In the old days, the 90′s, raster technology – the use of a single layer as a solution for all visible publishing tasks – was king. Those days are long gone and vector technology rules now. Vector solutions comprise layers of data, and this is the way all modern graphics, web pages, CAD applications, marine charts, printing jobs and much else is done.
Understanding the difference between vector and raster technologies is vital for both graphics and web page code.
Raster graphics
To explain: raster graphics are single-layer files that comprise a 2D description of the data. Two dimensional files – up / down and left / right – are a ‘flat’ technology that has no depth, and has x-axis and y-axis data only. Three-dimensional technology, or 3D, is a more complete solution that includes depth, ie a z-axis as well. This approach can be applied to more or less anything visible, and is of interest to us for graphics and web page code in particular.
Starting with gfx (graphics): in the 90′s it was only possible for mainstream applications to use two dimensions. 3D applications were expensive and unusual. Therefore at that time, and then into the early 2000′s, it was accepted that 2D information was as good as it gets, for practical purposes. That all changed around 2002 and and these raster solutions became obsolete. Or more correctly, were overtaken by the availability of vector solutions in the mainstream markets.
In gfx today for example, Photoshop files are seen as a basic solution and not acceptable for full commercial use. This is because they are just simple 2D raster files. They cannot be scaled, so they are no use for full commercial use such as variable size print jobs. Such files cannot be used except at the size they are supplied, as they cannot scale. As a practical example, if you want to use your logo in a large-scale print job, or on the side of an advertising blimp, you can’t. If it were scaled up it would just look like a bad jpeg.
You will need a vector graphics file, which can be scaled to any size. An example is an Abobe Illustrator .ai file, which is therefore a level above Photoshop. This may conflict with the popular opinion of Photoshop being the ultimate gfx app – but unfortunately the truth is it’s just a basic tool now, professional work often demands a much better application.
Raster-based web page code
The same thing applies to web page code, whether on hand-coded sites or on database-driven CMS websites. The old, 90′s method was, if you like, a ‘raster’ approach: everything was on a single layer. This is a crude and obsolete way to code pages now. Its use is typified by tables and cells for the layout framework.
Around 2002 this method became outdated and layer-based page code took over. This vectorised approach uses layers (divs) and CSS to build the page structure. Having a third axis means that the page code is an order of magnitude better, and there are huge advantages. Just as you cannot use crude raster gfx for many print jobs, crude raster-based 2D pagecode is long outdated for the modern Internet.
Vector-based web pages have big advantages in accessibility and SEO for example. Just in SEO, these layer-based pages are so far in advance of flat pages (those using tables) that a site using them has massive advantages. And as in the situation where Photoshop is erroneously seen by the popular media as the top gfx application, in web page authoring many see Dreamweaver as the ultimate tool. However, web authoring applications such as SiteSpinner were using layer-based pages exclusively, years before Dreamweaver had ever heard of such a thing.
Joomla’s handicap
This is why Joomla CMS is now handicapped, as it is still struggling with old 90′s technology here. By 2002 table-based layouts were obsolete. By 2004, div-and-table temporary compromises such as the one Joomla uses were finished. The page code layout it uses became obsolete ages ago, and so changes are long overdue. This is the single most vital change that needs to be made to Joomla, and beside this all other requirements seem much less relevant.
It’s true that skilled developers can mitigate this to some extent, by clever template coding. However, the effects of tables in the code can never be entirely eliminated and it’s time they went. Even a remnant of this method left in a corner somewhere wrecks the project, as progress is effectively halted. Once tables have gone completely then the Joomla project will move forward faster and more efficiently.
Joomla 1.5 has comprehensive overrides available to template coders. Using these mean that a tableless layout can be implemented via the template, and an example is the Beez template. However this approach tends to result in a very simple and lightweight template, as too much is having to be done by the template coder. It’s not a bad thing for SEO, of course, if a template is lightweight – but what if you need a full-feature one with 30 collapsible module positions and 10 built-in colour variations?
Almost anything can be plugged in or overridden in Joomla. This is part of the tradition, and one of the many reasons it is such a powerful machine. But there is a limit – at what point do you draw the line and say enough is enough? In theory, taking this to extremes, it wouldn’t matter what the core did as long as you could plug something in.
There are two areas where it is reasonable to state that core functionality cannot be successfully augmented or overridden, and those are ACL and code layout. ACL needs to be a core function because plugin solutions cannot be said to be 100% successful. Correct code layout needs to be a core function because, again, plugin solutions can only go partway toward fixing the problem.
Imagine what would be possible if Joomla had a core tableless code layout scheme. You’d be able to get templates that had, in addition to the usual features, built-in source ordering controls. Now that’s what I’d call progress. You might not see that as significant but in terms of SEO and accessibility (best seen as the same thing in any case), that’s a massive leap forward.
It’s correct to say that a developer can do almost anything with Joomla – but that isn’t really the point of the project in many peoples’ view. What is the point is what the users can do with it – the webmasters who have to work with it. If functions are available to the average webmaster then the application succeeds; if they are not, and are only there for developers, then you have an entirely different beast. That wouldn’t be Joomla and it wouldn’t be as successful.
