First, you shouldn't be underlining non-link text in a web page anyways, as it's a cruel thing to do to computer lab attendants. It leads to broken mouse buttons, strange help requests, and hair-loss due to pulling.
Aside from that, XHTML 1.1 strict isn't the only version of XHTML around - The part of XHTML 1.0 that contains
the u tag is the xhtml 1.0 transitional section. If you want to use it, the best DOCTYPE to use would
be:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">
Change that, and your validator will not have a problem with it.
After Mosaic faded out, Netscape was the dominant browser, . . . Microsoft IE took over as the dominant browser.
The funny part of that is, Netscape was a re-write of Mosaic by the people who made it in the first place. They did Mosaic as a school project, and then said to themselves, "You know, we could probably make money with this, if we fixed all the things we did wrong!" Mosaic was kept by the University it was written at, then spun off to a company named spyglass, which was bought by Microsoft, and re-named to IE. Thus, Mosaic started the web revolution, Netscape was a side-track, and then Mosaic came back under a different name, with much wealthier owners who could afford more coders to work on it. Netscape of course, tried to keep up with the feature creep, but with less financial backing, and less people working on it, their code soon turned into an un-manageable mess (which is why it was completely scrapped and re-written from scratch for Firefox) - just goes to show that for large projects, maybe those project managers really do serve a purpose.
That of course, is where the problem with browser compatibility really came in - Microsoft wanted more more more features, and they wanted them now now now! So they pushed their developers for speed instead of sanity/security/stability, and that resulted in dumbness like allowing ActiveX to be embedded inside of web pages, and the completely screwball syntax for adding filters to CSS code. Admittedly, some of the things that were added were good, and some were useful (the BGSOUND tag for example, is much easier to control from javascript than the EMBED tag), but the vast majority of the "new features" introduced to IE this way were either pointless, needlessly convoluted for the developer, or just plain harmful. (As the many people who had their bank accounts raided by ActiveX malware, or their computer's power turned off by visiting a prank site will agree.)
Since IE was windows-only for the most part, Microsoft was free to include as many proprietary things as they wanted, slap copywrites, patents, and all sorts of other protections on them, and basically make it impossible for people on other platforms to add those features to their browsers. It's important to remember that in the early days of the internet (when Mosaic and Netscape first came out, and thus when the actual mindset regarding their feature paths was determined), Windows only barely supported internet access at all, and was in the extreme minority of systems on the internet, which were mostly Unix based. (Yes, Microsoft's browser did technically originate on a Unix system, I've used the original first version of Mosaic when it was first released, on a black-and-white X Terminal attached to an SGI Challenge system.) That meant that while Microsoft was free to make things that worked only on their system and call it good, nobody else could get away with it, as most of their userbase would be left behind.
Besides, adding a new spec like HTML 5 will not fix the browser gap - even now, as new technologies are coming out and new standards and specs are being released, the browser developers are still putting their own unique and incompatible spins on how things work. Ever tried to embed video in a web page and have it be completely XHTML compliant? You can do it in Firefox. You can do it in IE too. You just can't do it in both with the same code, because they interpret the specs differently. That has nothing to do with IE needing to support backwards compatibility at all, since backwards compatibility relies on a different set of tags completely. It also has nothing to do with Firefox's developers being immature and combative, since they took the simpler and saner route of the two, which didn't involve ActiveX, or embedding the Microsoft Media Player. (Yes, ActiveX in web pages is still bad, even if it can't get at your bank software or power off register anymore.)
After years and years, a critical mass of people are finally learning a, b, u, i, big, super, img, and other standard tags, most of which just don't work the same or at all under XHTML.
Um, what? Seriously, the b, u, i and big tags are _exactly the same_ in XHTML. There was never a super element in HTML 4, it's just sup, and it's unchanged. The a tag does everything from HTML 4 the same way in XHTML. The only difference in it is that it's allowed extra attributes.
Out of all of those things, the only one that's changed at all is the img tag, and that's only in two places - first, in XHTML you are required to provide an alt= attribute (instead of just strongly recommended like in HTML 4), and second, you have to close the tag properly, with a/> at the end.
Frames are also still part of the XHTML spec.
The font tag however, is gone and won't be missed any more than the blink tag was, by anyone other than frontpage (which absolutely loves adding thirty or so font tags in a row setting and unsetting the color 'white' from the text.
