578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

I dont understand why people say Firefox = free but opera isn't.

OPERA IS FREE!

585287118[/snapback]

Actually, that's what I have been saying. But it since the 'Opera costs money' idea is the only thing that justifies saying that Firefox fans don't try Opera but Opera fans test Firefox, you are supposed to be quiet about it.

see, it's better that it doesn't come with ff by default. if they decided to include loads of extensions they thought people may use as part of the browser, then the download and install will become big and long. also, not everyone wants all the features, so by having them as an extension you can allow people to have a clean, simple browser, or one customised to your own needs.

opera, on the other hand, forces you to download loads of crap against your will.

And yet, Opera is smaller than Firefox. Go figure.

What do you mean has never said it? The fastest browser slogans are all over opera.com. It was just an example of Opera's false advertising.

I was talking about spreading lies about Mozilla. Even though Opera has had lots of chances to do so, they haven't actually done it.

If you had read futher the same paragraph I said that exact same thing you say, it's just a catchy marketing phrase. I don't see how you can realise that as marketing talk but then fail to see that the link you pasted (about Minimo) is nothing but similar marketing talk. If you adamantly want to bash something over it, bash the reporter as RufioPan suggested.

You still don't seem to understand. The Mozilla spokesman made a claim about Opera being less portable than Mozilla. That very different from using a marketing slogan.

Yes, he is a Opera fan. That's what I said, he decides to try to start a flame war on mozillazine even after being repeatedly told to not to do it. I don't see how I was dishonest? I was just pointing out the fact that people are same, no matter if they are Opera or Firefox fans. The bad Firefox fans just are sadly more dominant since Firefox's market share is larger.

There is a reason why Firefox zealots are becoming more and more hated. You simply cannot compare a single Opera user trolling the MZ forums with the masses of Firefox users who bash Opera based on, not their own testing, but on what other people are saying, just because it's "cool" to bash Opera these days.

You can find things like popup blocker, password saving and integrated search function from the list. Maybe they are better in Opera but that's a matter of taste and shouldn't be said as a fact.

IE has a popup blocker in XP SP2, that is right, but this does not show a pattern of deception and lies. And IE does not have the Wand, and it does not have Opera's extensive search capabilities.

Actually, that's what I have been saying. But it since the 'Opera costs money' idea is the only thing that justifies saying that Firefox fans don't try Opera but Opera fans test Firefox, you are supposed to be quiet about it.

585287246[/snapback]

You are missing the point yet again :)

Opera is free, that is correct. But Firefox fans often say that it isn't, and that's why they don't want to use it.

That Opera is free does not contradict the claim that Firefox users won't give Opera a try because they perceive it as not being free.

an extension called session saver would be perfect for what you want.

see, it's better that it doesn't come with ff by default. if they decided to include loads of extensions they thought people may use as part of the browser, then the download and install will become big and long. also, not everyone wants all the features, so by having them as an extension you can allow people to have a clean, simple browser, or one customised to your own needs.

opera, on the other hand, forces you to download loads of crap against your will.

585287211[/snapback]

what if you don't have time to go round searching for extensions and finding the right version?

i don't see opera forcing anyone to download anything against their will because you don't have to download the browser itself. what you might consider crap may be useful to someone else. also you don't have to use the features, you can turn them off.

ok so maybe you still have to download the extra stuff that you might not use but the download is still smaller than firefox. what if you were to include extensions with firefox to match the features that opera already has, what would the size of firefox be then?

i find firefox flimsy looking and almost not like a full browser. this isn't all down to having to download extensions to get what you want. don't ask me to explain, i get the same feeling when buying non-official control pads for the PS2.

The point is that these things indicate a willingness to be dishonest in order to get the upper hand.

585285342[/snapback]

I'd be very careful when making accusations about dishonesty. Unless you know what the Mozilla devs themselves, or an official Moz Foundation rep has been saying, it's best not to make assumptions. Media is media... unfortunately not everyone gets a fair or balanced portrayal in the media.

Relating to the chart... how long was it up? Why was it taken down? Again, shouldn't we give credit for that?

