Oh wow thats really nice!!
Brilliant find!

I'd say darkview as its not exactly a byte :p.

I've been trying to think about how to do a simple effect thing.
so say you pass the function a number and that function will loop untill it hits a destination number.

But then I want this to apply for anything so I can change the height of this or the width of this or even change the opacity.

But I'm still stuck on the theory of how to do it.

My simple library is just some basic functions like creating elements, css changes, classes, ajax etc nothing much to do with effects the effects I did are in shitty functions I haven't moved to a OO lib.

Well I tried out using gif's and png sprites only issue i hit was the fact you had to set the positions of the sprite again in ie6.css

I think it comes down to optimization and how flexible the framework is as opposed to what they do.

I would say this is where jQuery has set itself aside, the coding is very well done but its come to the point that plugin's are needed and this is a major fallback in my opinion.
Where as Dojo can do shit loads without plugins which is impressive.

But for a newbie jQuery is the way as the documentation on the subject is vast and easily to understand.

Their actually some cool tricks their, i was half expecting the same rounded corners and PNG fixes again.

About time!
Gmail and that anonymous email bollocks is really annoying.

But then you don't get the quality with a GIF, if its the most basic of buttons i could understand but the quality with a PNG is shit loads better.
Which is why I see it better having a IE6.css and just change the background image from a PNG to a GIF if need be.

Cleaver but ultimately don't see a real use for it with things like that.
It could be used in a lot more ways and make things more efficient.

Publicity stunt i would imagine, how can any of those ridiculous words go in a dictionary.

I'm getting fed up with peoples lack of thinking about how to code sprites.

Time and time again I've just seen messy CSS coding.
their calling the image every button so its like:

No no no no no no no no no no in my opinion that is shit coding.

This is how I would do it and how I see it being faster and lighter coding with easier methods of calling it.

That just their is cutting out a lot of work for you and the advantage of having spriteBG class is you can later on change your PNG to say a GIF easily in a IE6 css file.
Then your sprites are cross browser compatible.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but is the 1st example a example of plain shit coding not being thought through?

At the moment I am developing a library, which is kinda based upon the jQuery one.

The main advantage being the function chaining.
so effectively you have your $() function which you can use to select your id

Then on the back of that you have your css() function to simply change a style or something

so in the end you can have say one element call and use it multiple times like so:
$('#test').css('display','block').css('color','#FFF');
as opposed to:
document.getElementById('test').style['display']='block';
document.getElementById('test').style['color']='#FFF';

So using that you have seriously optimised your code, but this is where it gets shady with people using jQuery as doing like 10 css changes like the above is slow when compared to just changing a elements class name, which is where i find people go too far with their jQuery.

And with building your own your taking into account all these small things, and not just saying fuck that I'm gonna do it easily by telling jQuery to do it all which is stupid.

I've also noticed the magazine I get Web Designer Mag, every article involving simple things they have jQuery which is pissing me off quite frankly and its everywhere.
Its so complex now you might as well learn Javascript .

They have a nice site I must admit I like the backgrounds.
Reminds me of the Sky one tv.sky.com.

Simple but has a lot of effect, well for the albino blacksheep one.

But yeah back to sound I would have gone with a flash one, is their any advantage to the bgsound tag?

I actually don't have a clue :p.

But the main thing I'm focusing on is the speed performance, even though the mac is more than enough .
They've improved a few applications though like expose and stacks, not much but the optimization is enough for me to justify spending £25 .

I must say I've pritty much mastered Javascript in my opinion, maybe not to the level of jQuery but pritty darn close .

And JavaScript is fantastic and so is jQuery to some degree, but when it comes to making simple website effects i prefer to build my own as I can then optimise them to a better level as i know the main focus that it will be used for.

I know gnome is lightweight n' all but i really do prefer the KDE desktop as you have so much more flexibility.
Yeah its light weight that but if i was to modify it i would want KDE.