No, but fixing the problem in it's implementation can be.
Then of course, MS can just sit on the bug without fixing it
like they used to, but now they'd have a scapegoat to point
at as for why. "We can't fix it because the patent troll is
demanding more than we want to pay. You'll have to wait for
the next OS release for that feature to be changed."
Remember, we're talking about a teaching aid here - not a professional productivity suit.
And that's where The Gimp is not a good choice. If you want, as the OP said, "that outputs CMYK files that printing companies will accept.", you're pretty much going to have to end up on Photoshop eventually. If it was for making web-graphics, Gimp is awesome, but when the printing companies are involved, and you need output they can use, it's no good. As for the training part, teaching someone graphics with Gimp and then sending them off to PhotoShop is BAD BAD BAD! Don't do that! I learned graphic editing first on Gimp, and when I had to do stuff with PhotoShop so that a printer could use the output, I spent most of the time lost on menus that seemed completely counter-intuitive (much the same way that people who've learned with PhotoShop feel when confronted with the Gimp's setup), and eventually had to get someone else (who had learned on PhotoShop in the first place) to fix it before the deadline with the printers. Going back to that overly abused vehicle analogy, teaching someone to use PhotoShop with the Gimp as your teaching aid is like teaching someone to drive a transport truck using a bicycle as your teaching aid. They don't really work the same, even if they both have wheels and can get you from point A to point B.
And I'm not familiar with any products that are better than FrontPage yet still easy to use for Web design.
Wow. Um, better than FrontPage? I seriously hope that was a slip, and that you meant "DreamWeaver" and aren't trying to teach people web design with FrontPage - anyone who uses FrontPage and claims to be a "professional" anything to do with web design needs to be taken out into the streets and heckled to death.
As for DreamWeaver, while it does provide some nice tools for visualizing what you're doing while you do it, you really don't learn it any faster than if you were typing your data in with a text editor and saving/browser reloading frequently. There are a few good text editors out there that do syntax highlighting, for example Notepad++, and Crimson Editor. Both of which are useful for not only HTML editing, but for many other programming languages, as they change syntax highlighting based on the file extension (for HTML, PHP, Java, C, and so on...)
Actually, I'm about 3 feet taller than the really short person, and the article says the ceilings they used were 8 feet and 10 feet, so a difference of two feet, which is less than the height difference. (and if you work on height ratios and keep things to scale, the person-height difference is even larger than the ceiling height difference, at 1:2 versus 4:5).
The one I'm talking about is just a bit under 3 feet tall himself, and can't jump more than four or five inches on a good day. With a desk at 2 feet, 6 inches (30" total), his reach standing on the desk and jumping would be just about six feet. (really small people with really small legs can't jump as high as full sized people.)
The industry I'm talking about is computer programming/web design. We get stuffed into closets to work at times - my current office has a ceiling at 6 feet, 10 inches, though I've worked in other offices/closets that ranged from 14 foot ceilings (the back office at a furniture place) down to the 6 foot 6 inch ceiling I mentioned before (the 'server room' for a foriegn car dealership, which was added to the top of the building as an afterthought, and really felt like a strong wind would rip it off the top of the place. Most of the details I was focused on when I was there were "get this thing fixed fast so I can get the heck out of here!")
The 6 foot 6 inch programmer I knew never had to work there (in the 6'6" office), but if he had, he'd have been able to pop out ceiling tiles with his head by stretching.
The next question is - since ceiling height really is relative to how tall the person in the room is, (a 6.5 foot high ceiling would brush some people's heads and feel cramped, while others I know in the industry would not be able to reach it while standing on their desks and jumping.) does this mean that very short people are generally more prone to activating the idea of "freedom", while ludicrously tall people are more prone to thinking in constrained, confined concepts, when both are placed in an identical office environment?
As far as I could tell from reading the complaint itself, the part against and about Kotaku was the ammendment that got struck - the rest of the lawsuit is conspiracy charges against the Florida Bar Association. Reading it through reminded me of a grade appeal I got from a student once - over 200 pages of ranting about conspiracies and all of the people out to get him, and only one sentance actually related to the course, and his grade in it. (Only stating that he was appealing it, nothing more.)
