Ok I'll bite. Come on, you have a 106xx UID- you should know better. For one, Linux 2.0.x [kernel.org] was 1996. Any Linux distro today has great hardware support for various chipsets, SATA drives, soundcards, and so forth. One just has to try any of the various live Linux CDs to verify this. There are free video drivers included which support various hardware and if you want proprietary video drivers those are available.
Actually, my point was that when you try running old software on new hardware, there are bound to be problems. This is precisely why I picked Linux 2.0.x as an example, because it's pretty damn old and would have issues with a lot of new hardware.
Well in that case, I just don't really see your point...
With Apple you purchase a complete solution, hardware built to be supported by their latest operating system and you want to install an out-of-date operating system on that same hardware and have it somehow magically support the new hardware (that most likely requires new drivers). I just don't see how that is a valid complaint. I'm sure Apple could work out a way to get around this (updated installer discs for business clients etc.). If you need to maintain compatibility then don't upgrade, if you need faster hardware then maybe you should consider figuring out what the new OS will break and find out how to fix that. Why would anyone expect new hardware to be supported by old operating system releases (that lack the proper drivers)?
And yes, I do feel that new hardware should still be able to at least be bootable with older operating system releases, but you can't really expect full support for the new hardware straight out of the box. Ever tried installing a Linux 2.0.x-based distribution on a brand new PC? There's a lot of hardware in newer computers that isn't supported, it boots and your keyboard will probably work, but your graphics card, soundcard, SATA drives and all that stuff will most likely not work without some major upgrades...
Yes, but wouldn't this be related to the fact that IIRC 10.4 was the first version to have official support for Intel CPUs? So any users with Intel Macs would already have Tiger?
I prefer Vim, sure it has what some puritans might consider bloat but compared to a lot of other text editors it's lightweight, fast and userfriendly (really, I've had to use nano/pico a few times and it just confused me to no end).
I think there is something missing in this story as well. It seems odd to me that the guy would be so casual about going to jail. Unless he is a young guy who is used to being arrested and has been in trouble before, the idea of being dragged off to jail in front of one's family should be a horrific thing. I mean weighed in the balance, it seems like most people would have just shown their ID.
Does this guy maybe have a record and is not giving his ID to the cop for that reason?
Sounds like you have a bit too much respect/fear of the police, they are your servants, paid to keep you and other citizens safe by upholding the law, and being falsely arrested probably doesn't scare him because he is idealistic and believes he is right and from what he wrote it seems he made sure not to do or say anything that might come off as threatening (as some cops seem to love wrestling "perps" to the ground, spraying them with mace and throwing them roughly into a car...).
/Mikael (who has also made a point of not showing contents of bags when leaving stores, if you're sure I stole from you, call the cops so I can let you take me to court and then have you pay my lawyer when it turns out I was innocent (yay for not being american))
I do tech support and when Internet Explorer 7 came out we noticed that it didn't really get along with the NAT routers we send out to our customers (they sometimes need to do a very very small amount of configuring), I'm not entirely certain of what the problem is but there is no problem with IE5/6, FF, Safari, Opera or even links, but IE7 is a no-go. It took the manufacturer a good three months to come up with a new firmware that addressed the problem, and until then we had to teach hundreds/thousands of customers how to use telnet (and how to install it if they were running Vista, the telnet client is disabled by default). Good times...
Oh well, at least it's not Windows 9x, I have to give MS some credit for eventually killing off all support for that branch as our superiors decided that since MS no longer supported 95/98/ME in any way then neither should we.:-)
I think part of what you are finding is based on link congestion, the transcontinental links aren't what they ought to be. Also you can't confuse upstream and downstream, if someone has a 512k DSL connection it's probably 512k/128k not 512k symmetric.
I was talking about people who have 512 kbps upstream, not downstream.
As for your DSL connection, that's around what you can get in the US. It's generally 6mbps, not 8 (different DSL standard that most use) but same rough area. Likewise, cable modem connections tend to be in the 6-12mbps range (mine is 10mbps).
