Monday, 16 May 2011
Intense Debate
What about IntenseDebate it’s a feature-rich comment system with automated installation for WordPress and many other blogging/CMS platforms. IntenseDebate offers numerous features that improves the commenting experience, like the reply by email functionality, open-id support, hardcore moderation and blacklisting, RSS readers and tracking, email notifications, an ability to integrate Facebook and Twitter accounts with your comments so that you can send your comments to your Facebook and Twitter profiles letting your followers know you commented on a post. In addition, IntenseDebate has recently added a few plugins such as Seesmic for video comments, smileys, embedding YouTube videos and enabling PollDaddy plugin to create polls in comments.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Media
Within the tag "media" you can define which user agent the style sheet or embedded styles should be used for. There are currently 9 standard media types that are in use:
1.
media="all"
This defines that the style sheet or style block can be used by all user agents
2.
media="aural"
Allows webdevelopers to produce a style sheet for speech synthesizers
3.
media="braille"
Specified in CSS2 for braille tactile feedback devices
4.
media="handheld"
For handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome, limited bandwidth)
5.
media="print"
For paged, opaque material and for documents viewed on screen in print preview mode
6.
media="projection"
Used for projected presentations, for example projectors or print to transparencies
7.
media="screen"
Mainly for computer monitors
8.
media="tty"
For media using a fixed-pitch character grid, such as teletypes, terminals, or portable devices with limited display capabilities
9.
media="tv"
Used for television-type devices (low resolution, color, limited-scrollability screens, sound available)
1.
media="all"
This defines that the style sheet or style block can be used by all user agents
2.
media="aural"
Allows webdevelopers to produce a style sheet for speech synthesizers
3.
media="braille"
Specified in CSS2 for braille tactile feedback devices
4.
media="handheld"
For handheld devices (typically small screen, monochrome, limited bandwidth)
5.
media="print"
For paged, opaque material and for documents viewed on screen in print preview mode
6.
media="projection"
Used for projected presentations, for example projectors or print to transparencies
7.
media="screen"
Mainly for computer monitors
8.
media="tty"
For media using a fixed-pitch character grid, such as teletypes, terminals, or portable devices with limited display capabilities
9.
media="tv"
Used for television-type devices (low resolution, color, limited-scrollability screens, sound available)
| Website Design | Website Design Company | Web Development Get a beautiful website design. Studio Web is a results oriented web design & online marketing firm serving companies worldwide. |
Sponsored Link |
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Logo designSunday, 13 March 2011
Contact world leading website design company for following Website Design Services
Contact world leading website design company for following Website Design Services:
Website Redesign, Ecommerce Design, Flash Web Design, Facebook Adaption, Website Design Joomla, Website Maintainance,
Rich Media Websites, Social Media Networking, Website Design Drupal, Website Design Custom, Website Design Wordpress,
Online Store Development, Website Design OScommerce, Content Management Systems, Professional Corporate Websites,
http://www.websitedesign1.com/
Website Redesign, Ecommerce Design, Flash Web Design, Facebook Adaption, Website Design Joomla, Website Maintainance,
Rich Media Websites, Social Media Networking, Website Design Drupal, Website Design Custom, Website Design Wordpress,
Online Store Development, Website Design OScommerce, Content Management Systems, Professional Corporate Websites,
http://www.websitedesign1.com/
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Samsung releases 1-Gbit DRAM chip with 512-pin wide I/O interface
In order to boost the data transmission the chip uses 512 pins for the data input and output. When we compare this to the previous generation of mobile DRAMs, which used a maximum of 32 pins, we can see that a significant improvement in the processing power of mobile devices is expected.
In case you do not have an active imagination the I/O 1-Gbit WIO DRAM can transmit data at a rate of 12.8-Gbytes per second, while reducing the power consumption by approximately 87 percent. The bandwidth that this chip is expected to handle is estimated be about four times that of LPDDR2 DRAM, which runs at approximately 3.2-Gigabytes per second according to Samsung. If you include the pins for the commands, the power supply and its regulation the WIO DRAM, it is designed to have ip to 1,200 pins.
Samsung was a bit sketchy on the details, with no indications give as to whether or when the company intends to offer the 1-Gbit WIO DRAM as a packaged part or for commercial use or as part of a bare die in multi-chip packages. They were also not giving a great deal of information about when engineering samples of the 1-Gbit WIO DRAM would be made available or when the chip will be in volume production for use in devces.