That's easy - first they make the plugin so that people will say "Oh, it's supported everywhere! I'll use this new technology!" and then once everyone's using it, they steadily downgrade the quality of the plugin for the competition's browsers and OSes in future releases (bug fixes and security updates! Really!) until it only _really_ works in IE on Windows Vista. When people complain, they answer with "Well, that's what you get for using that free crap. You should use IE and Vista, it's a better browser and OS! That's why you're having problems."
I would rather see someone put in jail for 12 days on a small mistake such as this because they acted promptly and in the best interest of the school's populus
That's a really easy claim to make when you're not the one who has been 'inconvenicenced' by something like this.
Will you say the same thing when it's you who spend the better part of two weeks in jail on terrorism charges because of raving incompetance? (Yes, it is exactly that - incompetance with the daylight savings thing, and a lack of verification before or even immediately after the arrest was made, and raving as in "You're a criminal, criminals lie all the time!") Will you sit there in the cell for twelve days being happy that you're locked up in a little room with no job, and a brand-shiny-new criminal record for something someone else (who is free, and probably laughing at you as we speak) did? Or are you going to scream bloody murder, and sue the crap out of everyone involved?
In anybody's case, I'm willing to bet they'd take the second option - if the bomb threat had been real, there'd be a very destroyed school building, and possibly dead and injured people, all because some brainless twit decided that "even though this person claims innocence, we're going to just assume he's guilty, and not bother even trying to verify his story". The principle in question, as well as the police involved in the arrest all need to be given large ammounts of unpaid time off, as a reward for potentially endangering the lives of the students at that school with their stupidity. That, in addition to the massive lawsuits that this kid is hopefully going to be laying on them.
I dunno about that - there've been some pretty bad drivers around, well before the newer breed of "use the other cars as rails to help you go around the corner faster" racing games.
The sad part is, back when people were all angry about video game violence causing real violence, and people were blaming DOOM (yes, DOOM, not DOOM 2 or anything... the first one, back in the stone age) for shootings and de-humanizing the youth of the day, every time some idiot would cut me (or whoever I was with at the time) off in traffic, I'd turn to the person with me and say "I blame Pole Position."
My second favourite warning label that I've seen is on the fire starting logs you can buy at the local grocery store - the front says "Start fires easily! Burns fast and clean!", and the back says "Warning: Contents are flammable". Well I should certainly HOPE so!
The absolute best I've seen though, in the same store even, was something I deeply regret not buying and taking home to show people as proof right then. It was the store's brand of peanut-brittle (a candy made mostly of peanuts) and the warning label said "Warning: MAY contain peanuts" (You mean they're not SURE? I think they need to re-check their manufacturing process if they think there's a chance that there might not be peanuts in the peanut brittle.) Sadly, that one went off the shelves a week later and hasn't been back since...
How hard would it be to change the name on the menu?
Actually, it was changed on my menu - it was the startup splash-screen "GIMP!" and the title on the header bar that got me into trouble. Some people are way too sensitive about stuff.
What else would I use to edit, crop and save screen shots when I'm writing documentation?
The Gimp
I would agree with that on some fronts, but there's one major problem with wide-spread adoption of the Gimp in the corporate workplace. It has a politically incorrect name, and having an icon, or even menu item that says "the Gimp" when working in say, a corporate office overrun with politically correct "file a complaint about anything they can" idiots, or a health care office that deals with physically disabled individuals who might see your screen and be offended, is a bad idea. I have actually had someone fly off the handle at me over that entry in my menu, and it took a full five minutes to calm them down, and I was still ordered to remove the program from the computer for "PC reasons".
In summary, unless you work in an area that doesn't have to deal with the public seeing your computer screen _ever_, and have laid back co-workers, The Gimp isn't an option at work no matter how effective it may be.
One thing to consider is this - how often has perl been completely overhauled and replaced with something more or less incompatible with itself in the last 15 years, compared to how often the MS platform of preference has been completely overhauled and replaced with something more or less incompatible with itself? Perl vs Perl vs Perl compares well to VB vs VBScript vs J++ vs VB.Net vs C# vs whatever is next
Remember that if you're going into the MS programming job, you're going to have to re-learn every new language MS comes out with to stay relevant to your job as they "switch over" to the latest greatest thing the marketing people have pushed on you, and some of them may only be there for a few months before you once again must switch over to the new latest buzz-word compliant new toy.