Basic ADSL is generally G.DMT, also known as ITU G.992.1 which supports 8 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream (although most implementations limit the upstream to 800 kbps). This is the ADSL standard in use (even more basic is ANSI T1.413 but I don't know of any ISPs that still use that).
As for Bredbandsbolaget (BBB), they used to have pretty shoddy bandwidth but they got bought out by Telenor recently so hopefully they'll improve now that they're owned by a backbone provider.
Actually, in my experience from living in scandinavia and communicating with a lot of people across the world americans have pretty bad connections. Americans with "512kbps" uploading at 150kbps or so to servers in europe or otherplace isn't uncommon.
Meanwhile, as for european (specifically, scandinavian) backbones, OptoSUNET which is the latest incarnation of the swedish university network backbone is running at 1 Gbps on the slowest links, "normal" links are 10 Gbps and they're already talking about 40 Gbps...
Also, the 8/0.8 Mbps (g.dmt) ADSL connection I have at home will actually max out the downstream when downloading torrents that have a lot of seeders (even if they're on other networks than the one I'm on), so there's not a lot of noticable traffic shaping going on either.
Sure, I've had a few idiots at the first level who tried to convince me they didn't have managers, but I mostly just hung up on them and called back. It's a toll-free call, so I don't care.
Actually, it's more likely that they told you they couldn't transfer you to their supervisor because their supervisor couldn't give you any more info than they did. Or because they had orders not to make unnecessary transfers..
Generally speaking, first-line tech support and customer services people are not idiots, just fresh out of school or living somewhere where it's hard to get other jobs (there's a reason they set up call centres in rural college towns). And being at a call centre they just don't have a lot of freedom in their job, they guys who transferred you to their supervisor were probably new at the job or up for a good ol' fashioned firing.
Actually, High school would be closer to what's called "Gymnasiet" in Sweden.
Grundskolan
Lågstadiet - grades 1 to 3, ages 7 to 9
Mellanstadiet - grades 4 to 6, ages 10 to 12
Högstadiet - grades 7 to 9, ages 13 to 15
Gymnasiet - grades 1 to 3, ages 16 to 18
Grundskolan is all compulsory and almost all students go on to gymnasiet. After gymnasiet you go to college (högskola)/university or join the workforce. In gymnasiet you get to choose between a large number of college-preparatory or vocational paths, none of which completely disqualify you from going to college although to be able to take certain college classes/majors you need to have taken certain classes in gymnasiet. Most engineering majors require that you've taken Math A through D (sometimes E), Chemical engineering requires Chemistry B and so on..
Metered bandwidth would be like going back to the X.25 connections of old (and similar old tech), where you'd pay depending on how much data you sent. Let's just say bandwidth bills could easily get outrageous if they decide that 2 GiB is a reasonable "average" monthly transfer amount and that $60 is what the "average" customer is paying now... Some quick greedy-telco-math and you now have to pay 3 cents/MiB. Which doesn't sound much until you transfer 20 gigs one month and have to pay $600 for it.
Let me just say, as a european who suffered under pay-per-minute modem connections until 1998, don't let them meter you, they will abuse it and hang on to it because it's more profitable than flat fees.
Actually, there were plenty of computer users prior to Windows 95. As for MS DOS, there were computers before it and it was hardly without competition in the market back in the day. In fact, the main reason MS DOS beat the competition wasn't because it was superior, it was because a lot of companies went with IBM PCs or compatibles and they normally came with MS DOS (or PC-DOS or DR-DOS), so when Joe Q Drone decided to buy a computer for himself he went with what he knew about, MS DOS..
Are you talking about a specific example design here? because it sure sounds like it...
Anyway, the common fluid three column design choice is with a fluid center <div> and two fixed-size <div>s on the sides. But one where the the sidebars expand to fit the content shouldn't be too hard as long as it doesn't have to work in Internet Explorer..
IE took over and "ad hoc" implemented what it could and what corporate politics allowed. It was far from perfect but it was better than any other option. Some years later, after IE had gained dominance, a small team brought us Firefox. This new browser tried to rewrite history by claiming it was the guardian of the "one true standard," the Word of the W3C, et al. It seems deliberately designed to ignore the changes in the world of designing web pages brought about by six years of IE dominance.
