AltME groups: search

3. Economy of scale: If I produce a product in 1 shift, but can get 
contracts for a 2nd and 3rd shift I can dramatically lower my costs 
-> lower product price.

Lowering the quality is a very bad option for a supplier. Especially 
you can only do this if you sell directly to the end-market. Otherwise 
your client won't accept lowe quality.

Nevertheless you have scrap out there and the chances are high with 
real no-names. But this comes from a lot of them think, some products 
are easy to manufactor. But this is not the case. Building a real 
good washing machine like a Miele is everything than simple. Even 
if you disassemble the machine you are not able to clone it.

TomBon, to clone a Miele, one would need the same materials, production 
processes and suppliers as Miele use. Basically you would need their 
production facilities and engineers. And I know that people's image 
of Miele is of their reliability, not their product design or by 
them having low prices. Reliability is the hardest part to clone, 
so people would naturally be suspicious about a cloned Miele. Cloned, 
cheaper spare parts may be a different matter.

One place where buying a clone might be a serious mistake is the 
case for some Chinese luxury cars. They look like any other luxury 
car, but are built on 30-40 year old chassis frames using substandard 
quality steel and are some of the worst performers in crash tests, 
and many warnings have been issued against buying them. They don't 
yet have the capacity to produce cars that live up to modern safety 
standards. The cars are not directly clones, but it's enough to get 
confused by, if you want a big fancy car.

End of FF? Hardly - FF is an established platform already - some 
40% in Europe already - very nice result, when fighting preinstalled 
IE is a problem. FF itself is an extensible platform. Then there 
is also Opera, with its widgets - can you see revolution happening 
here? Google's power is over-estimated imo. Their Android was supposed 
to be a revolution too, but I am not sure they will win much of mobile 
appliances too ....

In some Video on demand sites I see a tendancy to use Windows media 
player plugin forcing you to use PCx86  with IE and nothing else 
...

Pekr yes but those site implement a javascript with version checking 
that launch the plugin only if the browser answer the right way

using firefox -> that's a plain and simple no welcome page you can't 
even acces the website content

M6replay is a VOD website to replay the series or emitions from the 
M6 TV channel wich is supposed to be view by a large number of people

it's  locked only by a cliping system and 6 screw hiden behin the 
pedestal

to know the lcd monitor mark I have to disasembly it fully  that's 
a chunghwha ^^

compared to the supply CM design of a LCD monitor from HP mine is 
like 10 times with less components

i think I will change the condensor to a 25V /1000µF

but even a regular 16V 1000µF would still do it  ^^ (since the components 
you by in details shop are from far a better quality than those the 
crafter use  ^^)

it's doesn't  support REBOL  so i don't give a damn  :P

page 2 of the article Mozilla recently introduced its own upgraded 
browser, Firefox 3, and has collaborated with Google on a variety 
of technical issues, including a system for reporting software crashes 
and to make software browsers more secure.

plus carl who want to turn VID  into a webrowser T____T

but seriously i have a friend of rebol community who made a mixing 
betwin OS commerce and rebol webplug interface that was really neat

I just finished fixing my lcd monitor. Once the condensor 16V 1000µF 
 changed by a brand new one  it works like on it first day  ^^

You should post a how to so someone else can fix their monitors!

if they sudently stoped turning on that means one of the condensors 
is dead in general a dead condensor have a rounded top instead of 
a flat top so first thing is to identify what is or are the condensors 
that is dead then you take in note the reference V/µF you go to the 
radio shark and you buy the same one

no picture ????  hum really  if you point a strong light source to 
it does it show you the screen content ?

lcd monitors use a neon like lamp to enligh the background of the 
LCD matrix and some time that neon tube lamp dies it can be changed 
easyly

it can be the transitors it can be too a freaking little electric 
 wire that cuts itself because of over heat

... well that's the electrinic device to stabilise electric signal 
it store electricy when there is more than expected electricity and 
deliver the stored electricy when the electric singal if weaker to 
maintain a stable level

Aha, wikipedia says a "condensor" is an "Early description of a capacitor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historic_technological_nomenclature

k so that was the capacitor who was defective and that's a pity to 
have to trash a 1 year old lcd monitor only because they didn't put 
10  more cents to an electric device that in best quality cost 0.60 
cts ...

