Wikimedia: More than just wikipedia.
Everybody on the internet today seems to know about
Wikipedia (of course I knew about it about when it was fresh and exciting). So today, whilst the mainstream population uses Wikipedia, I am going to explore some of the other features/services of Wikimedia. Consider it my service to internet or something like that. :)
Wikitionary:A free dictionary - a fair idea, but I doubt it will catch on because we need to know when we look up words we are getting a definition from an authorative source.
Wikispecies:This site aims to list the world's species. I think it has potential, but may only appeal to a small proportion of the population. Also inaccurate information could easily start to propagate.
Wikinews:News everyone can write and edit. This means you get stories not covered by the national press by people who may have first hand accounts of events, however also that facts may be inaccurate.
Wikicommons:I think this site really has potential. The aim is to allow people to upload content for the general public to use such as clipart. Beneath each item is the license the author has assigned to it.
WikisourceThis service is very useful to anyone interested in literature as it contains published books which no longer have copyright restrictions. Although other websites have attempted this, I think Wikimedia has the server power and capacity to make the project very successful.
Wikiquote:Looking for a good quote? Here is one place where you can find plenty of good examples. A word of advice however is to remember that anybody can edit the pages, so proceed with caution. (I suggest typing quotes into a search engine to find out if any other sites have them)
Wikibooks:Instead of collaborating to write an encyclopedia, how about books? That is the mission of this site. Whenever you are researching a well known topic, stopping to check whether a book exists in Wikibooks is a good idea as it offers lots of good information.
Happy researching!
Labels: My philosophy, Web tools
The political scene.
I am rather pleased with the current poltiical situation. The Lib-Dems have chosen a poor public speaker for a leader, and the Labour party is in complete chaos as nobody knows how to proceed and the media refuses to let the issue drop. This leaves the Conservatives. Here is their chance to reclaim some ground.
Firstly though, why do I think the Conservatives are the right choice for the country now?
The Labour party constantly refers to the opposition negatively "If David Cameron thinks that a photo shoot of him hugging a husky dog and adopting an oak tree for their emblem could fool the British people into thinking that the Tories have fundamentally changed, he's barking up the wrong tree." It was several years ago however that they performed any socialist action (other than raising taxes and oppressing the population). I think they got behind Blair, never challenged him and as a result he has now aligned the Labour party a long way away from their core voters.
Essentially a vote for the Labour party is no longer a vote for Socialism, but a set of values losely based around Tony Blair's ideas.
The Liberal Democrats typically have some very good and very bad policies and one very poorly thought out policy currently circulating is the one of taxing airlines and fuel and passengers and virtually every other type of transport. If you read my posts on the "UK transport policy" however you (hopefully) will appreciate that this alone is not going to solve any of the problems and will cause significant long-term damage to our economy.
However the Conservatives (thanks largely to David Cameron) have rebranded themselves and are producing very intelligent policies (or at least ideas!) which I feel will really benefit Britain in the long-term. The notion of building a society that places value in principles and happiness sounds very positive.
Labels: Politics
Sexist language?
I do not regard myself in any way as sexist (although I do have a sense of humour). However I find the idea of "sexist language" poltical correctness gone insane.
Now to clarify we are not talking about slanderous words for women or anything like that, but words which contain "man" or some other incomprehensible logic.
An example might be "Mankind". That to me is a perfectly legitimate word. This is because the word "man" features in the spellings of both "man" and "woman". But no, that is sexist. You should be saying "hu
manity" or "hu
mankind" instead.
How about "man-made"? What else can you say?!? "human-made"? Apparently the correct term is "
manufactured" or "synthetic". Even words like "Policeman" and "Fireman" should be replaced with "Police Officer" and "Firefighter".
If you really want a word which is sexist, I think you'll find Feminism fits rather nicely!
Labels: My philosophy
Hammond incident shows how many love Top Gear
Is it the brash quips which resonate from Jeremy Clarkson's belly at a frequency inaudible to little girls and environmentalists? Could it be James May who adds that extra bit of "here's my collection of train sets dating back to 1804"? Or maybe it is a little hamster and his sparkling teeth?
Whatever the case, everywhere I've looked people have been wishing Richard Hammond a speedy recovery and noted how good the show is. I think the reason Top Gear is so successful is because it proves to middle-aged men "you can still have fun, if you can afford a good enough car!"