Uhm, how should I reply to this? How exactly was it a good thing that MS just decided to not only expand on the standard with their own non-standard browser behaviour but also by interpreting the standard in a completely different way from everyone else? Have you even heard of the infamous "Embrace and extend" tactic employed by Microsoft?
The result is a cross-browser coding disaster, and as a web developer of 15 years' experience, I blame Firefox more than IE. Both sides have their own model, and IE can't change, because it must uphold its backward compatibility. Firefox, on the other hand, is a completely incompatible standard that reflects W3C standards written after IE gained market dominance, in some cases. It is needlessly combative and in my view, destructive to those who make pages and the consumer. (Opera, on the other hand, has a saner view: it views IE 5-6 as a de facto standard and adapts, a striking maturity the FireFox developers should find intriguing).
Ok, so the IE developers screwed things up and now they can't fix things because it's too late, how the fsck is that the fault of Firefox? There is nothing "needlessly combative" about implementing the W3C standards instead of the "IE standard", it's simply following the standard. If Microsoft were so desperate for features they should've worked to get those features put into the standard.
HTML 5 is a chance for both sides to fix their sites on something productive. We can for once develop the standard before the browser, and make it work cross-platform, saving web developers years of frustrating and most of all BORING xbrowser code fixes. Also, we can finally admit to each other that while CSS is neat, the original HTML model made more sense for developers and is still more stable than CSS.
There is a pretty good standard: XHTML. There is also CSS 1 and 2 with CSS v3 on the way. This path has a lot of advantages over the "old ways" of HTML 4 and it's predecessors. And the main reason that we need all the ugly cross-browser hacks nowadays is because MS still won't develop their browser to interpret document according to the standard. Hell, it took them years to realize PNGs had an alpha channel..
That's my statement, and I'm sticking by it, after being a Gopher administrator, FTP publisher, early Web site creator/server admin and independently employed Website creator for fifteen years.
So you started writing HTML back in 1992? Somehow I always thought anyway who had more than a few months of experience with HTML wouldn't be so backwards, but maybe it's about time for the WWW to begin developing a few old farts that prefer the old and painful ways over the modern and slightly more sane ways... (nothing personal, I just can't understand all the people in this discussion arguing that XHTML is crap because they can't understand it)
Also look how hard and painful it is to implement a 3 column liquid layout with just HTML and CSS.
Actually, the regular three-column layout that is popular all over the web really isn't that hard to implement in CSS, you need to have a bit of an understanding of XHTML and CSS to pull it off but it's nowhere near as bad as it was back when people were doing similar designs with just HTML 3/4 and <TABLE> tags..
The idea to separate content and layout is nice, but the thing is, most content in pure-ist HTML+CSS is basically a bunch of div's and span's. It isn't much semantically richer than tablesoup.
This would depend on how the code is written, proper standards-compliant XHTML+CSS without ugly IE-compatibility hacks and unnecessary javascript because the developer didn't know how to do a horizontal <ul>-based menu using CSS is normally a lot nicer than a similar design in old HTML where the design and the content are all mixed up in a big unreadable mess..
I think a reason that XHTML has not taken off is due to its unforgiving strictness. From what I understand, if you make a single mistake in XHTML the page will not work and for that reason it is not intended to be handwritten. But with HTML you often have different ways of achieving the same effect, such as with centering.
Actually, one of the reason many people have picked up on XHTML is because it's a lot "cleaner" than "good" ol' HTML 4, the strict rules are one of the reasons for this, in XHTML you're not allowed to do stupid shit like "<i>foo and <b>bar</i> are both words</b>". And writing XHTML by hand is much easier than relying on some horrible WYSIWYG tool's generated code.
This is the reason for the continuing appeal of HTML: its simplicity. My understanding that XHTML requires is that document formatting be separate from the content of the document. Yet sometimes is so much simpler to use a CENTER tag versus having to mark a section of text with a customized tag and then go into a style sheet to center a single section of text.
