Once in a while there are things that really makes a difference. On top of my list is that a browser should never lose my data. On the whole Opera is pretty good in this regard, but it has a huge gaping hole in its armour. If you type in text and the window is closed, you can restore the window but the text is lost. This is almost adding insult to injury, as you can see the empty space where the text you worked so hard at used to be. This excruciatingly horrible bug has a name, 155102, and has been known for a while now, but for a number of reasons it has taken time to fix.
The workaround is simple: Never put anything valuable directly into a textarea. I have used Notes, I have used mail compose windows, I have used external programs. They all have their disadvantages. Copy to note (Ctrl+Shift+C) is particularly convenient and very robust, but you end up with your notes full of half-written texts, and with Opera Link those texts are synchronised to every Opera client you have, which in my case is quite a few. Opera Mail and external programs often mangle whitespace. The biggest problem with all workarounds is that you don't always know you're going to write a long text, and the web page text entry boxes are alluringly convenient.
I am fairly active in the forums, and while I could do the workarounds above, or make sure to preview often, which usually does the trick, in practice I am too lazy to do either. So when I lost and had to retype a longer post yesterday, and lost another one today, I decided I couldn't wait any longer, so I downloaded Firefox 3 and Opera 10 alpha. Firefox is reported to restore user entered text, though when I tested it it didn't work. Maybe I have to find some particular extension. The bug isn't fixed in 10 alpha either, so I am back to Opera 9, looking for a better way out. Suggestions would be appreciated.
Eating, drinking, socialising, and being on the Internet has occupied large parts of my life anyway, but I enjoy organising as well. Today the first major event I've helped with, a night at the Opera, will be live this night. For Opera employees in Oslo this may be familiar, the Underwater pub nearby the Opera HQ has opera nights Tuesdays and Thursdays, and have had it for years, and it is a favourite Opera hangout.
Still, the Chinese-Czech musical connection is fascinating and appealing, we'll see how it works out tonight. See you there?
As you can deduce from this blog and writings elsewhere, New Scientist is my favourite magazine, and I have read practically every issue the last twenty years. While generally of quality there have been some duds among the articles and issues. This issue is among the worst. New Scientist has changed through generations of editors, but retaining many of the strengths and weaknesses. It has never done economy well, and most of the time it has been weak in information technology, doing better these days. Whatever your viewpoints this issue was bad economics, anyone reading it would not learn anything about economy from it, and whatever they learned would be more likely to be wrong than right. Through a Global warming thread in the forums I was pointed to a rebuttal from The Register (of all places), as the errors were basic and numerous that saves me some time. What dismayed me more with this issue was bad science. I would love to see a scientific outlook on the "dismal science", where you can find much folly indeed. New Scientist here wasted a good opportunity. I know how hard it is to make a special issue work well, you depend greatly on the contributors and the editors to turn the disparate articles into a coherent whole, and reject the articles that can't be improved. I don't know who declined to participate, but of the contributions several articles should never have been published in New Scientist. Several contributors were recycled from the old-style ecological movement. This in itself was bad judgement, they have repeatedly been shown to have poor domain expertise. Traditionally ecologist have had poor grasp of economy and vice versa, which can seem odd given that both are working with complex dynamic systems that in many ways are similar. I would pick out Tim Jackson's article Why politicians dare not limit economic growth as particularly badly written, he should stick to writing letters to the editor, or at least do some research. I pick on him for an article with no substance and horrible style.
Originally posted by Tim Jackson:
I in particular take exception to this language, I don't expect to see arguments by the "blindingly obvious" in New Scientist, this is a scientific journal, not a religious one. If this had been a post in our own Debates & Discussions he would be promptly shot down. This is not to say that there was no thought-provoking content in this issue, but what was there to be found was badly edited and hidden by the chaff. The editor of New Scientist, Jeremy Webb, may right that NS should be an ideas magazine and not
The message from all this is clear: any alternative to growth remains unthinkable, even 40 years after the American ecologists Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren made some blindingly obvious points about the arithmetic of relentless consumption.
The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.
Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP - in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today's technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today's global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.
Which happens to be today. The topic is HTML5 is happening, the speaker is Martin Hassman, and the talk will be held in Czech, with discussion in any language you like. The place is the Chinese restaurant Dobrý Den nearby the Flora metro station, the time is 18:00.
I tentatively put up "Crazy frog" (Axel F) in position #8, but I am really not good with lists, particularly not with music lists. Maybe you can come up with some suggestions?
The only way it can be revived is if the Irish somehow decide to change their collective minds. How likely do you think that is? Discussion at the forum.