As a follow up to this WIO DRAM launch Samsung has released plans for a 20-nm class 4-Gbit WIO mobile DRAM which will become available at some point in 2013.
source. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-samsung-gbit-dram-chip-pin.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-samsung-gbit-dram-chip-pin.html
In case you do not have an active imagination the I/O 1-Gbit WIO DRAM can transmit data at a rate of 12.8-Gbytes per second, while reducing the power consumption by approximately 87 percent. The bandwidth that this chip is expected to handle is estimated be about four times that of LPDDR2 DRAM, which runs at approximately 3.2-Gigabytes per second according to Samsung. If you include the pins for the commands, the power supply and its regulation the WIO DRAM, it is designed to have ip to 1,200 pins.
Samsung was a bit sketchy on the details, with no indications give as to whether or when the company intends to offer the 1-Gbit WIO DRAM as a packaged part or for commercial use or as part of a bare die in multi-chip packages. They were also not giving a great deal of information about when engineering samples of the 1-Gbit WIO DRAM would be made available or when the chip will be in volume production for use in devces.
As a follow up to this WIO DRAM launch Samsung has released plans for a 20-nm class 4-Gbit WIO mobile DRAM which will become available at some point in 2013.
source. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-samsung-gbit-dram-chip-pin.htmlhttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-samsung-gbit-dram-chip-pin.html
Monday, 21 February 2011
Apple, Google's mobile rivals must play catch-up
It's been a big couple of weeks in mobile. Verizon Wireless finally got the iPhone. Hewlett-Packard unveiled the first fruits of its Palm purchase last year. Nokia, the world's biggest maker of handsets, abandoned its once-dominant Symbian mobile software system and demoted itself to a kind of glorified contract manufacturer of Microsoft-powered devices.
The struggle for mobile dominance has entered a new phase. Why would Nokia throw out Symbian, with its 37 percent market share, in favor of software with less than one-seventh of that? Because recently hired Chief Executive Officer Stephen Elop is convinced that Microsoft has better odds of going up against the four other mobile powers - Apple, Google, Research In Motion, and HP - and making its new Windows Phone 7 software a center of gravity for the world's programmers, manufacturers, and consumers.
"The game has changed from a battle of devices to a war of ecosystems," Elop told investors at a recent
London news conference.
Actually, it's the same game that created the most valuable franchises in tech history, from IBM to Microsoft to Facebook. All successfully established themselves as "platforms," in which countless entrepreneurs and programmers developed products and applications that gave value to customers and profitability to shareholders - sucking oxygen away from rivals all the while.
Platform leaders
In the 1960s, IBM trounced Sperry and other mainframe manufacturers by creating a soup-to-nuts stack of hardware, software and services.
In PCs, Microsoft erased Apple's early lead by signing up hardwaremakers to create cheap machines, and software companies to develop Windows versions of everything from word processors to Tetris.
Facebook vanquished social networks such as MySpace by repositioning itself as a platform - a decision that led to the creation of gamemaker Zynga and other app companies that keep Facebook's 500 million users hanging around.
What's different this time is scale.
"Mobile is the biggest platform war ever," said Bill Whyman, an analyst with International Strategy & Investment. More smart phones were sold than PCs in the fourth quarter, and sales should reach $120 billion this year. That doesn't count billions more in mobile services, ads, and e-commerce.
This war will probably last for some time, too. Unlike with PCs, where the unquestioned victor - Microsoft - quickly emerged and enjoyed years of near monopoly, no one has a divine right to dominance in mobile. Microsoft crushed its competition by forcing people to make a choice. There were far more software applications for PCs, and most didn't work on Macs. The more Microsoft-powered machines out there, the more people wrote software for them, the more people bought them, and the bigger the whole system became. Economists have a name for that phenomenon: "network effects."
Appealing products
All cell phones can talk to each other and handle the same websites and e-mail systems, so winning means making products that function more effectively and appealingly. That sums up Apple's success.
Steve Jobs figured out long ago that when people spend their own money, they'll pay for something a lot nicer than the unsexy gear the cheapskates in corporate procurement choose. While others competed on price, Apple focused on making its products reliable and easy to use. Once customers buy an iPhone and start investing in iTunes songs and apps, they tend to stick with the system and keep buying - even though there's no proprietary lock on the proverbial door.
Apple's huge sales volume makes carriers and suppliers more likely to agree to its terms. The software that powers everything Apple makes - all variations of the Mac operating system OS X - is as intuitive to developers as Angry Birds is to app shoppers.
The result is economic leverage of staggering power. To create a blockbuster, Apple doesn't need to spend billions on a start-from-scratch moon-shot of a development project. It just needs to tweak a previous hit.
