tag on my car. I'm a year-pass holder for the visitor's complex. I just think that the Ares is a really bad design, influenced by contractors trying to hold on to their existing work, and it's going to hurt everything in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS
Way to Apple-ize an opens source project. Yay.
It was started by the KDE team. Sure, Apple grabbed it and did a bunch of work with it, but that does not mean saying it's good is sucking Steve's member.
The browsers that have picked it up show that it's good. Those are of course Safari and Chrome, which is part of the reason why their numbers are awfully close in the comparisons. But it doesn't stop there, WebKit has also been picked up by Epiphany, iCab, OmniWeb, and Uzbl to name a few. WebKit is also likely the most popular rendering engines on mobiles, being on the iPhone, Blackberry and Symbian.
Yes, Google's JS engine is very different and nice. Yes, there are many differences between the browsers above. Even so, one must admit the renderer has a lot to do with the overall responsiveness and quality. And, well, WebKit is the best renderer. It's being adopted by other desktop browsers, being used on many different mobiles, and is consistently very good in the accuracy and speed tests.
Finally, I don't particularly care for Apple. I have one, it's nice, but I'm using my Ubuntu box with Chrome today. So... go do whatever successful trolls do and have a wonderful day.
It's not so much the browser as it is the renderer, and, well, Safari and Chrome are naturally close because they are both using WebKit.
And WebKit is the best and fastest renderer in the world.
Cue the Blue People and Human Mercenary Invaders!
Honestly, that's not that hard to do.
I mean really. Most guys are interested in, at most, three things. And at least two of them are sex and food.
China will love this idea.
My linux box has an uptime of 537 days. No lie.
They like to reboot when they are low on RAM- check what you have running in the background and/or just unjailbreak it, there's not much point to a jailbroken iPhone (especially non-3GS) these days anyhow.
http://alice.org/
Specifically designed to teach tweens how to program. Essentially is Java, but with instant, graphical results, which, as a few others have pointed out, is important to keep new learners interested.
My wife took a college course which used ALICE to introduce programming- if it worked for her, it will work for anyone.
Release it and do the same with OS X shortly thereafter.
This sort of bickering makes me like ARM even more.
Write a spec, let anyone build it. Done.
Please Mod Parent Troll.
Site is pretty much slashdotted at the moment.
Isn't "Technology" Exactly how we created distracted drivers?
I, for one, feel that the more we try and fix this problem, and the problem of road safety in general, the more of a problem it will become. We're off-loading more and more responsibility and decision making off the driver, and as such, we're allowing the driver to not concentrate on what they are doing - piloting several tons worth of steel at, frankly, ridiculous speeds.
Safety innovations such as traction control, ABS, and cars that stay in their own lane and stop themselves (Mercedes S Class) have, no doubt, saved lives. But they've certainly helped allow for driver distraction (via safety complacency, and being able to get away with maneuvers you shouldn't) at least as much as the in-dash radio. Perhaps as much as the Cell Phone.
I really miss the days when cars required attention to drive them. When most people had manual transmissions, no ABS, and long braking distances. People payed more attention to what they were doing because they had to.
LISTEN TO THIS MAN.
... that we've already transferred terrestrial bacteria via the robots that we've sent there?
I think, if it's possible (may not be, because of the trip), it puts science and Mars in general in an interesting situation.
I agree completely, but I still have issues with the design.
I said the same with fewer words below, and managed to get flamed. If you've avoided any flames, well played.
The Ares is a bad design. It just is.
The SRBs are not the problem, it was putting the crew compartment beside them that was the problem.
No, the problem is that solid fuel motors are difficult to control, can't be shut off or throttled, and cause massive vibration. Putting the SRB on the bottom is merely a hack to try and get around these core problems.
Ares-specific problems include the vibration causing the upper stage to be redesigned with more structural integrity, which dropped the effective payload enough that the capabilities of the Orion capsule had to be revisited and limited. There are even new launch weather requirements, because the rocket is now at the mercy of upper level winds when it approaches Max-Q. A liquid rocket could throttle back as needed, the Ares, not so much.
Someone replied to me above saying that they think these issues with solid fuel can be addressed- and I'm all for that- but as things are now, I really don't feel it's fit for human transport. Great for shooting off Estes rockets in your back yard. Not so much for sending people.
In the first accident, if it had been possible to instantly detach from the SRBs and ET, it might have been difficult for the ponderous shuttle to turn to an attitude capable of a safe landing,
Capsule Escape rockets have similar altitude limitations.
The second accident wouldn't have happened with a capsule rocket, because the heat shield is inherently protected during launch due to its position in the middle of the stack.
I don't know how you can blame the SRBs for the second accident.
The second accident, and for that matter, the first- would not have happened if the boosters had used liquid fuel. Challenger was due to loss of control of the burn, which pretty much doesn't happen with a liquid rocket. Columbia was due to chunks of ice being shaken free by the SRB's vibration.
There are reasons why in Soviet Russia the Buran used only liquid fuel.
The foam came from the ET. Requiring the Shuttle ET to use CFC-free foam (the amount of CFCs in one ET's worth of foam is probably infinitesimal compared to even one day's sales of spray cans and foam manufacturing) contributed to the foam problems that caused the second accident.
Even after many foam changes, we still have ice falling today. Have through the entire Shuttle program. Why? Vibration. Liquid rockets vibrate less, are more controllable, and can be throttled. It's a better way to go. Sure, solid fuel rockets are simpler and cheaper, but I don't see why one couldn't build a reusable liquid bottom stage (SSMEs are reusable, obviously). The benefits should outweigh the costs.
Maybe you should read an actual shuttle accident report sometime?
That's not a nice thing to assume. I have read it, I just came to different conclusions. Don't assume I'm ignorant just because my conclusions don't match up with yours.
Am still not a fan of the Ares design. I feel that the solid boosters are to blame for both of the Shuttle disasters (Challenger, directly, and Columbia and other ice impacts due to their extreme vibration) and as such feel that it's technology which should not be used for human flight. Ares I scales up use of the solid booster- Ares V, even more.
Don't get me wrong. I love the space program. I live in Florida and have a NASA tag on my car. I'm a year-pass holder for the visitor's complex. I just think that the Ares is a really bad design, influenced by contractors trying to hold on to their existing work, and it's going to hurt everything in the long run.
Now This Comment... This comment was a Triumph. The previous ones, not so much.
Mod Parent Up.
This is seriously the only reason I've ever seen to use a Surface. Cool technology, sure, but until today, entirely useless.
And I don't think that having a D&D concept pushes Surface from 'entirely useless' to any form of relevance.
The idea behind turning off a monitor is to save power- but constantly polling an environment with active sonar uses power.
Polling is bad. Events are good. I say leave it like it is.
... the DOE stated.
Seriously, if it exists, you can find it here.