Naming is just fine, but it is in the end the service the application provides that counts.
Basically, for an average user browsing around on the solid sites of the web, what he sees in the actuall browser widget is mostly the same thing.
Actually, I bet that to the average user, the difference between FireFox and Explorer is like two black TV-sets, with the same screen size, the same picture quality, the same controlls on the front, and just a few minor differences.
To a nerd like me, FireFox _feels_ better for a hundrered reasons, but this is because I notice a ton of elements to fine for a normal user to care much about.
I bet that if a sysadmin put FireFox as the "Internet" shortcut in the XP Start Menu, they will use it, but not care. (Perhaps over time some will begin to like it better than IE, and become patriots tho', as with the Mac. "Downgrading" form FireFox to IE will probably be felt more than upgrading the oposite direction).
But since Explorer and FireFox offer basically the same experience these days, the only thing that can get FireFox popular are:
- Sysadmins - Making FireFox a "must-have" by marketing it as something cool (compuer mags, advertisements) - M$ not improving IE further for a few years.
But I love the fact that we have FireFox now. It is an excellent browser.
I did a series of suggestions for Syllable a while back, and had planned to start working on it. My life changed around a bit, and sadly I could not. Seems none else picked up the thread either.
The things I suggest is not _that_ far from the new Spotligh feature, allbeit somewhat more radical (=
"Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space?"
Personally, I don't think it is needed for a long time. First of all, more communications will probably be moved down to earth using high-flying aircrafts over longer time, unless somebody (Like the guys who use microwaves and laser to fire stuff into the sky) with a cheaper launch technique succeeds. Secondly, its not actually THAT big a problem, and a clean up effort will most likely be a major undertaking. I bet it's cheaper to protect and move spacecraft away from the trash rather than removing it.
IF they were to do a cleanup, I bet it would be when space finaly is commericialised, and more spacestations and flights are run. My guess of a timescope? 75-150 years. We can do it today, bu it cost to much, just like normal flight back in the yearly 20th century. Ne technology is being developed that may change all of this. Again, I love the idea of using laser to fire off a craft, imaging a solar powered launch facility using solid-state lasers, cheap, clean and efficent.
My guess would be using small drones flying around on solar power, just pushing the trash down into the atmosphere.
We are talking Steve Jobs here, the man who pulled the Geforce 3 cards for a long time since NVidia spoke about the Cube, the man who throws computers after lazy workers...
May Steve have mercy on the poor programmer who did this...
I imaging in a few years:"Just a second, I'm downloading new drivers for my Car" will be a common phrease, and mechanics are now reduced to recompiling the kernel.
Linus then states that the brakes WILL be fixed in the next release.
Starchaser has had a bery successfull line of launches, and is actually sponsored by Microsoft.
This is not "yeat another" in the sence that is is some rich freak that has way to much time, and builds him/herself a rocket...
Steve Bennett is also very dedicated, and is one of the few I actually think can make it into space...the only question is if these rockets are powerfull enough to ship large amounts of material.
I'm still holding my money on laster boosted lightcraft technology!
The Norwegian BigBrother just ended, and I have to say my feelings towards this show is quite good. I set my mind not to judge the show before I had seen it for myself, unlike so many "intellectual" people who cry out all the time about super-comercial TV-shows.
Norway actually had the highest amount of people watching BigBrother relative to the nations population anythime. (some speculated this was due to strong restictions of porn...dunno about that...)
I do not know how the.no version comapres to the international versions, but one thing was for sure: this was not a bad entertainment program! Sure, there eventually ended up being comflicts in the bunker, but what was very interesting to see, was all the different sides to the problems. It was almost an educating show. It was also an exiting phsycological part, as how people behave under these forms of stress.
Naturally, there where bad sides to it as well, but BigBrother.no was a fully aceptable TV show, that didn't hurt anybody, nor destroyes the moral of the viewers. The people claiming this are either very old-fashion, or religious, and have no contact with the larger young masses. The behaviour of the people in the house was much as that of a normal norwegian at that age. They where also smart, and had many interesting discussions.
Now, as BB may have been acceptable, there is a limit. I think this limit comes right after BB. How much further can you have it go? Temtations Island? A show where people have to commit crimes to survive? Any show that goes TOWARDS the accepted behaviour of a society, and encurrages those, should not be shown. THAT is where the limit goes if you ask me. BB did not do this, and if "Temtations Island" does, we'll see (the show is comming here right over summer).
Also, many of those who complain may forget that the average working citizen wants to be entertained. They just want structure in their lives, and thus is happy whit his work, TV show, and beer. Every thing on TV cannot be intellectually stimulating...
He's comment on blindfold testing by professionals:
Gee. I think some doctor in New York is doing that for me right now. Our company cannot afford to do this kind of expensive research at this stage. This kind of research would cost hundreds of thousands. I rather use that money on advertising. Testimonials are enough to convince people for now. I think even if I did the research mentioned above, it would be a total waste of money because if those people don't believe in the testimonials, they won't believe in the research at all. They would say that I made it all up. So why waste money?