All things considered, it's generally a better use of our time to talk about why our products are good, and how they can be improved, rather than argue about who said what about whom.

Peace.

You still don't seem to understand. The Mozilla spokesman made a claim about Opera being less portable than Mozilla. That very different from using a marketing slogan.

That's just ridiculous. First of all, he isn't a Mozilla spokesman. He's a developer of Minimo. Only way to know that he's lying would be to say that he's all knowing.. which I doubt. It's very cool to judge the whole Mozilla Foundation by a single comment of a single developer, who probably even isn't a Moz Foundation staff member.

You are missing the point yet again :)

Opera is free, that is correct. But Firefox fans often say that it isn't, and that's why they don't want to use it.

That Opera is free does not contradict the claim that Firefox users won't give Opera a try because they perceive it as not being free.

585287313[/snapback]

I'm starting to think that you're the one missing the points here. Just read the 6 last pages or so. One of the main arguments has been that Firefox fans are more ignorant about other browsers (Opera) because Opera costs money.

Edit: Blah, missed the second half of the post.

Yet huge majority of users on Mozillazine has used or is using Opera. I don't see how you can keep claiming that the theory about 'Firefox user not trying Opera because it costs money' is true when the only thing backing it up is your words.

Edited by Elendil
That's just ridiculous. First of all, he isn't a Mozilla spokesman. He's a developer of Minimo. Only way to know that he's lying would be to say that he's all knowing.. which I doubt.

So. Does that justify his comment?

Yet huge majority of users on Mozillazine has used or is using Opera.

Not in my experience. Most comments from those who have even tried Opera are usually "I tried it ages ago, and hated it".

I don't see how you can keep claiming that the theory about 'Firefox user not trying Opera because it costs money' is true when the only thing backing it up is your words.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can put this. "Opera has ads" and "Opera costs money" are two of the most common complaints from Firefox users, especially in the MZ forums. Many also go even further, slagging Opera based on, not their own experience, but what they've heard from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone who tried Opera 4 once upon a time. You get the idea.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can put this. "Opera has ads" and "Opera costs money" are two of the most common complaints from Firefox users, especially in the MZ forums. Many also go even further, slagging Opera based on, not their own experience, but what they've heard from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone who tried Opera 4 once upon a time. You get the idea.

We're talking about testing the browser, not using it. If someone can't live with a browser that has ads, it's their choice.. but at least they have tried it. Ads don't stop anyone from testing the browser.

So. Does that justify his comment?

It makes your holy wrath against Mozilla Foundation and Firefox unjust.

I'm starting to think that you're the one missing the points here. Just read the 6 last pages or so. One of the main arguments has been that Firefox fans are more ignorant about other browsers (Opera) because Opera costs money.

Edit: Blah, missed the second half of the post.

Yet huge majority of users on Mozillazine has used or is using Opera. I don't see how you can keep claiming that the theory about 'Firefox user not trying Opera because it costs money' is true when the only thing backing it up is your words.

Do u have anything to back up ur statement that they aren't ignorant about other browsers ?

Most who have used it have used it in the early Version, Its GUI has almost completely changed since then and so has its rendering Engine..

The attitude of most FF users is either

1- FF Rox Opera Sux 11one11oneone1111

2- I Never Used Opera and never will

3- Why pay For a Browser ??

4- I've used it b4...its Bloated..

I dont say that FireFox is bad.. One thing that Opera can never beat FF at is Customization.. Its Open-Source so u cant beat that unless Opera Decides to go Open Source aswell (Dont see it happening in the near Future). I use Opera beacuse i find it easier to Disable Options then to hunt for Extension.

Almost every1 that gives the latest version of Opera have said they like it.. mayb u should try too ?

One thing that Opera can never beat FF at is Customization.. Its Open-Source so u cant beat that unless Opera Decides to go Open Source aswell (Dont see it happening in the near Future). I use Opera beacuse i find it easier to Disable Options then to hunt for Extension.

585287498[/snapback]

How is FF more customizable than Opera? You can make Opera look like what ever you want. I tried FF v.1.0 when it was launch. Only customization I saw was skinning and add/remove toolbars...