Actually, formatting should be kept separate from the content for several very good reasons. Maintainability is a biggie as anyone who's ever had to redesign a static HTML website riddled with <font> tags. Extra points if it was made using a WYSIWYG tool that uses three or for tags when you only need one...
Anyway, I for one hope that XHTML is path we stay on. And I think the main problem that XHTML+CSS has had is Internet Explorer and its craptastic handling of CSS (still crappy in IE7 although it's gotten slightly better).
Oh, as far as their broadband offerings I generally find their services to be a lot more reliable than those of the budget-priced services from other ISPs (Glocalnet and Bredbandsbolaget, I'm looking at you two here..). I work in the industry and the general opinion among my peers is that only an idiot would go for one of those $30/month for 24Mbps ADSL2+ services from other ISPs, and I work for one of those budget ISPs. You get what you pay for.
It's not Telia's blacklist, it's Rikspolisstyrelsen's blacklist, Telia was just the ISP whose implementation of the blacklist got the most attention because when all the ISPs rolled over Telia at first refused to use the blacklist. After a short smear campaign courtesy of our evening tabloids, Telia started using the blacklist...
I think the path you meant was/usr/ports/www/firefox. And the reason the compilation was taking forever was most likely because there were a ton of dependencies.
You could also try doing "pkg_add -r firefox" which will attempt to fetch the binary packages necessary from a mirror, that way you won't have to wait for everything to be compiled... Of course, this applies to FreeBSD but I assume it's pretty much similar on PC-BSD.
Actually, using corporate logic if more people escalate then that means they have to make it harder to escalate because they don't want to spend the money investigating each and every case.. Really, it's cheaper to let the poor schmucks in customer services get yelled at than it is to let people escalate stuff like this. After all, who cares if you have high employee turnover, just make them read a script and you can train new workers in a couple of days.
You are aware that DSL signals are only good to about 2500 meters from the switch?
Actually, the ISP I work for has no upper limit on distance from the DSLAM for the customers, but at distances longer than about 5 km we generally inform potential customers that their connection speed will be not much better than 128kbps ISDN if they want a stable connection.
We'll see what they do with it. I doubt I'll buy it. I still the think the game reached perfection with 2k. Heck, if I could buy a copy of SC2K for OS X I'd do it right now.
I've actually been thinking along the lines of what you wrote here. If there were OS X versions of SC2k and TTDLX (perhaps with some of the OpenTTD improvements) I would buy them in a heartbeat. And if there were also modernized sets of artwork and other little things like that...
I'm not sure I understand your logic, are you saying that if people choose to cooperate and help each other then that would be bad because somehow them choosing to cooperate is the same thing as someone forcing them?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok I'll bite. Come on, you have a 106xx UID- you should know better. For one, Linux 2.0.x [kernel.org] was 1996. Any Linux distro today has great hardware support for various chipsets, SATA drives, soundcards, and so forth. One just has to try any of the various live Linux CDs to verify this. There are free video drivers included which support various hardware and if you want proprietary video drivers those are available.
Actually, my point was that when you try running old software on new hardware, there are bound to be problems. This is precisely why I picked Linux 2.0.x as an example, because it's pretty damn old and would have issues with a lot of new hardware.
/Mikael
Well in that case, I just don't really see your point...
With Apple you purchase a complete solution, hardware built to be supported by their latest operating system and you want to install an out-of-date operating system on that same hardware and have it somehow magically support the new hardware (that most likely requires new drivers). I just don't see how that is a valid complaint. I'm sure Apple could work out a way to get around this (updated installer discs for business clients etc.). If you need to maintain compatibility then don't upgrade, if you need faster hardware then maybe you should consider figuring out what the new OS will break and find out how to fix that. Why would anyone expect new hardware to be supported by old operating system releases (that lack the proper drivers)?
And yes, I do feel that new hardware should still be able to at least be bootable with older operating system releases, but you can't really expect full support for the new hardware straight out of the box. Ever tried installing a Linux 2.0.x-based distribution on a brand new PC? There's a lot of hardware in newer computers that isn't supported, it boots and your keyboard will probably work, but your graphics card, soundcard, SATA drives and all that stuff will most likely not work without some major upgrades...