At Google, we have a saying: “launch early and iterate.” - maybe 
we have someone to learn from ...

it treats a page more like a task, so if you have a page with a stuck 
javascript, you can close the page, like a task in your OS that has 
hanged.

I have a page that normally slows down FF ... it doesn't with Chrome.

I took a quick look for the binary and any associated files in programs...not 
there ofcourse. Strange.

I wanted to se if REBOL Plugin was saved in same folder. I see gears 
plugin in plugin but not rebol plugin

google Chromettechnologie us the a process design and a new javascrip 
(V8) virtual machine with some cool features like powerfull object 
based garbage collection and  auto object creation (even if you don't 
say so your javascript is decompose into objects) each tab is a separate 
process each things that are needed to show a page is rendered simultanously. 
no asynchronous system so

as every page is a process well when you close a page  you recover 
the full used memory  no more waste in memory use

but the most important part is that IE will now get its ass kicked 
a little bit more. that is always nice. :-)

Henrik - that is imo incorrect analysis of situation .... I am not 
sure it will influence IE at all. IE is used mainly by those, who 
don't care about browsers at all. And as such, those ppl will NOT 
look at Chrome. If they would be interested in alternative browser, 
they would use FF or Opera already for quite some time. My take is 
- if Chrome is going to hurt somebody, then it is definitively FF, 
not that much Opera. And Google is sponsoring FF by some 70mil USD 
anually, by presetting Google as default search engine. If they stop, 
Mozilla foundation can get into trouble a bit ...

if a tab locks up in FF, it locks everything up

since it is FOSS, perhaps someone can build a Rebol browser from 
it

Pekr, perhaps so, about IE. But I still think it's important that 
we get some shakeups in browser competition. Acid3 brought Safari, 
Opera and FF together for an intense competition on who could support 
it first. IE wasn't even in the race and if IE8 turns out to be the 
disappointment I think it will be, it would get serious problems 
with future Web 2.0 stuff.

I'm unable to test Chrome fully on this slow PC via remote desktop, 
but with many of Google's previous efforts (Google Desktop anyone?), 
it would occur to me that they can use Chrome as a common platform 
for their apps. It is of course far from the elegant solution that 
R3 will bring, but if they are going to keep at it with web 2.0 apps, 
one might want the best way to handle web 2.0.

thats exactly what they want .. a platform to run their apps

But there will be more people who will (unknowingly?) be using alternative 
browsers, namely Safari through Macs and the iPhone. Particularly 
iPhone will get a huge amount of marketshare growth, if the numbers 
are right.

try killing a chrome.exe task from the windows task manager. :-)

anyone that knows a little the web knows htat IE is the worst to 
surf ...  it's really slow really secureless and that's why 40  percent 
of the web user around teh world use FireFox or other webbrowsers.

Pekr  chrome is full open source .... OPEN WIDE SOURCE i will say 
and as google dev team says "Our purpose it to set a step stop on 
the next generation webbrowser. We have been inspired by the other 
and we wish chrome will inspire others (they are free to take absolutly 
what they want from it)

Pekr things rise things falls ...  and that's so true that microsoft 
ensure a maximum market part by merging its webbrowser into its OS 
 this way like it or not use it or not 100% of windows/vista based 
PC have it

I don't think it hurts FF at all. In fact the next version of FF 
will have a much faster javascript engine. The competition between 
these browsers is very healthy.

that a way for microsft to say like dude keep fighting in the backstreets 
I'm hella no match for you I'm DA BOSS

Since i have safari opera and firefox on my computer  i can tell 
you the chrome is the most acurate it starts immediatly  you don't 
have those 20 seconds of loading  and loading  a daily motion page 
takes you 1 seconde

i remember the first version of FF that was bugging all around flash 
player wasn't existing active X controlwas a mess  plugin system 
was almost inexistant .At least we can say for a first shot chrome 
is really advanced so far i didn't get any problems using it

Tabs at the top? What a usability nightmare :-(

I'm not sure it's such a big deal. It eliminates the regular titlebar. 
I had no problems adapting to it.