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't ignorant Firefox users. I'm being neutral here. There are stupid Firefox spammers who are just using the browser because it's 'in' and 'cool'. There are similar Opera users. Since Firefox's market share is much larger than Opera's the Firefox fans are louder.. which probably makes them more obnoxious. Herds always make idiots feel stronger.

I've used Opera for years, I love it. I'll definitely install it again once version 8 is final. I just love Firefox more, at the moment at least. It's just too much fun to mess around with it.

U have the source Code at ur hands..U can turn it into whatever to want...it goes more than just skins but then again the average joe doesnt know all this..but if u really want to argue on which is more customizable i'd say FF without any hesitation.

It has extension + u have the Code, But if u just want to Compare the GUI Customizability then Yea Opera is Probably Better & Thats why i use it :D

It makes your holy wrath against Mozilla Foundation and Firefox unjust.

you have got to be kidding me...

because he is not an official bloatzilla person, he can lie as much as he wants?

dude, he's the lead developer or minimo or something! of course he's part of the mozilla corporation. he's probably a paid programmer.

Good points. In regards to the comparison chart, well I never saw the original, nor have I heard a rebuttal from the author of that chart, so I won't comment. Should we ignore the credit that is due when the chart was eventually corrected?

I have given credit that is due, to the person who corrected it, an Opera user. Mozilla corrected about half of the page after their blatant lying was pointed out but they absolutely refused to have an accurate comparison on their site which is the reason it was removed from their website (you can consider this the original author's "rebuttal," since he couldn't possibly have a real one to justify his lies.)

Secondly, you seem to be thinking that "fud" is what led Firefox to where it is. Are you so certain? You are basically saying that chart, and other lies perpetrated, stole usership from Opera? So all those noob web users were actually headed over to the Opera site to purchase their license, or download their free versoin, and were instead amazed by a chart?

Are you saying that their lies couldn't have possibly made a difference? If you are, then I must ask: Why did the Mozilla Foundation find it necessary to lie? Surely they wouldn't blatantly lie about their competitors if it didn't benefit them...

A good portion of Firefox's userbase, if not the vast majority comes post 1.0. I call it good marketing. Yes, unfortunately, you have to market a product to make it successful to the masses.

Firefox's marketing was rather good but the coincidences surrounding the marketing played a bigger role in the adoption of Firefox than anything else, how successful would Firefox have been if Microsoft weren't being dissed by the U.S. Government at the same time? It would've only been about half as successful if it weren't for sheer luck.

What morals did they throw out the window? You're still referring to the chart that dates back to Firefird 0.7?

Translation: "Lying to millions of people doesn't prove that they threw their morals out the window."

Yeah, a browser that's just good enough isn't good for me, nor you, nor for the industry, but if Opera is really the killer app you and others are suggesting, get Opera to prove it... to put some muscle into their marketing.

I know you've been reading this thread but have you listened to a single thing that has been said? I believe everyone in this thread, except you, has agreed that marketshare says nothing about the quality of a product. If a logical fallacy like that was true then why isn't Discreet's 3D Studio Max the most popular 3D authoring tool?

Techno_Funky, use Ctrl+H to hide Opera to the system tray. It's Opera's "boss key".

A porn browser is never complete without the almighty boss key! ;)

You are missing his point, I think. This is not just about a comparison table. It is about a general trend. There are other things too, such as the story on Minimo reinventing mobile browsing, where you basically get the impression that Minimo is leading the race and innovating, when the fact is that all those things are already done by Opera.

Yeah, that minimo story was full of crap. That was about the 10th time Mozilla done something "innovative" which was copied from Opera. I don't mind Mozilla and Opera borrowing ideas from eachother, it's the fact that Mozilla is always claiming something to be intuitive when it's not.

How on earth can a Mozilla spokesman make any kind of statement about Opera's portability, especially considering the fact that Opera is available for a helluva lot more mobile operating systems than Minimo?