Labels: Miscellaneous
New Eco-friendly Virgin.
Virgin is the first company I've seen that has actually decided to do anything about global warming (others have promised with no progress). What Branson has pledged is to invest "all profits from his five airline and train companies over the next 10 years to a series of commercial ventures designed to produce renewable energy and limit environmental damage." That is the kind of transport policy approach I am trying to get central government to consider.
Full details can be found
here.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
A few recent posts and articles on our changing approach to human rights.
I'm going to start with
SpyBlog. Today wtwu has posted "
Repeal or amend Labour's repressive laws?" It is an excellent post, and if you follow the links you'll find a
Lib-Dem campaign to reverse the damage caused by oppressive legislation passed under this Labour government and the "doom" with too many o's
blog (the name isn't important). I highly recommend
this post, which explains the changing attitudes in Europe towards terrorism.
Further away in Thailand the military have
taken control and In Iran
controls over free speech at universities are being tightened.
Clearly human rights remain as contentious an issue as ever.
Labels: Human Rights, Politics, Privacy
UK Transport policy update - Department of Transport response.
I am pleased to announce that the Department of Transport has responded to the
letter I sent to them. The reply is well written and courteous, and I do get the underlying sense that the woman partially agrees with me (maybe it is just a hope...).
Here it is (names are excluded and my comments are indicated with //):
"Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your letter of 7 August to the Secretary of State on the subject of road pricing. I have been asked to reply. In your letter you raise a number of concerns in response to a newspaper article.
// Thank you for taking the time to respond, especially considering the pressures on the department of transport recently. //
As you will appreciate tackling congestion is a key long term priority in transport because it affects us all. It causes frustration to people stuck in traffic jams. It is bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. And it affects people's quality of life.
// ....and it is bad for the environment because it causes pollution... //
It is a growing problem, especially around our major cities, where businesses and jobs are concentrated. As the economy grows, people want to travel more and travel further than they did before. If we do nothing, the problem will get worse in the next 20 to 30 years.
// ...you miss out the possibilities of Teleworking and the impact of the population size, but I agree it is an important issue and that is partly why I wrote to you. I don't believe any government should bury its head in the sand and hope a problem will go away... //
The Government is exploring the scope for developing a national system of road pricing - in line with its manifesto commitment.
// Its a quick fix solution to a problem that requires a long-term, sustainable, integrated policy. It might reduce congestion, but that will only be because people cannot afford to travel. I thought the idea of socialism was to help the people, not just tax them (or is this the new labour I've been hearing so much about)? //
This could mean charging on the basis of distance travelled with the charge varied according to how congested a road is. A Feasibility Study, published in July 2004, said that a national road pricing scheme had the potential to reduce urban congestion by nearly half, with about 4% less traffic using the roads at peak times. So a relatively small number of people changing the time that they travel, or travelling in a different way, could lead to a significant improvement in congestion.
// *sigh* According to data released by the Unlimited Jargon friends club, if you wear a hat, you are 40% more likely to experience a windy day. How many other alternatives have been considered? //
However, implementing a national road pricing system would be a massive and complex task. This is why to start with the Government has decided to focus on local pilot and pathfinder schemes, and support local authorities as they develop schemes which will test systems in different areas and establish what works.
// Perhaps you should replace "what works" with "what makes money". //
In your letter you raise the issue of public transport outside of London. Under the Transport Act 2000, for at least the first ten years, local authorities have to use the revenues raised by any road pricing scheme to help deliver their Local Transport Plan (providing the scheme comes into effect by 2011). After this time the local authorities’ share of net revenues can be spent as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. No decision has been made on what might be included in any such regulations. However, we are working with local authorities to enable the development of road pricing pilots that offer a fair deal for road users and work to the overall benefit of the places where they are implemented.
// Instead of working with on small scale community projects to improve an area, you are proposing creating an extremely complicated, bureaucratic system that will infringe on the public's privacy and make travelling more costly, which in turn will probably increase the English North-South economic divide. //
The Government is committed to improving public transport; it remains a key priority for us. Since 1997, spending on transport infrastructure has more than doubled.
// And yet clearly it hasn't solved the problem.... //
We have funded, and continue to fund, many local public transport schemes. The Crawley Fastway (a guided bus scheme) and Durham Park and Ride are recent examples of new schemes funded by the Department. We have also funded some very large rail projects, including updating the West Coast Mainline, which enables tilting trains to travel at 125mph - delivering much faster journey times. We are also investing in the Channel Tunnel rail link and upgrading the ticket hall at London Kings Cross.