/Mikael
Yes, but wouldn't this be related to the fact that IIRC 10.4 was the first version to have official support for Intel CPUs? So any users with Intel Macs would already have Tiger?
/Mikael
What are you talking about, you can buy yourself a copy of Tiger through The Apple Store.
/Mikael
I prefer Vim, sure it has what some puritans might consider bloat but compared to a lot of other text editors it's lightweight, fast and userfriendly (really, I've had to use nano/pico a few times and it just confused me to no end).
/Mikael
I think there is something missing in this story as well. It seems odd to me that the guy would be so casual about going to jail. Unless he is a young guy who is used to being arrested and has been in trouble before, the idea of being dragged off to jail in front of one's family should be a horrific thing. I mean weighed in the balance, it seems like most people would have just shown their ID.
Does this guy maybe have a record and is not giving his ID to the cop for that reason?
Sounds like you have a bit too much respect/fear of the police, they are your servants, paid to keep you and other citizens safe by upholding the law, and being falsely arrested probably doesn't scare him because he is idealistic and believes he is right and from what he wrote it seems he made sure not to do or say anything that might come off as threatening (as some cops seem to love wrestling "perps" to the ground, spraying them with mace and throwing them roughly into a car...).
/Mikael (who has also made a point of not showing contents of bags when leaving stores, if you're sure I stole from you, call the cops so I can let you take me to court and then have you pay my lawyer when it turns out I was innocent (yay for not being american))
I do tech support and when Internet Explorer 7 came out we noticed that it didn't really get along with the NAT routers we send out to our customers (they sometimes need to do a very very small amount of configuring), I'm not entirely certain of what the problem is but there is no problem with IE5/6, FF, Safari, Opera or even links, but IE7 is a no-go. It took the manufacturer a good three months to come up with a new firmware that addressed the problem, and until then we had to teach hundreds/thousands of customers how to use telnet (and how to install it if they were running Vista, the telnet client is disabled by default). Good times...
Oh well, at least it's not Windows 9x, I have to give MS some credit for eventually killing off all support for that branch as our superiors decided that since MS no longer supported 95/98/ME in any way then neither should we. :-)
/Mikael
I think part of what you are finding is based on link congestion, the transcontinental links aren't what they ought to be. Also you can't confuse upstream and downstream, if someone has a 512k DSL connection it's probably 512k/128k not 512k symmetric.
I was talking about people who have 512 kbps upstream, not downstream.
As for your DSL connection, that's around what you can get in the US. It's generally 6mbps, not 8 (different DSL standard that most use) but same rough area. Likewise, cable modem connections tend to be in the 6-12mbps range (mine is 10mbps).
Basic ADSL is generally G.DMT, also known as ITU G.992.1 which supports 8 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream (although most implementations limit the upstream to 800 kbps). This is the ADSL standard in use (even more basic is ANSI T1.413 but I don't know of any ISPs that still use that).
As for Bredbandsbolaget (BBB), they used to have pretty shoddy bandwidth but they got bought out by Telenor recently so hopefully they'll improve now that they're owned by a backbone provider.
/Mikael
Actually, in my experience from living in scandinavia and communicating with a lot of people across the world americans have pretty bad connections. Americans with "512kbps" uploading at 150kbps or so to servers in europe or otherplace isn't uncommon.
Meanwhile, as for european (specifically, scandinavian) backbones, OptoSUNET which is the latest incarnation of the swedish university network backbone is running at 1 Gbps on the slowest links, "normal" links are 10 Gbps and they're already talking about 40 Gbps...
Also, the 8/0.8 Mbps (g.dmt) ADSL connection I have at home will actually max out the downstream when downloading torrents that have a lot of seeders (even if they're on other networks than the one I'm on), so there's not a lot of noticable traffic shaping going on either.
/Mikael
Sure, I've had a few idiots at the first level who tried to convince me they didn't have managers, but I mostly just hung up on them and called back. It's a toll-free call, so I don't care.
Actually, it's more likely that they told you they couldn't transfer you to their supervisor because their supervisor couldn't give you any more info than they did. Or because they had orders not to make unnecessary transfers..