Chrome doesn't have enough controls over content yet......Open half 
a dozen random windows from commercial sites, and you may have multiple 
Flash ads playing in them all....That'll eat up most of  your cpu 
power just running adverts in the background.
Firefox of course has the NoFlash and AdBlock addons.

other thing which denerves me a bit is - activity indicator - there 
is no stable bottom bar. And once your page is loading, there is 
message about it popping up and down at the bottom left ....

i think you really should get your hand on a firefox1.0 and compare 
it with chrome 1.0

well at least  you can track the resource taken by the page you are 
actually browsing wich is impossible in others webbrowser you just 
know that they eat all your memory without having a clue why the 
hell they does so

what i want is some keyboard short cuts for navigation  like switching 
frotabs to tabs going next page/prevpage openning a new tab etc...

Perhaps Carl should hire a sketchartist :-)

Chrome will have more traction with normal people. FF is still geek 
driven. In that regard, IE has more to worry about. FF has to worry 
if Chrome becomes better for geeks, e.g. dev, debug, extend. 


Both could benefit from its source and how they all decide to cooperate. 
If they decide to compete with Google, it will make a lot more work 
for them, and how they spin things will be important.

If Chrome is lighter on memory, stable, and secure, I'll be there 
in a heartbeat.

(It's a really good comic!) :-)

You could make a dialect that could compile to native code that would 
superficially resemble REBOL, and most non-guru REBOL code would 
likely work in that dialect. It might not be as much faster as you 
think though - a lot of REBOL is native code already (natives).

There was an article today on IE8's performance, which was cited 
as horrible, twice as slow as IE7, but I'm not trusting this source 
yet, as they could have been testing a debug build

I can write REBOL code that is faster than the equivalent code in 
Java
. Can you give us a short example ?

Anything that is native-heavy, uses parse a lot, or does structure 
manipulation can be made to be really fast in REBOL. Anything interpreter-heavy 
is likely not. If what you are doing is basic math, consider a calculator 
(or C).

Anything interpreter-heavy is likely not

 So, basically, you're saying that REBOL interpreter *is* slow. Parse 
  dialect is cool, but it's not REBOL dialect. If you make a fair 
 comparison, REBOL is orders (2-3) of magnitude slower than Java. 
 I guess that even Rebcode is slower than Java.

Doc, I have a lot of trouble coming up with a short example in Java 
- Java isn't really useful for that kind of thing. Almost any one-line 
REBOL program would be faster than the equivalent Java program. The 
REBOL interpreter is slower than JIT'ed Java code, after you factor 
out the JIT overhead. REBOL is more than DO though - it has a lot 
of high-level operations that are quite useful and fast. If I try 
to write code in REBOL using Java-style algorithms it will be slow. 
If I try to write Java code using REBOL-style techniques, I would 
have to reimplement most of REBOL first, and it would be slower.

There is no such thing as a fair comparison between Java and REBOL 
- the closest would be to show how a program written to take advantage 
of one language's strengths would be wors when translated to the 
language of the other, and then vice-versa.

The intrinsic feature of REBOL that changes the complexity of an 
optimized algorithm, for me, is runtime code generation. You can't 
make a fair comparison to C or Java about that though - you have 
to compare to Lisp or such. Tool for the job though.

REBOL has nice and clean abstractions that make writing code much 
easier and much more pleasant, IMHO, it fails to become a general 
programming language mainly because of lack of performances. As long 
as you deal with a lot of I/O (like in a Cheyenne) or waiting for 
user event (like in VID/View), that's not a big showstopper, but 
when you need to process big amounts of data in memory, you have 
to rely on another language to do the job in acceptable times.

I've only hit a couple things where REBOL isn't fast enough. Animation 
(obviously), and longest-common-subsequence algorithm (Rebcode version 
was much faster, but still not fast). And if I could save JPGs natively 
from REBOL, I could eliminate one of my largest external dependencies 
(ImageMagick).