// Whilst I support several of the policies mentioned, it is important to place Britain in context with the rest of the world. Japan has fast trains. Most of Europe has fast trains. The UK is still a long way behind and ticket prices are very costly during peak times (inhibiting travelling further). //
Furthermore, when local authorities bid for money from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) to implement road pricing schemes, they will be required to tell us what complementary transport measures they are proposing. It is for the local authority to determine what these measures will be, but it could include measures such as real-time information systems at bus stops, improvements to bus services or redesigning the road space to encourage more walking and cycling.
// I hate to be a spoil sport, but I think the fares from bus journeys should pay for upgrades to the stops, not car drivers. //
You also raise concern about the effects of a road pricing scheme on people travelling to work. The Government recognises how important it is for people to be able to get around, and that is especially true for those on low incomes who need to travel to work. We are certainly not trying to price these people off the road – indeed under some possible schemes they might pay less than now in motoring costs. What road pricing should do is to encourage some people to change their travel arrangements, perhaps by travelling a little earlier or later, by car-sharing, or by using public transport where that is an option. Not many people need to change their journeys for us to have an impact on congestion. All of the pilot schemes for pricing will assess carefully the impact on all groups, including those on low incomes, to help design the best arrangements.
// A good point. Low income families will be penalised more under the new scheme, especially those who live outside expensive urban areas and commute every day. According to you "not many people need to change", which is a little contrary to what you said earlier...I thought congestion was a major issue. If only a few people need to change then there is less of an argument for road charging than before. //
The Government is also actively promoting fuel efficiency. The Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty and the Company Car Tax are now both linked to vehicles’ carbon emissions. Motorists can save up to £210 in VED, and thousands of pounds on their Company Car Tax bill if they choose clean, low-carbon vehicles. Colour-coded energy efficiency labels for new cars, modelled on those for household white goods, were launched in February 2005 and are now in most UK car showrooms. These enable consumers to make informed and environmentally friendly choices when they buy a new car. The 2002 Powering Future Vehicles Strategy sets out the Government's policies to encourage the development and uptake of clean, fuel efficient vehicles.
// This is hardly solving the problem. What you've done here is increased tax on the wealthy (who will probably just ignore the increased costs) and on families. The labels are a good idea, but clearly not widely publicised (especially compared to the "think" campaign.) //
You suggest in your letter that speed limits should be adjusted according to the number of pedestrians in the area. The Department keeps all national speed limits under constant review to ensure they remain appropriate. In 2001 we considered raising the motorway speed limit but concluded that the increased risk of accidents and severity of those accidents far outweighed potential benefits. Particularly as police enforcement thresholds are 10% plus 2mph of the speed limit. This effectively means that enforcement may not begin until vehicle speeds exceed 79mph.
// Yet in Germany (where many motorways have no speed limits, but instead strict dangerous driving regulations) road accidents have been falling dramatically over the past decade (
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/germany.html) Once people in Great Britain accept that travelling by car is still an essential part of today transport policies, then maybe we'll be able to move forward. //
Local authorities are responsible for setting local speed limits, including speed limits by time of day. It is for them to decide when and where local speed limits may be changed. The Department published new guidance to local authorities on setting local speed limits on 8 August this year which will further assist in their decision making process.
// That still doesn't address my point of separating pedestrians and motorists. It doesn't even come close. //
The Department’s aim is to achieve safe, appropriate vehicle speeds that will reduce accidents and the risk of accidents and increase use by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
// Increase use of roads by pedestrians? What kind of speed limits are you thinking of? //
Finally you raise the issue of black boxes and their affect on the privacy of individuals. We are conscious of these concerns and safeguards will need to be considered as we design any scheme. There are several ways to design a road pricing system - there are different types of technology and different ways of billing and paying. We need to work through the privacy implications of each of the options and it is too soon to say exactly how reassurance will be applied in any specific scheme. What is clear is that, as a minimum, the normal legal protections concerning the use of personal data would apply to all road pricing schemes, be they local or national."
// The data protection act is already under attack from central government. As previously stated no reassurances can be given. //
Yours sincerely,
BUT WAIT A MINUTE, what about the points I raised in my letter?