Take the iPad, which is in many ways a large iPod touch. Apple won't say how much the iPad cost to develop. Consider these numbers, though: In the year that ended Sept. 30, during which Apple introduced the iPad and the iPhone 4, the company spent $1.8 billion on research and development. Over the same period, Apple's revenue increased by $22.3 billion. Nokia spent three times as much as Apple on R&D - $5.86 billion - and increased revenue by just $1.5 billion. No wonder that Apple, whose share of total global mobile-phone sales is only 4.2 percent, gets more than half the profit generated by the industry, according to research firm Asymco.
Fast-growing Android
Even Google, Apple's mightiest rival, got only a $5 billion increase in sales on its $3.4 billion R&D budget. It does have plenty to show for its efforts, though: Its Android platform is growing at a blistering pace. In the fourth quarter, according to research firm Canalys, twice as many Android devices shipped as iPhones.
"Google is being far more aggressive in building its platform than Microsoft ever was," says Bill Gurley, a partner at Benchmark Capital.
Barring big surprises, the other contenders - RIM, HP, and Microsoft - are in for a slog: too dependent on mobile devices to give up, yet lacking the tools to make much progress. All lost market share in 2010 and have far fewer apps available for their devices.
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
source. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/21/BUI01HOUH6.DTL&type=business
The struggle for mobile dominance has entered a new phase. Why would Nokia throw out Symbian, with its 37 percent market share, in favor of software with less than one-seventh of that? Because recently hired Chief Executive Officer Stephen Elop is convinced that Microsoft has better odds of going up against the four other mobile powers - Apple, Google, Research In Motion, and HP - and making its new Windows Phone 7 software a center of gravity for the world's programmers, manufacturers, and consumers.
"The game has changed from a battle of devices to a war of ecosystems," Elop told investors at a recent
London news conference.
Actually, it's the same game that created the most valuable franchises in tech history, from IBM to Microsoft to Facebook. All successfully established themselves as "platforms," in which countless entrepreneurs and programmers developed products and applications that gave value to customers and profitability to shareholders - sucking oxygen away from rivals all the while.
Platform leaders
In the 1960s, IBM trounced Sperry and other mainframe manufacturers by creating a soup-to-nuts stack of hardware, software and services.
In PCs, Microsoft erased Apple's early lead by signing up hardwaremakers to create cheap machines, and software companies to develop Windows versions of everything from word processors to Tetris.
Facebook vanquished social networks such as MySpace by repositioning itself as a platform - a decision that led to the creation of gamemaker Zynga and other app companies that keep Facebook's 500 million users hanging around.
What's different this time is scale.
"Mobile is the biggest platform war ever," said Bill Whyman, an analyst with International Strategy & Investment. More smart phones were sold than PCs in the fourth quarter, and sales should reach $120 billion this year. That doesn't count billions more in mobile services, ads, and e-commerce.
This war will probably last for some time, too. Unlike with PCs, where the unquestioned victor - Microsoft - quickly emerged and enjoyed years of near monopoly, no one has a divine right to dominance in mobile. Microsoft crushed its competition by forcing people to make a choice. There were far more software applications for PCs, and most didn't work on Macs. The more Microsoft-powered machines out there, the more people wrote software for them, the more people bought them, and the bigger the whole system became. Economists have a name for that phenomenon: "network effects."
Appealing products
All cell phones can talk to each other and handle the same websites and e-mail systems, so winning means making products that function more effectively and appealingly. That sums up Apple's success.
Steve Jobs figured out long ago that when people spend their own money, they'll pay for something a lot nicer than the unsexy gear the cheapskates in corporate procurement choose. While others competed on price, Apple focused on making its products reliable and easy to use. Once customers buy an iPhone and start investing in iTunes songs and apps, they tend to stick with the system and keep buying - even though there's no proprietary lock on the proverbial door.
Apple's huge sales volume makes carriers and suppliers more likely to agree to its terms. The software that powers everything Apple makes - all variations of the Mac operating system OS X - is as intuitive to developers as Angry Birds is to app shoppers.
The result is economic leverage of staggering power. To create a blockbuster, Apple doesn't need to spend billions on a start-from-scratch moon-shot of a development project. It just needs to tweak a previous hit.