Generally speaking, first-line tech support and customer services people are not idiots, just fresh out of school or living somewhere where it's hard to get other jobs (there's a reason they set up call centres in rural college towns). And being at a call centre they just don't have a lot of freedom in their job, they guys who transferred you to their supervisor were probably new at the job or up for a good ol' fashioned firing.
/Mikael
Actually, High school would be closer to what's called "Gymnasiet" in Sweden.
Grundskolan is all compulsory and almost all students go on to gymnasiet. After gymnasiet you go to college (högskola)/university or join the workforce. In gymnasiet you get to choose between a large number of college-preparatory or vocational paths, none of which completely disqualify you from going to college although to be able to take certain college classes/majors you need to have taken certain classes in gymnasiet. Most engineering majors require that you've taken Math A through D (sometimes E), Chemical engineering requires Chemistry B and so on..
/Mikael
Let me just say, as a european who suffered under pay-per-minute modem connections until 1998, don't let them meter you, they will abuse it and hang on to it because it's more profitable than flat fees.
Actually, there were plenty of computer users prior to Windows 95. As for MS DOS, there were computers before it and it was hardly without competition in the market back in the day. In fact, the main reason MS DOS beat the competition wasn't because it was superior, it was because a lot of companies went with IBM PCs or compatibles and they normally came with MS DOS (or PC-DOS or DR-DOS), so when Joe Q Drone decided to buy a computer for himself he went with what he knew about, MS DOS..
/Mikael
Are you talking about a specific example design here? because it sure sounds like it...
Anyway, the common fluid three column design choice is with a fluid center <div> and two fixed-size <div>s on the sides. But one where the the sidebars expand to fit the content shouldn't be too hard as long as it doesn't have to work in Internet Explorer..
/Mikael
IE took over and "ad hoc" implemented what it could and what corporate politics allowed. It was far from perfect but it was better than any other option. Some years later, after IE had gained dominance, a small team brought us Firefox. This new browser tried to rewrite history by claiming it was the guardian of the "one true standard," the Word of the W3C, et al. It seems deliberately designed to ignore the changes in the world of designing web pages brought about by six years of IE dominance.
Uhm, how should I reply to this? How exactly was it a good thing that MS just decided to not only expand on the standard with their own non-standard browser behaviour but also by interpreting the standard in a completely different way from everyone else? Have you even heard of the infamous "Embrace and extend" tactic employed by Microsoft?
The result is a cross-browser coding disaster, and as a web developer of 15 years' experience, I blame Firefox more than IE. Both sides have their own model, and IE can't change, because it must uphold its backward compatibility. Firefox, on the other hand, is a completely incompatible standard that reflects W3C standards written after IE gained market dominance, in some cases. It is needlessly combative and in my view, destructive to those who make pages and the consumer. (Opera, on the other hand, has a saner view: it views IE 5-6 as a de facto standard and adapts, a striking maturity the FireFox developers should find intriguing).
Ok, so the IE developers screwed things up and now they can't fix things because it's too late, how the fsck is that the fault of Firefox? There is nothing "needlessly combative" about implementing the W3C standards instead of the "IE standard", it's simply following the standard. If Microsoft were so desperate for features they should've worked to get those features put into the standard.
HTML 5 is a chance for both sides to fix their sites on something productive. We can for once develop the standard before the browser, and make it work cross-platform, saving web developers years of frustrating and most of all BORING xbrowser code fixes. Also, we can finally admit to each other that while CSS is neat, the original HTML model made more sense for developers and is still more stable than CSS.
There is a pretty good standard: XHTML. There is also CSS 1 and 2 with CSS v3 on the way. This path has a lot of advantages over the "old ways" of HTML 4 and it's predecessors. And the main reason that we need all the ugly cross-browser hacks nowadays is because MS still won't develop their browser to interpret document according to the standard. Hell, it took them years to realize PNGs had an alpha channel..
That's my statement, and I'm sticking by it, after being a Gopher administrator, FTP publisher, early Web site creator/server admin and independently employed Website creator for fifteen years.