(I just read this far, as I have physics exams tomorrow and need to be somewhat quick)
A. If a medical journal posted a review of you technique, that told it really did cure cancer, aging or whatever, the PR/marketing value of this would be undescribable. There would not be a SINGLE individual on the face of this planet who would NOT want hi's stuff!
B. This is a typical way of showing a dissbelive in science and traditional ways of thinking. Although the placebo effect may come into play and help people, this is no better than religion healing, and he HAS to realise this, unless he don't want to, or have no interest in seeing his product's miracle proven.
C. If he realises the two point abow, how could he affoard NOT to do it? Imagin you sitting on the source of eternal youth, and NOT wanting everbody in the world to have this? He has to be the world's BIGGEST ego!
Now, the real point of mine is that these things have been seen so many times before, although his claims are quite strong. Non-scientifict stuff sounds much simpler, and many many people buy it. "Religion is opium for the masses" said marx, and this is not far from.
Have 50000 docors say this is a reality, and I'll buy a 25$ ring.
Physicist John Pendry of London's Imperial College has said that a material with a "negative refraction" would make possible the construction of a lens capable of focusing light to limits not currently achievable.
Could this affect the power of todays lasers?
There would be plenty of effects from that, take laserweapons, laser-booster lightcraft technology, much "cooler" physics experiments in class etc. ect.
This totaly depends on the level of computerising in the enemy army.
We have no guarantee that our enemy would even use a network that we/you could connect to, much less crack in such a way that a vital system could be knocked out.
Slashdot Mirror
20Tb is of course refers to the current bandwithd requested of the server a seconds from slashdot users ;)
Naming is just fine, but it is in the end the service the application provides that counts.
Basically, for an average user browsing around on the solid sites of the web, what he sees in the actuall browser widget is mostly the same thing.
Actually, I bet that to the average user, the difference between FireFox and Explorer is like two black TV-sets, with the same screen size, the same picture quality, the same controlls on the front, and just a few minor differences.
To a nerd like me, FireFox _feels_ better for a hundrered reasons, but this is because I notice a ton of elements to fine for a normal user to care much about.
I bet that if a sysadmin put FireFox as the "Internet" shortcut in the XP Start Menu, they will use it, but not care. (Perhaps over time some will begin to like it better than IE, and become patriots tho', as with the Mac. "Downgrading" form FireFox to IE will probably be felt more than upgrading the oposite direction).
But since Explorer and FireFox offer basically the same experience these days, the only thing that can get FireFox popular are:
- Sysadmins
- Making FireFox a "must-have" by marketing it as something cool (compuer mags, advertisements)
- M$ not improving IE further for a few years.
But I love the fact that we have FireFox now. It is an excellent browser.
Cheers,
. K
Just thinking...
. K
If you look at the bottom of the page, there is a small notice saying:
Litiholo film makes transmission holograms, viewable with laser or LED light included in kit.
Kind of spoils the fun, I think. Small type usually does.
Love,
. K
Hello.
I did a series of suggestions for Syllable a while back, and had planned to start working on it. My life changed around a bit, and sadly I could not. Seems none else picked up the thread either.
The things I suggest is not _that_ far from the new Spotligh feature, allbeit somewhat more radical (=
www.knutsi.com/syllable
. K
Scientists have dicovered there is intelligent life on planet Microsoft! Wait.... that would be Earth.
Mvh:
- Knut S.
...it has to be a good day at the Slashdot office. I'm ceritanly glad I'm not hired to read trough the submissions today ;)
Regards:
- Knut S.
...NEWS FOR NERDS, would it not?
;)
Sorry.
Mvh:
- Knut S.
Untill something goes terroibly wrong....
;) Like say, and infinite loop exit error while adding the stuff...
"Mr. Kinch uses a Linux box configured with several shell scripts to control the chlorination levels of his pool.""
Imagine what would happen if there was a big bug
Mvh:
- Knut S.
To my mailbox, several a day!
Mvh:
- Knut S.
Choose not to click!
"Hey you guys! We FINALY got our Lisa server up an running..."
(and this is where it all goes wrong)
"...lets tell SHLASHDOT!"
CPU speed: 5 Mhz
FPU: None
motherboard RAM: 512 k
maximum RAM: 2MB (via 3rd party upgrade)
"Anyone want to bet on how long it will be before we have to establish some sort of clean-up effort in space?"
Personally, I don't think it is needed for a long time. First of all, more communications will probably be moved down to earth using high-flying aircrafts over longer time, unless somebody (Like the guys who use microwaves and laser to fire stuff into the sky) with a cheaper launch technique succeeds. Secondly, its not actually THAT big a problem, and a clean up effort will most likely be a major undertaking. I bet it's cheaper to protect and move spacecraft away from the trash rather than removing it.
IF they were to do a cleanup, I bet it would be when space finaly is commericialised, and more spacestations and flights are run. My guess of a timescope? 75-150 years. We can do it today, bu it cost to much, just like normal flight back in the yearly 20th century. Ne technology is being developed that may change all of this. Again, I love the idea of using laser to fire off a craft, imaging a solar powered launch facility using solid-state lasers, cheap, clean and efficent.