-There was a complete omission of any discussions of biofuels. I believe they have great potential (in a medium term time period) to solve many of our problems. If only 5% of drivers were to use biofuels, it would be the equivalent of taking 1 million people off the road. Brazil has done it. Actually (as the department of transport has used it above) according to the
Labour Party manifesto The "government will continue to support technological innovation to reduce carbon emissions such as hydrogen fuel-cell buses in London."
-Public transport outside London (and especially in rural areas) is completely inadequate (lets face it, one or two buses a day is not going to be enough).
-Many people in rural areas are already on low incomes and this tax could drive them onto state benefits. However the government's "clever" solution is to adjust the price of travelling down certain roads so rural areas will be cheaper apparently (but what about second home owners or city commuters?). They also want to make cities expensive (What about low income migrants stuck in council accommodation?). Perhaps the answer is to tax based on earnings, but then there is no point in having road charging. Whatever way you spin it, it doesn't make sense.
-Public transport is overpriced in virtually every part of the United Kingdom. For regular travellers driving is significantly faster and cheaper and more comfortable than waiting for a bus. You can also carry lots of luggage in vehicles. The letter avoids discussing the price of public transport.
-In my letter I mentioned businesses may move away from Britain as a result of the inevitable increased costs. Those that do believe they can still make a profit will pass on costs directly to consumers (reducing the disposable income of everyone further). There is no mention of this in the letter either!
-On the issue of road charging all signs suggest the decision has already been made, even though the department of transport acknowledges how complex and unwieldy it is.
-As expected, the letter fails to outline what safeguards will exist.
In summary, the arguments for road charging (reduction of pollution and congestion) could be achieved far more effectively with the requirement of fuel efficient engines in all vehicles, the use of biofuels and other renewable energy (how about a solar panel on every car to power the air conditioning?), small scale local schemes by people who know their area, competitively priced public transport and better designed, more efficient roads to get people completing their journey's faster. There is also an argument for decentralisation of goods and services and generally reducing the need to travel.
Thank you for reading and I hope I have convinced you to reassess your approach to transport.
To view the full story, check out my archive of posts on the "
UK Transport Policy" or select it from the sidebar.
Labels: Politics, Privacy
Childhood depression up?
Speak to most people and they will recall details of a happy childhood filled with blissful ignorance. Yet apparently
children are no longer happy in their innocent youth so lets ask someone who wasn't a child that long ago: me.
"NO I WAS NOT HAPPY AS A CHILD, GO AWAY!" In between stressful evenings trying to manage a huge workload of posters, 101 irrelevant textbook questions and "research", I spent most of my time alone because people didn't like me and I didn't/still don't like them. There was extreme pressure, followed by long stretches of boredom. I was being forced into the child processing machine and I didn't fit!
Then there are the stories. Rich kids always telling you exactly where they have been on holiday and for how long. Popular kids always telling you how many parties they went to last week. Smart kids always bragging about their grades. Fit kids always showing off their brawn. What did I show off about? Sarcasm. "Oh wow you went to Florida? Did you notice?" "At this party, how many people had a good time without drinking? Nobody? Oh so only mentally incapacitated people enjoyed it." "Wow 10 A's, you must have been studying the Labour manifesto closely this year." "So you went to the gym? Me? I'm not so insecure about my looks and I don't like the idea of out living my grandchildren, but don't let me put you off."
So it is hardly surprising children are feeling down in such a competitive and selfish society. Families are not sticking together, parents don't have time for their kids, exam results are even more important now. The government is trying to tackle anti-social behaviour with ASBOs, instead of engaging lessons and decent leisure facilities. Youth centres are being replaced with
passport registration offices. Everybody must be academic, even if they don't want to be. Religion has almost disappeared from British culture and now there is a void where morals once existed and people have lost faith in all areas of life. The idea that principles may be more important than money no longer seems credible. In fact what has actually happened is that people have become far more cynical (I was just ahead of the times) :)
Labels: My philosophy
Third Labour party scandal (in one week!)
If you voted for (or are a member of) the Labour party and you're reading this blog, start grovelling!
NO2ID have posted an alarming article on their front page titled "Government to abolish privacy".
Just reading it makes me think "This can't be the same Britain we are talking about. The home of freedom, knowledge, culture, opportunity and integrity?" It is.
Labels: Politics
A directory of....pointless sites?