It's impossible to state something like that while maintaining any credibility. The last time I checked, the Mozilla developers don't have Opera's source code so it's impossible to say which platforms it could be ported to (there's a couple of platforms which Opera could be ported to but there's not enough market interest in doing so.) Not to mention that Opera is coded with C++ which can compile to practically any platform as long as you include the right header files and we must also not forgot that Opera uses a commercial windowing library (Qt) so when that's updated they can port to even more platforms without any extra effort at all. This Mozilla claim has nothing to substantiate it, it's a fabricated benefit, it's a lie.

Well, Firefox's browse history usually works well in these cases.

Unless you are one of the unfortunate people which are effected by the "browser history gets lost" bug which has remained unpatched for nearly two years now. This indicates that the "it's open source so it'll get fixed faster" claim is also a lie. If you think that this bug doesn't exist then do a search through BugZilla, it's been duplicated about 60 times and is very easy to find.

I ask for lies and all I get is a REMOVED comparison chart, now.. I wonder why it was removed?

All you got? You must not be reading this thread. The comparison chart, the portability claim, the "open source benefits" claim, all of the "innovative" features that they claim to have created, how can you possibly not see more than one lie pointed out in this thread? It appears to me that you are ignoring what has been said.

*Post split into peices to avoid IPB's quote bug*

Edit: Couple minutes of browsing on Opera's site and I came up with more blatant lies, this time about IE:

http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/opera-ie/

Now how many of the features they claim are Opera only can be found in IE too? I counted at least 3

The only thing I see which contradicts today's Internet Explorer is about popup blocking and only about half of the Internet Explorer users have it (not everyone runs XP SP2) so in a comparison it is still fair game because the Internet Explorer user reading it might not have popup blocking. Besides that, I do not see any other possible contradictions.

I understand your gripes. Again, I'm not inclined to comment on accusations against ppl when they or their view are not being represented in some manner

They did represent themselves by removing the comparison page from their website after they were spotted, that's all the representation that is needed. The only other way to represent themselves was to keep the page online and simply correct it and leave a note at the bottom that it has been corrected, but that was too much to ask. This can be described like the guy who was screwing his neighbors wife and when caught he jumped out the window, just because he didn't stay and give an explanation for porking the guy's wife doesn't mean that he hasn't represented himself.

You don't see Opera claiming on their page 'OCCASIONALLY THE FASTEST BROWSER'. They claim they have the fastest browser period. Now, I've tested both Firefox and Opera and Firefox renders pages consistently faster (used stopwatch to time page rendering) for me. This of course means that Opera is lying on their page. They are promoting their product with lies and FUD, one might say. No, it's just a nice marketing phrase. Exactly what the alleged Mozilla Spokesperson was doing, exactly what any Opera exec would say if he/she had the chance.

I have already, quite clearly, explained why their slogan is absolutely true. It should also be pointed out that it's impossible to get any accurate statistics for loading time because there's a million factors involved: do you know how many users were on the site when you tried it with Firefox and how many were on it when you tried Opera, do you know how many users were online with your ISP at both moments, do you know how many people from your ISP were on that same site, do you know how much activity was being done by each individual user, do you know if your thumb hit the stopwatch at the very millisecond that each started and finished? You couldn't possibly answer any of these questions with any degree of accuracy, so how could you possibly claim that the outcome is an accurate representation of both browsers? Even if you used something more accurate like a packet sniffer then you'd still be woefully inaccurate due to all of the random factors that couldn't possibly be accounted for. You also conveniently ignored how that phrase could apply to using the application and not just downloading pages. Because you cannot possibly get an accurate test of either one, the rest of your arguments against Opera collapse by themselves, so there's no need for me to even counter them.

and what specific features are you referring to?

That's what I can't figure out. I only found one possible discrepency but that doesn't account for the 3 that he claims is there...

hmmm opera is a very good browser,but this interface is bloated somehow, don't feel comfortable with it,id rather use firefox for it's simplicity and speed.

cheers

You can customize the Opera interface, ask for help on the MyOpera forums and I'm confident that you'll get all the help you need. On my computer have the interface trimmed back enormously (I didn't remove functionality,) and on my parents' computer I have the interface almost identical to Internet Explorer (the only difference is a good search field to the right of the address bar.)