While constitutionally the EU treaties isn't getting anywhere fast, the European countries and people are growing more integrated. Maybe it is time for the EU to swap the bike for a more stable vehicle,
This 17% rise in a single day and a similar fall earlier when a disappointing result was posted is fair enough, this can be seen as a reaction to real performance by Opera, but most share price movements have not been a result of changes in Opera's profitabilities or potential. My experience of Opera Software is as a serious longterm company, my experience of Oslo Stock Exchange (OSE), where Opera is listed, is the very opposite. OSE has had a terrible reputation in the past, and there is no indication that it is any better in the present. In my view OSE has been, is, and will be gamed, and there is not much to lead you to believe that the Norwegian government will apply the same rules of transparency to it as it does to itself. OSE is no more trustworthy than most emerging market bourses.
As an Opera employee I reflected that it was probably possible to make (or lose) more money on short-trading the Opera stock than what it would be as an employee. Due to insider trader consideration short term trading was inconvenient to say the least, but it was pretty obvious that the market had little understanding of the consequences of an event, reacting strongly to an inconsequential event and ignoring an important one. It was also a useful lesson in why not to invest in the company you are working for, not so much due to spreading risk as due to the delay in buyng/selling stock.
I could go into trading, at least on a hobby basis. Two things hold me back, high transaction costs and a distrust of OSE. That said, longer term fundamentals always matter, some of the time.
The first graph, cumulative users per month, isn't very interesting unless you're into marketing or wonder how well Opera Mini fares, even then it is less useful than the two other graphs for page views and data consumed that tells something about how much it is used as opposed to how often it is installed, and the use grows considerably faster than the number of installs. The consumption table is particularly freaky, what happened in December that almost doubled the traffic (and increased the number of pageview by almost a half)? In November Mini 4.0 was released. That the data consumption increased faster than the number of pages viewed would either mean that people were viewing more advanced (or bloated) pages than they did before, that the data compression is less efficient than 3.0, or both.
The bigger story is that five times as much traffic is handled this March than a year ago, and though the columns are too small to measure precisely that in turn was five times as much as March 2006. So will the current 1 terabyte of data every day turn into 5 terabytes by 2009? By the guesstimate that Opera Mini uses a quarter of Norway's bandwidth, they should be using five quarters of the bandwidth by then...
Of more general interest would be which sites are visited, but I am missing the PC top 10 for the different countries to compare results. The variability from a country to the next is pretty high, possibly higher than desktop. I also wonder how the sites are classified.
If social network sites are relatively more commonly accessed on a phone than on a PC, it would fit my tenet that a phone is a more social device than a PC. A high number of searches wouldn't be surprising either, you get the answer where you are, and now you have a fair chance of getting the answer before you forget the question too.
Originally posted by xErath:
Just to have it over with, we agree. I may be a Microsoft groupie at heart, but I don't have time for OOXML. People who want to discuss OOXML should feel free to do so, elsewhere. More interesting is this part:
There's enough info online about the deficiencies of ooxml. I don't need to quote them here.
First, I have come to realise that the phrase "it is a complete mess" is a shorthand for "it works very well, and I don't think it should". In fact the Web is a remarkably sane place. We have millions of monkeys making Web code every day, and it works. The Web is more like an ecosystem than an engine, you don't stop and "repair" it, it is survival of the fittest. If you look at Web code written today and ten years ago the old code was worse and still achieved less. The Web has evolved and it keeps evolving.
HTML5 is a big patch over HTML4, made to be backwards compatible with the complete mess that is the web.
ODF on the other hand is a clean approach to define an abstract model of document formats. Then ODF has many features that html5 will never have nor will make any sense. I doubt html5 will ever include native spreadsheets support, slide transitions, page footers and headers... you name it. ODF will not support local databases nor globalStorage.
Much of my work at Opera has been with standards, and standards don't matter. Having standards does, but as long as they are reasonably sane it doesn't matter what they are. The latest standards debacle in Norway wasn't related to browsers but with office products, word processors and the like, with the competing standards called ODF and OOXML.
ODF is not a good standard. You can read through the entire spec and will find nothing clever there. Anything ODF can do HTML5 can do better. Add cursor position to HTML5 and it could have been called ODF 2.0. What it has going for it is the absence of bad. Microsoft makes good standards, much of the time. OOXML is not one of those times, what it is lacking is the absence of bad. Could it be fixed? Probably, but to me it isn't worth it.
As for Web standards I think it should be an optional for Opera. Opera should encourage the presence of standards, and follow them unless they are bad, but it shouldn't necessarily form them. Opera should do what makes its users happy.