Some things just have to be shared:
http://www.pointlesssites.com/Warning: Some of the sites are surprisingly entertaining. Visit only when you have spare time.
Labels: Entertainment
More Labour party scandal!
This blog isn't designed to be just one big criticism of the Labour party, although you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise recently.
The latest revelation is that Labour Party officials met with NHS officials to discuss
which areas of the UK would lose out on funding and
Tory and Lib-Dem MPs are accusing Labour of prioritising their marginally held seats. Of course there is no evidence, but the fact that there are no minutes of the meeting and that the Labour party has refused to release the heat maps suggests something questionable occurred. However were it the case that this government held a proven track record for integrity, openness and accountability over 9 years I probably would not be doubting them, but to anyone who studies the veneer closely, its not hard to imagine this government performing covert electioneering at all.
More information:
The TimesBBCLabels: Politics
Labour uses health and safety laws to prevent protesting
Yet another outrageous action has been taken by the Labour government to prevent people protesting. In this instance its about the war in Iraq at Labour's upcoming conference in Manchester. Even more proof (as if we needed it) that Tony Blair is a dictator stuck in a democratic country.
Here are a few news articles on the subject:
Independent (if still accessible)
Daily MailLabels: Human Rights, Politics
Another one of Ken's bright ideas.
The London Mayor Ken Livingstone is a creature I approach with extreme caution. Although I don't dislike him as profusely as Tony Blair, I am not particularly impressed with his record.
Let me break it down for you:
Tax up, Fares up, Congestion Charge, Racist/Other inappropriate negotiations with the media and other officials, Poor housing policy, Poor road transport policy, Increased surveillance, Poor Olympics organisation and the extortionate costs of hosting it and so on and so on.
There really isn't much positive to say. The only difference I notice because of Ken Livingstone is that every bus, train, tram and so on has a Mayor of London logo on it now and it didn't before. Great. Another few million wasted.
Another thing he is responsible for is the amount of cameras in London. You can no longer move without being logged. Gee thanks Ken.
However many of you may refer to the Oyster card as a positive action of his department - sure, its convenient, but it isn't for the people without one who shortly will have to pay £2 per bus journey. That turns a positive thing into something negative. It also tracks every journey made on it (Of course such information is made available to the police and other departments in the fight against terrorism...).
And most recently he has attempted a
deal with Venezuela. Give us oil and we'll send a few advisor's who are ruining London to come and do the same to your country. Just what they need.
Update: I've posted a rather detailed comment at
Anyone But Ken on Congestion Charging overall.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Anti-Americanism
There is an interesting post over at
The Last Boy Scout about
Anti-American sentiment in Britain. My personal view is that the citizens of both regions remain close, despite the climate of fear that has emerged, because we are motivated by the same things and have a similar underlying culture and moral code.
Labels: My philosophy, Politics
Prosperous?
In the US a new site called
Prosper has emerged allowing people to borrow and lend money to each other at determined interest rates. Should you live in America and desire a loan or have money to spare it may be worth a look, but please remember: loans are designed to make the wealthy wealthier and their is a risk to lenders also..
Labels: Miscellaneous
Untreatable TB should have been headline news.
What is more important? Tony Blair leaving government or a deadly disease being labelled "untreatable" by the World Health Organisation?
Yet look around the internet and you will find hardly any coverage of the second item.
I however think this story is definitely worthy of headline news. I am sure after reading the following articles you will agree:
'Virtually untreatable' TB foundExtremely Resistant TB Emerges in South AfricaDrug-resistant TB raises global fearsCall to isolate TB victimsKenya: Declare TB an Emergency, British MPs Urge StateTo find out more visit:
http://www.stoptb.org/globalplan/Labels: Politics
Reverse physchology...
A new song titled "don't download this song" is surfacing. I began with the aim not to listen to the song, but somehow I ended at up at
http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com and listened to it anyway. Of course the artist was lying. If he didn't want people to download it, he surely would not have made a site about it. Still it raises some ethical issues, doesn't it?
Labels: Entertainment
Fried squirrel: rare, medium or well done?
Before I get endless complaints from animal rights activists, the title of this post is in reference to squirrels which are causing problems in America by chewing through power cables and - erm - getting a roasting. The
Full story is here. Shocking.
Labels: Miscellaneous
Web 2.0: what is it and who owns it?