Why the Joomla 1.5 series was introduced without fixing the code layout issue is hard to understand, since in many ways J1.5 is incompatible with the older version and therefore a major rewrite took place. How the basic foundation changes that are needed were excluded is a bit of a mystery – but that’s open-source for you. Roll on Joomla 2.0! Luckily, Joomla is such an incredible multimedia publishing tool that it compares well with the best of them. However, the future looks ominous unless radical changes are made, as it’s hard to support steam age technology in the modern world.
Watch the video related to technology
TED sixth sense technology
Help answer the question about technology
How is technology dependent on science and how are science and technology different from one another?The discover of radium and it's qualities was science in action. Using radium to develop an x ray machine was technology.
Oh, come on, it's just GOTTA be the transporter.
Technology is not bad.
It's how we use it and whether we consider all the consequences before we put it in place. We have not done that in the past. We can't do things that way anymore.
Technology is what we will use to solve the problems that our misuse of it has brought about.
At the same time, we have to realize that sometimes simple technology is the answer. For example, here's a company doing something to save fuel for ocean freighters. It is really low tech, and it works.
http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=20&L=1
and an American company doing the same thing.
http://www.kiteship.com/
These are parasails for ships. The cost of retrofitting a ship is dirt cheap. About the cost of leasing a large cape size bulk carrier ship for 2 days.
http://www.pluginpartners.org/
Plug in Partners is an advocacy group for plug in hybrid cars. This is what we need now. The average American driver would get 100mpg overall, and could charge the battery overnight, during off peak electricity demand, for $1.
That would get the average commuter back and forth to work, using no gasoline. You would only use gasoline on longer trips.
Here's a new book that demonstrates what we can do to save our planet while benefitting economically from the positive changes.
http://www.earththesequel.com./
"Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story."
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City
Green Wombat is a good site to follow advances being made in alternative energy and electric and PHEV cars etc.
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/
article on creative financing for solar, including what Berkeley is doing
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/solar-temblor-9-big-trends-page10.html
It takes the sting out of the up front cost of installing solar. This is also happening on a corporate level, with companies like Morgan Stanley setting up financing and power purchase agreements for corporations and other large businesses to install solar panels.
Power purchase agreements are how power companies in California, Nevada and Arizona are contracting for solar thermal power plants in the southwest. These PPAs are a very positive move in the right direction.
Here's what's happening on the cutting edge of thin film solar cells and panels
"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal."
“With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.”
"According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."
from http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/category/solar/
This article shows how we could have a 69% solar electric grid by 2050, building solar power plants in the southwest.
Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
I don't agree with all the specifics of this proposal, but it is generally a good idea, even if we only do half or a third of what they are recommending.
It's becoming apparent that solar thermal plants are a better idea than the concentrating solar photovoltaic plants that they are emphasizing. And molten salt for storing thermal energy to generate electricity at night from solar plants is looking like the better idea. They propose caverns filled with compressed air. Molten salt only loses about 1% of it's heat over a 24 hour period, and doesn't involve digging all those caverns.
"The same acre can produce 10 times as much energy from wind as it can from corn ethanol, 180,000 miles per acre per year. But both corn ethanol and wind power pale in comparison with solar photovoltaic, which can produce more than 2 million miles worth of transport per acre per year." http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1454/70/
"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."
"Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods."
" All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."
"In recent months, PG&E has signed deals for more than a gigawatt of electricity — enough to light more than 750,000 homes — with solar power plant developers. Such power purchase agreements can take more than a year to hammer out and the permitting and construction of a solar power station can take another three to five years."
"The solar thermal industry is in its infancy but utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) have signed several contracts for solar power plants and negotiations for gigawatts more of solar electricity are ongoing."
from Green Wombat
Biomass to methane power also has big potential.
Sewage treatment plants, landfills, farms etc can all use anaerobic digesters to gather methane for power. This methane would eventually develop as things decompose and become greenhouse gas adding to global warming. This kills two birds with one stone. Check out what Environmental Power Corp is doing in this area.
Wind power
"In the US, the American Wind Energy Association forecasts that installed capacity could grow from 11,603 MW today to around 100,000 MW by 2020. In Canada, Emerging Energy Research predicts that installed wind capacity will expand from around 1,500 MW today to around 14,000 MW by 2015."
{from an article at altenergystocks.com by Charles Morand}
We now have a fledgling bioplastics industry which can make plastics from plant material like corn or non food plants like switchgrass. We now use 5-10% of our oil to make plastics, which create huge environmental problems, especially in the oceans.
Most plastic floats near the sea surface where some is mistaken for food by birds and fishes. Plastics are carried by currents and can circulate continually in the open sea. Broken, degraded plastic pieces outweigh surface zooplankton in the central North Pacific by a factor of 6-1. That means six pounds of plastic for every single pound of zooplankton."