My guess would be using small drones flying around on solar power, just pushing the trash down into the atmosphere.
Mvh:
- Knut S.
I stand corrected... (=
We are talking Steve Jobs here, the man who pulled the Geforce 3 cards for a long time since NVidia spoke about the Cube, the man who throws computers after lazy workers...
May Steve have mercy on the poor programmer who did this...
Mvh:
- Knut S.
Is it me, or is Linux everywhere these days?
I imaging in a few years:"Just a second, I'm downloading new drivers for my Car" will be a common phrease, and mechanics are now reduced to recompiling the kernel.
Linus then states that the brakes WILL be fixed in the next release.
Mvh:
- Knut S.
"Due to a computer glitch at NASA, there will be a hailstorm over Oslo tonight."
Mvh:
- Knut S.
Starchaser has had a bery successfull line of launches, and is actually sponsored by Microsoft.
This is not "yeat another" in the sence that is is some rich freak that has way to much time, and builds him/herself a rocket...
Steve Bennett is also very dedicated, and is one of the few I actually think can make it into space...the only question is if these rockets are powerfull enough to ship large amounts of material.
I'm still holding my money on laster boosted lightcraft technology!
Mvh:
- Knut S.
The link leads to a site called "Celebrety Nude Database"!
;P
Now my life is complete!
Mvh:
- Knut S.
Was it taht badd?
The Norwegian BigBrother just ended, and I have to say my feelings towards this show is quite good. I set my mind not to judge the show before I had seen it for myself, unlike so many "intellectual" people who cry out all the time about super-comercial TV-shows.
.no version comapres to the international versions, but one thing was for sure: this was not a bad entertainment program! Sure, there eventually ended up being comflicts in the bunker, but what was very interesting to see, was all the different sides to the problems. It was almost an educating show. It was also an exiting phsycological part, as how people behave under these forms of stress.
Norway actually had the highest amount of people watching BigBrother relative to the nations population anythime. (some speculated this was due to strong restictions of porn...dunno about that...)
I do not know how the
Naturally, there where bad sides to it as well, but BigBrother.no was a fully aceptable TV show, that didn't hurt anybody, nor destroyes the moral of the viewers. The people claiming this are either very old-fashion, or religious, and have no contact with the larger young masses. The behaviour of the people in the house was much as that of a normal norwegian at that age. They where also smart, and had many interesting discussions.
Now, as BB may have been acceptable, there is a limit. I think this limit comes right after BB. How much further can you have it go? Temtations Island? A show where people have to commit crimes to survive? Any show that goes TOWARDS the accepted behaviour of a society, and encurrages those, should not be shown. THAT is where the limit goes if you ask me. BB did not do this, and if "Temtations Island" does, we'll see (the show is comming here right over summer).
Also, many of those who complain may forget that the average working citizen wants to be entertained. They just want structure in their lives, and thus is happy whit his work, TV show, and beer. Every thing on TV cannot be intellectually stimulating...
Mvh
- Knut S.
He's comment on blindfold testing by professionals:
Gee. I think some doctor in New York is doing that for me right now. Our company cannot afford to do this kind of expensive research at this stage. This kind of research would cost hundreds of thousands. I rather use that money on advertising. Testimonials are enough to convince people for now. I think even if I did the research mentioned above, it would be a total waste of money because if those people don't believe in the testimonials, they won't believe in the research at all. They would say that I made it all up. So why waste money?
(I just read this far, as I have physics exams tomorrow and need to be somewhat quick)
A. If a medical journal posted a review of you technique, that told it really did cure cancer, aging or whatever, the PR/marketing value of this would be undescribable. There would not be a SINGLE individual on the face of this planet who would NOT want hi's stuff!
B. This is a typical way of showing a dissbelive in science and traditional ways of thinking. Although the placebo effect may come into play and help people, this is no better than religion healing, and he HAS to realise this, unless he don't want to, or have no interest in seeing his product's miracle proven.
C. If he realises the two point abow, how could he affoard NOT to do it? Imagin you sitting on the source of eternal youth, and NOT wanting everbody in the world to have this? He has to be the world's BIGGEST ego!
Now, the real point of mine is that these things have been seen so many times before, although his claims are quite strong. Non-scientifict stuff sounds much simpler, and many many people buy it. "Religion is opium for the masses" said marx, and this is not far from.
Have 50000 docors say this is a reality, and I'll buy a 25$ ring.
Mvh:
- Knut S.
damn, forgot to log inn (=
Physicist John Pendry of London's Imperial College has said that a material with a "negative refraction" would make possible the construction of a lens capable of focusing light to limits not currently achievable.
Could this affect the power of todays lasers?
There would be plenty of effects from that, take laserweapons, laser-booster lightcraft technology, much "cooler" physics experiments in class etc. ect.
- Knut S.
May just be me being lame
This totaly depends on the level of computerising in the enemy army.
We have no guarantee that our enemy would even use a network that we/you could connect to, much less crack in such a way that a vital system could be knocked out.
- Knut S. May just be me bing lame