Take the iPad, which is in many ways a large iPod touch. Apple won't say how much the iPad cost to develop. Consider these numbers, though: In the year that ended Sept. 30, during which Apple introduced the iPad and the iPhone 4, the company spent $1.8 billion on research and development. Over the same period, Apple's revenue increased by $22.3 billion. Nokia spent three times as much as Apple on R&D - $5.86 billion - and increased revenue by just $1.5 billion. No wonder that Apple, whose share of total global mobile-phone sales is only 4.2 percent, gets more than half the profit generated by the industry, according to research firm Asymco.
Fast-growing Android
Even Google, Apple's mightiest rival, got only a $5 billion increase in sales on its $3.4 billion R&D budget. It does have plenty to show for its efforts, though: Its Android platform is growing at a blistering pace. In the fourth quarter, according to research firm Canalys, twice as many Android devices shipped as iPhones.
"Google is being far more aggressive in building its platform than Microsoft ever was," says Bill Gurley, a partner at Benchmark Capital.
Barring big surprises, the other contenders - RIM, HP, and Microsoft - are in for a slog: too dependent on mobile devices to give up, yet lacking the tools to make much progress. All lost market share in 2010 and have far fewer apps available for their devices.
This article appeared on page D - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
source. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/21/BUI01HOUH6.DTL&type=business
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
The path is used to specify and perhaps find the resource requested.
# The port number is optional; if omitted, the default for the scheme is used. For example, http://vnc.example.com:5800 connects to port 5800 of vnc.example.com, which may be appropriate for a VNC remote control session. If the port number is omitted for an http: URL, the browser will connect on port 80, the default HTTP port. The default port for an https: request is 443.
# The path is used to specify and perhaps find the resource requested. It is case-sensitive, though it may be treated as case-insensitive by some servers, especially those based on Microsoft Windows. If the server is case sensitive and http://en.example.org/wiki/URL is correct, http://en.example.org/WIKI/URL/ or http://en.example.org/wiki/url/ will display an HTTP 404 error page, unless these URLs point to valid resources themselves.
# The query string contains data to be passed to software running on the server. It may contain name/value pairs separated by ampersands, for example ?first_name=John&last_name=Doe.
# The fragment identifier, if present, specifies a part or a position within the overall resource or document. When used with HTTP, it usually specifies a section or location within the page, and the browser may scroll to display that part of the page.
Website Maintenance
# The path is used to specify and perhaps find the resource requested. It is case-sensitive, though it may be treated as case-insensitive by some servers, especially those based on Microsoft Windows. If the server is case sensitive and http://en.example.org/wiki/URL is correct, http://en.example.org/WIKI/URL/ or http://en.example.org/wiki/url/ will display an HTTP 404 error page, unless these URLs point to valid resources themselves.
# The query string contains data to be passed to software running on the server. It may contain name/value pairs separated by ampersands, for example ?first_name=John&last_name=Doe.
# The fragment identifier, if present, specifies a part or a position within the overall resource or document. When used with HTTP, it usually specifies a section or location within the page, and the browser may scroll to display that part of the page.
Website Maintenance
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
website builder
The first websites were created in the early 1990s.[1] These sites were hand written in a HTML.
Later software was written to help design web pages and by 1998 Dreamweaver had been established as the industry leader; however some have criticized the quality of the code produced by such software as being overblown and reliant on tables. As the industry moved towards W3C standards, Dreamweaver and others were criticized for not being compliant. Compliance has improved over time, but many professionals still prefer to write optimized markup by hand.
Open source software for building web sites took much longer to become established, mainly due to problems with browser compliance with standards.[2] Open source tools were typically developed to the standards, and made fewer exceptions for the then dominant Internet Explorer's deviations from the standards.
W3C started Amaya in 1996 to showcase Web technologies in a fully featured Web client. This was to provide a framework that integrated lots of W3C technologies in a single, consistent environment. Amaya started as an HTML and CSS editor and now supports XML, XHTML, MathML, and SVG.[3]
Later software was written to help design web pages and by 1998 Dreamweaver had been established as the industry leader; however some have criticized the quality of the code produced by such software as being overblown and reliant on tables. As the industry moved towards W3C standards, Dreamweaver and others were criticized for not being compliant. Compliance has improved over time, but many professionals still prefer to write optimized markup by hand.
Open source software for building web sites took much longer to become established, mainly due to problems with browser compliance with standards.[2] Open source tools were typically developed to the standards, and made fewer exceptions for the then dominant Internet Explorer's deviations from the standards.
W3C started Amaya in 1996 to showcase Web technologies in a fully featured Web client. This was to provide a framework that integrated lots of W3C technologies in a single, consistent environment. Amaya started as an HTML and CSS editor and now supports XML, XHTML, MathML, and SVG.[3]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)