DR. Marcus Ericson
http://www.algalita.org/research.html#plastic
http://www.algalita.org/pelagic_plastic.html
"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that." Thomas Edison, 1931
This is the most informative coverage about stereoscopic 3-D i have found from the internets that exist in a news site thus far. Rocketboom should try broadcasting news episode with Molly in 3-D. Seriously. Yes seriously indeed.
Pretty informative video! I never got to the theater to see ‘Avatar’ in 3D… wish that I would have set aside the time… purchased the Blu-Ray version on disc…absolutely a magical film! I can’t afford one of those expensive 3D televisions ( just bought a high-definition screen for Blu-Ray),but I sure hope that Cameron isn’t going to release the 3D version just for 3D TV owners… the rest of us would like the experience in 3D as well!
http://earth.rice.edu/MTPE/hydro/hydrosphere/hydrosphere_how.html
ellie roundtree if that ain’t a porn name nothing is
@endocomar93 That was not a real hologram. That was digital CGI with a greenscreen. The only technological advance there was the synchronization of the cameras filming the “holographic” person with the digital insertion of his image. The people in the studio didn’t see the hologram, only the viewers at home. Because it wasn’t really a hologram.
-IMP
well if you think about it, technology makes experiments easy to be tested. You don't really want to wait all day to prove that your hypotheses was right, so technology really helps science. If your trying to prove something or test something, technology makes you life way easier. They're different because technology deals with making life easier and then there's the technical stuff about machinery and ya da ya da. Technology deals with more broader scale than science, it's like more hands on. Technology is cool too. While science is much cooler, Science is been around than technology. But anyway, science deals with everything, from testing an experiment to finding a cure for a disease. Science deals with explanations and experiments.
@AquaInertia CHEERS MAN,HOW DID YOU REMEMBER THAT!!!!!
allo’ sugar tits
You are correct: it is black light (ultraviolet light).
Check out the links below:
Move over Viewmaster! I think 3D will only go mainstream when it can be achieved without the need of special glasses or headgear. Until then it’s going to be a novelty.
HEY LEAVE MY GIRL ALONE!!!!……..hahaha
Establishing budget must be the first step in my opinion. Do you want proprietary hardware and kit in terms of that technology cul de sac that often occurs. What are the requirements in terms of users, is it that boardroom to boardroom type of scenario or is it more about groups / teams not just the management ? To get the best value from the type of activity "video conferencing" you're looking at – think along the lines of – what kit is required (hardware, bandwidth, quality, user interface) what financial foot print from an ongoing point of view. Desktop to boardroom – multipoint video and browser independence for future proofing your solution will address the flexibility aspect of "all" of your company and perhaps everyone your company deals with. The legacy issue is one of the biggest problems companies find themselves in.. who supports your hardware… and how much will that cost? Disclosure: CEO http://www.onlinemeetingrooms.com I'd be thrilled to demonstrate how far 100% independent web browsing quality has come. Hope this helps.
I see big advancements in material sciences nanotechnology and the usual advancements in computers for the next 30 years or so: lighter planes, better medical treatments, cheaper stronger structures, faster and faster computer, etc…
One hundred years is a long ways off. I'm not sure but I think the whole doubling processing speeds every1.5 years will breakdown by then and we will be turning to quantum computers that uses the states of subatomic particles instead of binary. Moon bases, American flag on Mars, trans Atlantic subway, space vacations for the wealthy (not super wealthy), more renewable energy power sources, no ice caps, and a Starbucks in everyones hourse =)
I’d say autostereoscopic techniques (particularly multiview parallax barrier) will win out over the current trends simply because people would rather see 3D without needing to wear silly-looking glasses.
Plus, with the release of FujiFilm’s parllax barrier camera and the more media-saturated Nintendo 3DS, autostereoscopic displays will be getting much more press coverage very soon. And any business(wo)man knows more press equals more popularity.
-IMP
It's worse, some people cannot even spell "the" online without screwing up.
Thanks to my trusty companion, Hot Rod (an MX-400 Logitech mouse)
I never misspell when I post because of the auto-spellcheck and correction click and I am wise enough to know what word to use.
Poor education and texting is in my mind, the evil source of all this illiteracy. The phone companies should boost the memory capacity of their phones for typing in coherent english or parents should lecture their kids that this is not how you should write a book report and take their phones off them for a month or two.
On the other hand,
New words like "smart phone" "quantum computing" and "fanboy" are entering our language (I do not consider internet gibberish to even qualify for a dictionary EVER)
Communication is faster than ever, you can make friends who live in another country and tell them what hobbies you are into and they send a response in seconds.
I'm holding out hope for voice recognition software to replace the keyboard so that the computer types what you dictate in correct punctuation and spelling with a touch screen manual override in case you are sick with laryngitis or just don't feel like talking to a machine.
The english language is at a crossroads and it is up to us to decide if keeping it "pure" or letting slang and pop culture interact with it is for the best.
Oh, there was that bit in the bible where Jesus turned dihydrogen monoxide into ethyl alcohol… or the part where he walked on surface tension… oh wait… its just a story…………….. P.S. please learn how to use grammar correctly.