Like many web users I try and keep informed about the latest developments. One particular term that has been floating around for some time now is
Web 2. We are promised great things and companies give us buzz words and their "visions" of a world dependent on them. But essentially Web 2.0 as I see it is simply a natural evolution. If I were to be really cynical, its an attempt for people in the technology industry to look good simply by documenting what has already happened.
However what about the
Web 2 conference? Did you notice the only way to get in is
by invitation? A fine way to betray the Internet's open model. Yet if we are totally realistic, the internet has grown successful because everybody contributes a little, not because of a few companies. If Google didn't exist do you really think there would be no search engines? If Myspace hadn't emerged do you believe social networking wouldn't have happened. Of course not.
So as far as I can see Web 2.0 is a meaningless term used by technology companies and a few enthusiasts to determine how best they can get money out of us in the future. True innovation will not arrive from these already successful companies, but from new start-ups somewhere in the world...
Who owns "web 2.0"? Legally its O'Reilly. Who actually owns the web? Everybody.
Labels: My philosophy, Technology
What could be worse than ID cards? The Children's index!
Ladies and gentlemen browsing the internet, the Children's Index is a new database being created for one purpose: To track every single British human being from the day they are born or earlier.
It will basically function like an Identity database, only this database will make it disastrous for any child to make a mistake - ever.
The background:A young girl called Victoria Climbié died in 2000 after abuse and it is believed this death could have been prevented if the government departments had actually shared information and been more diligent. Of course it would be stupid to mention that one of the reasons the civil servants didn't flag up the issue was because they didn't want to be labelled racist.
The proposal:The Children's Index aims to collate all data collected about children into one central database. This includes NHS records, school reports, incidents with the police, involvement with nurseries/nannies and 40 other bits of information that will be available to approximately 200000 civil servants.
However the database is also going to be used to detect potential future criminals before they are born by looking at the criminal history of a particular family.
The risks:Ok, at this point you may be thinking something like "Yikes! That's bad, but if it helps protect children..."
Yet this database will expose children to more risks than before:
First of all the 200000 civil servants how many are going to abuse the system? How many will sell the information to paedophiles? How many are paedophiles?
Secondly what happens if you are born into a family with a criminal background? You are then condemned for life.
Third what if the criteria changes from criminal activity to terrorist potential or political activist or anybody who disagrees with the party.
Fourth what if you are arrested by the police (which can now be for anything at all e.g. hanging around an area, or being in a gang, or even looking at a policeman funny). In addition to them taking a DNA sample and placing you on a police database you'd also be marked on the Children's Index as having contact with the police.
Fifth what if civil servants add 2 and 2 and get 5? The powers of the parent will be significantly weakened, whilst the powers of the state will be considerably increased.
Sixth how long will the database information be held and used for and will it be combined with adult databases or even form the future adult database?
Seventh the Children's Index will not contain details on the children of any wealthy families such as politicians and celebrities (so much for socialism) and this is presumably because the database will be prone to weakness from the outset.
Eighth it breaches international human rights laws.
Concerned?Your not alone! A report will shortly arrive outlining the serious issues this database will cause. When this arrives the issues should be better publicised.
Until that time I recommend reading:
NO2ID DareToKnowDatabaseMasterClass and
Archrightsand the following news articles for more information:
Celebrity children will get database privacyChildren's Index will only devalue parentsChannel 4 video: UK children's database unlawfulDatabase shields celebrity childrenLabels: Human Rights, My philosophy, Politics, Privacy
Firefox 2 beta 2 released
Rearrange the segments to make a word: ive pre ss im When a new browser beta is released you don't expect that much... normally. This beta however is far from normal.
They've fixed a multitude of bugs, redesigned the theme, improved the search box functionality, improved the performance of feeds and live bookmarks, added a session restore feature like Opera and all these
others things.
Alas a few bugs remain. The spell check "add languages" goes to an extension page when Mozilla already have
suitable language packs from Thunderbird which could be used instead. To use these in Firefox, simply download your preferred language, extract the contents of the .xpi file using any archiving program, then place the .aff and .dic files into ...Program Files\Mozilla Firefox 2 Beta 2\dictionaries
There is no reason I can think of why Mozilla couldn't have already done this for each of the localised builds.
Regardless the update overall is very good and I think it will prove considerably popular with the web community.
Download it today for a taste of the future.
Answer: Impressive Labels: Technology