So you started writing HTML back in 1992? Somehow I always thought anyway who had more than a few months of experience with HTML wouldn't be so backwards, but maybe it's about time for the WWW to begin developing a few old farts that prefer the old and painful ways over the modern and slightly more sane ways... (nothing personal, I just can't understand all the people in this discussion arguing that XHTML is crap because they can't understand it)
/Mikael
Also look how hard and painful it is to implement a 3 column liquid layout with just HTML and CSS.
Actually, the regular three-column layout that is popular all over the web really isn't that hard to implement in CSS, you need to have a bit of an understanding of XHTML and CSS to pull it off but it's nowhere near as bad as it was back when people were doing similar designs with just HTML 3/4 and <TABLE> tags..
The idea to separate content and layout is nice, but the thing is, most content in pure-ist HTML+CSS is basically a bunch of div's and span's. It isn't much semantically richer than tablesoup.
This would depend on how the code is written, proper standards-compliant XHTML+CSS without ugly IE-compatibility hacks and unnecessary javascript because the developer didn't know how to do a horizontal <ul>-based menu using CSS is normally a lot nicer than a similar design in old HTML where the design and the content are all mixed up in a big unreadable mess..
/Mikael
I think a reason that XHTML has not taken off is due to its unforgiving strictness. From what I understand, if you make a single mistake in XHTML the page will not work and for that reason it is not intended to be handwritten. But with HTML you often have different ways of achieving the same effect, such as with centering.
Actually, one of the reason many people have picked up on XHTML is because it's a lot "cleaner" than "good" ol' HTML 4, the strict rules are one of the reasons for this, in XHTML you're not allowed to do stupid shit like "<i>foo and <b>bar</i> are both words</b>". And writing XHTML by hand is much easier than relying on some horrible WYSIWYG tool's generated code.
This is the reason for the continuing appeal of HTML: its simplicity. My understanding that XHTML requires is that document formatting be separate from the content of the document. Yet sometimes is so much simpler to use a CENTER tag versus having to mark a section of text with a customized tag and then go into a style sheet to center a single section of text.
Actually, formatting should be kept separate from the content for several very good reasons. Maintainability is a biggie as anyone who's ever had to redesign a static HTML website riddled with <font> tags. Extra points if it was made using a WYSIWYG tool that uses three or for tags when you only need one...
Anyway, I for one hope that XHTML is path we stay on. And I think the main problem that XHTML+CSS has had is Internet Explorer and its craptastic handling of CSS (still crappy in IE7 although it's gotten slightly better).
/Mikael
Oh, as far as their broadband offerings I generally find their services to be a lot more reliable than those of the budget-priced services from other ISPs (Glocalnet and Bredbandsbolaget, I'm looking at you two here..). I work in the industry and the general opinion among my peers is that only an idiot would go for one of those $30/month for 24Mbps ADSL2+ services from other ISPs, and I work for one of those budget ISPs. You get what you pay for.
/Mikael
It's not Telia's blacklist, it's Rikspolisstyrelsen's blacklist, Telia was just the ISP whose implementation of the blacklist got the most attention because when all the ISPs rolled over Telia at first refused to use the blacklist. After a short smear campaign courtesy of our evening tabloids, Telia started using the blacklist...
/Mikael
Also, this is the quick-and-dirty guide, try looking at The Handbook before trolling... /Mikael
You could also try doing "pkg_add -r firefox" which will attempt to fetch the binary packages necessary from a mirror, that way you won't have to wait for everything to be compiled... Of course, this applies to FreeBSD but I assume it's pretty much similar on PC-BSD.
Actually, the ISP I work for has no upper limit on distance from the DSLAM for the customers, but at distances longer than about 5 km we generally inform potential customers that their connection speed will be not much better than 128kbps ISDN if they want a stable connection.
/Mikael
I've actually been thinking along the lines of what you wrote here. If there were OS X versions of SC2k and TTDLX (perhaps with some of the OpenTTD improvements) I would buy them in a heartbeat. And if there were also modernized sets of artwork and other little things like that...
/Mikael
/Mikael