Gregg: as an old VB coder (still using it these days), I agree. But 
there's lot of applications you just can write in a slow executing 
language, and I *really* would like to only code in REBOL.

For most of my code, it isn't interpreter execution time that makes 
REBOL more efficient. A typical REBOL program for me saves me days 
or weeks of work, sometimes more.

Rebcode could have been a solution, but it seems quite low priority 
for Carl.

I tend to think that JIT compiling block! values to native code before 
executing would be the best way (rather that rely on a very different 
dialect, like Rebcode).

Rebcode will come as a side-effect of user-defined function types, 
which require user-defined datatypes, which requires the plugin model, 
which requires modules, which may require changes to object!, which 
are partly based on changes to the core that result from his current 
VID work.

But I guess that even a JIT approach would require to give up on 
a few features of the DO dialect.

Brian, you're a good advocate for Carl's strategy, but Rebcode already 
exists without all that dependency chain and it's even usable, it's 
just a pity it didn't make it in 2.7.6 and Encap.

Yes, the compilable dialect would have different semantics than the 
DO dialect but could look superficially the same, and execute a lot 
of the same code (not mine, of course). We have done this before 
in the R1 to R2 transition when we switched from a Scheme-like engine 
to a Forth-like engine without changing the syntax (except for getting 
rid of ELSE). I already have some ideas about how to do this - it's 
on my to-do list.

I am well aware of how the old rebcode worked - I was the main beta 
tester. It had the same dependencies then as well, though the execution 
engine being internal made the chain a little different. It was also 
unstable, buggy and insecure.

It is only the function type that makes the data in a block considered 
code.

I would choose block-level for a JIT compilation in REBOL, that would 
allow to compile more semantics than at function level. For example 
[do append [print] "hello"] could be compiled using block-level JIT.

There would be 2 things you would have to give up in a compilable 
dialect of REBOL, if you want it to be worth it:

- Code blocks that aren't statically determinable at function creation 
time (unlike your example above, which could be partially evaluated)

- Functions that could be edited in place, or hot-patched (already 
gone in R3)

If you don't give these up you would be adding compilation overhead. 
Admittedly, Java isn't the right language to emulate here - Forth 
or other stack languages would be better, as they are closer to the 
REBOL execution model and compiled Forth can be drastically faster 
than the best Java code.

There are several functions in REBOL that operate on their argument 
blocks following the DO model. If you make those functions require 
a literal block you could compile REBOL as-is.

That's why I mentioned "other stack languages". There has been a 
lot of research in that camp too - they just name their languages 
other names than Forth. I think that some of the research in type-inferenced 
stack languages will eventually make Java and .NET faster too.

The fewer possible interpretations of a particular piece of REBOL 
code, the faster the compiler could make it. Inflexibility is what 
makes Java fast, not compilation.

I've also thought about all that quite often, it's a really fascinating 
topic.

solution introduced in chrome javascript runs in a new VM  that read 
the code once transform it into hiden object and then into natural 
code wich is runed again and again  and the VM  is a speparated process 
to focus the resources where they are needed

maybe too they didn't impact on the right registry entry that's a 
beta version ...  that's normal if there is some hum things missing

Does your start menu have a reference to your default browser? If 
so and it is Firefox, then Chrome is missing something.

I'm afraid that their discussion of the effects of memory fragmentation 
is a real issue in memory management systems without compaction or 
other techniques to reduce it. You can have a lot of memory that 
is useless because the free memory is not in large enough chunks.

I'm a platform provider

I asked a question about ORCA's status there, to keep the discussion 
public.

I tried, but I can't edit my comment. I sent feedback. I'm hoping 
to fix it before someone points out the error in a public forum.

Interesting read ... explains a lot to those of us who've not kept 
up

If they make a PS3 version...

They said they have had it running on a PS3 .. so will you do the 
REBOL port ? ;)

noone can do a REBOL port unless Carl releases host sources :-)

The fatal error in their aproach is, that they should have been moving 
to x86 in 2000 already. PPC might be fine, but it caused a damage 
...

I remember when they had Amiga on a PCI card ...

If they release a PS3 version, I buy one :-)