You can find things like popup blocker, password saving and integrated search function from the list. Maybe they are better in Opera but that's a matter of taste and shouldn't be said as a fact.

If they are better then what you are arguing, exactly? How have they lied in the comparison when they rightfully point out that their's is better than Internet Explorer's?

Apparently you do, I visit there daily. I see way more Opera fans trying to flame Firefox users than the other way around.

Of course you do, it's a site of Mozilla fans where other browser users troll, they're not going to flame eachother for preferring the same software... and the same holds true for the Opera forums (other browser users troll there.)

opera, on the other hand, forces you to download loads of crap against your will.

Opera's load is smaller than Firefox's empty basket, so I don't see why it's such a big problem.

*Post split again for the same reason, sorry*

I'd be very careful when making accusations about dishonesty. Unless you know what the Mozilla devs themselves, or an official Moz Foundation rep has been saying, it's best not to make assumptions. Media is media... unfortunately not everyone gets a fair or balanced portrayal in the media.

Their lies go beyond the media, they publish lies on their own sites and in the media there are quotes, I repeat "quotes," from the developers which are flat-out lies. It's not an assumption, they've lied plenty of times.

Relating to the chart... how long was it up? Why was it taken down? Again, shouldn't we give credit for that?

The had it up on their site for 2 days and then the Opera community pointed out just how wrong it was (at this point it was debatable wether it was a stupid mistake or blatant lying.) Mozilla corrected half of the things pointed out (which automatically proves that they knew there was still lies in the comparison, at this point they were blatant liars and not just mistaken.) they left the revised (I'm hesitant to say "the corrected") version on their site for about a month or so until they couldn't bare listening to the Opera users, and employees, jump down their throat about it. Should we give them credit for being blatant liars? Sure, they deserve all the credit they can get for being liars.

All things considered, it's generally a better use of our time to talk about why our products are good, and how they can be improved, rather than argue about who said what about whom.

The people behind the product are just as important as the product itself. This is why I generally dislike Invision Power Board, not because it's a bad product but because IPS are liars. This is also the reason why I generally dislike Firefox, it's a good product but the Mozilla Foundation are liars. I think it's important for consumers, even moreso for those who would actually give donations, know the truth about the people behind the product.

Ads don't stop anyone from testing the browser.

It does if they hate ads and know that they'd have to pay to remove them.

Since you requested:

Feature 1: Pop-up blocking. Even though Opera.com claims it doesn't exist in IE, it does.

Feature 2: Built in search engines: Just open IE and hit ctrl-e, click customize. You'll see that IE comes with more built in search engines than Opera. 20 different ways to search things under different categories.

Feature 3: Wand. Wand is nothing more than a password manager. Especially it mentions one-click signing in, which happens to be very possible with IE.

Their lies go beyond the media, they publish lies on their own sites and in the media there are quotes, I repeat "quotes," from the developers which are flat-out lies. It's not an assumption, they've lied plenty of times.

You keep saying that but don't bring any proof, even though I particularly asked for it. All I got was a removed comparison chart, which by the way wasn't removed by Opera users, but by Mozilla staff.

Edit: It's amusing that my at least half trollish 'Opera' smug digging has provided more current proof than these 'Firefox!!@211 ar lyiers' steamers can come up with.

Since you requested:

Feature 1: Pop-up blocking. Even though Opera.com claims it doesn't exist in IE, it does.

Feature 2: Built in search engines: Just open IE and hit ctrl-e, click customize. You'll see that IE comes with more built in search engines than Opera. 20 different ways to search things under different categories.

Feature 3: Wand. Wand is nothing more than a password manager. Especially it mentions one-click signing in, which happens to be very possible with IE.

585288062[/snapback]

By built in I think they mean the part on the toolbar.

IE does have a thing to remember passwords, but you have to type in the user name first then click in the box. I'm sure there's a manager in it so you can delete them or edit them like Opera's, only I can't seem to find it. So as far as I know right now, they don't have the full feature Opera and Firefox have.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!