Opera Mini makes me happy. It lets me do things I couldn't do before. This entry was intended to be typed in on Opera Mini while I was on the move, but in the end it was typed in on a PC. It wasn't written in Opera Mini because Opera Mini isn't data loss safe, without copy&paste or save I can easily lose what I write, and data loss does not make me happy.
Being unemployed makes me happy as well, for now anyway. It's been a long while since the last time, as the last few times I changed jobs I went directly from one to the next. It is almost the same elated feeling as being homeless. I haven't actually been homeless in the sense that I own one flat and rent another, but I have adapted to a mobile lifestyle and from time to time I've not known where I will spend the next night and that is a strong feeling of freedom (until nightfall) — I can go whereever I want. I have used to claim that the bag in my one hand is my office, containing my laptop and other work stuff, and the bag in my other hand is my home, containing clothes and other private stuff. For now I can move with one bag less.
[/IMG]While I am an early adopter in the sense that I quickly visited the new stations, I actually never have bothered to be there at the opening (not the official opening, but when it opened its service for the public a couple hours later). With the next station opening in 2013 at earliest I took the trip to the suburbs where the three new stations, Střížkov-Prosek-Letňany, were located, or at least two of them. The terminus, Letňany, is placed in the middle of an empty field. There's an small planes airport nearby and it is just between two large suburbs (Letňany and Kbely). Supposedly the location could come handy if Prague won its 2016 Olympic bid, which is not going to happen. The station is integrated with a nice new bus terminal, as well as a new Park and Ride, so the communications in this part of town still have improved.
[/IMG]What's more the station itself is pretty in blue-tinted glass and highly reflective chrome (at least for now). The most noticeable station of the three is still Střížkov. This dome looks like how the future could be imagined in the 1930s, or progressive architecture concepts from the 1970s. Open, light, and practical. Absent at the opening was commerce, no shops and no pubs or bistros. I can only assume that they will come later, one picture series indicates we can at least expect a hair dresser soon.
More pictures can be found in my album. Skyscrapercity has a relevant thread, and then there is the metro site if you can read Czech or just like to look at the pictures.
Follow the discussion here
There have been many language threads and digressions; I should know, I have participated in most of them. Maybe it's time to start talking about talking: What is language, where did it come from and for what reason? How do languages compete, cooperate, coopt each other? Where are they going? Is one language better than another? What about dialects, sociolects, idiolects, jargon?
This is not to say that it wasn't a sensible, rational, and reasonable business decision. iCab can prosper more easily now that as tiny team can focus on the one thing closest to their users, and leave site compatibility to the much larger group of WebKit developers and evangelists. My next will be on them. However, this leaves the choice on the Mac platform to three, WebKit (Safari, OmniWeb, and now iCab), Gecko (primarily Firefox, but also Camino and others), and Presto (Opera). In general the trend on any operating system is less choice, not more, and this trend is likely to continue. There is unlikely to be a radical new browsing engine in 2008 or in 2009, the choice is instead going to be among the existing ones.
Assuming that the car will retreat from ever-larger parts of our cities, that gives us an interesting problem, what shall we do with the spaces thus liberated? If you go to a city like Copenhagen many central streets seem curiously overdimensioned when the cars are largely gone. Of course there were streets long before there were cars, but in the middle part of last century the city plans were often designed for the car. What can best be done with streets like this when vacated by cars? The traffic and pollution might be gone, but the street is still not an integrated part of the city, and cities abhor empty spaces.
That makes some rationale for a design competion.
The value of human-scaled carfree areas is increasingly appreciated, both among urbanists and the general public. Yet how can we transform existing areas to create lively people-oriented spaces free of traffic?
Through our 2nd Annual Street Conversion Design Contest, we are challenging architects, artists and ordinary citizens from around the world to design carfree spaces from formerly car-oriented spaces. And where possible, we're also encouraging people to realise the designs on the ground. Update: Thanks to a grant from Artists' Project Earth, we are able to do further global outreach to announce this year's contest more widely. Therefore the deadline has been extended to November 15, 2007. The grant has also allowed us to offer cash prizes of €100-200.
The principle is that street space was once used for both transport and human interaction. But with the arrival of the automobile, street space has become monopolised by cars and other vehicles, resulting in a loss of community and livability. This competition aims to reintroduce a level of humanity to the streetscape, both on paper and by encouraging lasting on-the-ground initiatives.
We are asking participants to design carfree spaces from formerly car-oriented spaces, in three categories
|November 2013January 2014|