What you really need to ask yourself is, "Is the added stress of the impersonal environment and having to re-do all of my work in a slightly different language every 3 to 18 months worth the extra money?"
If the answer is yes, then go for the.Net, and remember to keep up with the latest MS programming languages or you'll be laid off as irrelevant. Big companies won't be bothered giving you time to train in whatever new system they want to use when they can always just hire a fresh batch of new graduates who only know that language.
Sorry if you re-compile anything it doesn't "just work". You had to do something.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear - the distribution uses the same driver code, re-compiled in 64 bits (by redhat, slackware, or whoever). All _I_ did was install from the 64 bit distribution instead of the 32 bit one, so yes, it did "just work" for me with no extra effort. The indication of a problem was that the linux drivers _can_ have that done with them, and will work fine, yet to make their OS run in 64 bit mode, MS pretty much broke the entire driver interface, so that new custom drivers would be needed (and not provided) for it.
because some dork told them to get a 64-bit chip. Which, of course, everyone's parents really need, having 8GB of RAM and all.
No, because some dork owns the computer, and needs to use it to do programming work, and their parents just want to use it to type out letters, read email, and play games (which they've already switched to linux for) - the difference is now they also use it for reading their mail and typing letters because the printer won't work in windows. They'd still be using their old P3 system with windows 98, but it died explosively last month. (pretty sparkles, smelly smoke, and one power cord ripped out of the wall in a hurry...)
XP won't touch them, and when I went to the HP driver download pages and typed in my model number, it said "no support for the 64 bit edition of Windows XP Professional is available yet" I can't find the specific support page (I'm not on the 64 bit computer right now, and the "driver download" page just offers me a 32 bit driver instead of a link to the support pages.) However, here's a link to the support forums where some other people describe the same problem:
The link
I'll look more later for the specific help page about it.
If Microsoft puts so much effort into hardware compatibility, then why do my nice new HP scanner and laser printer work well with Linux, but not at all in XP Pro? HP's official story is "we can't get drivers to work on the 64 bit version of XP". Linux uses the same drivers for 32 bit and 64, just re-compiled, and they work with an out-of-the-box install of Fedora Core 6.
That doesn't look like "just works" to me.
On the plus side, this means that my parents now use Linux pretty much exclusively, because that's where the printer works.
No kidding. Why'd they have to screw up all of the donuts, anyways? It's worse what they did to the boxes though - you used to be able to get a box of a dozen donuts and hold it in one hand. now you need at least two hands (usually more) to stop the stupid thing from folding and falling apart. Timmie's should _not_ have tried to emulate Krispy Kreeme - all of the KK's around here went out of business after a year because the novelty of donuts made of 90% sugar wore off, and people quit going there. Now we mostly just complain about how Tim Hortons went downhill when they changed things.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from that, XHTML 1.1 strict isn't the only version of XHTML around - The part of XHTML 1.0 that contains the u tag is the xhtml 1.0 transitional section. If you want to use it, the best DOCTYPE to use would be:
Change that, and your validator will not have a problem with it.
After Mosaic faded out, Netscape was the dominant browser, . . . Microsoft IE took over as the dominant browser.
The funny part of that is, Netscape was a re-write of Mosaic by the people who made it in the first place. They did Mosaic as a school project, and then said to themselves, "You know, we could probably make money with this, if we fixed all the things we did wrong!" Mosaic was kept by the University it was written at, then spun off to a company named spyglass, which was bought by Microsoft, and re-named to IE. Thus, Mosaic started the web revolution, Netscape was a side-track, and then Mosaic came back under a different name, with much wealthier owners who could afford more coders to work on it. Netscape of course, tried to keep up with the feature creep, but with less financial backing, and less people working on it, their code soon turned into an un-manageable mess (which is why it was completely scrapped and re-written from scratch for Firefox) - just goes to show that for large projects, maybe those project managers really do serve a purpose.
That of course, is where the problem with browser compatibility really came in - Microsoft wanted more more more features, and they wanted them now now now! So they pushed their developers for speed instead of sanity/security/stability, and that resulted in dumbness like allowing ActiveX to be embedded inside of web pages, and the completely screwball syntax for adding filters to CSS code. Admittedly, some of the things that were added were good, and some were useful (the BGSOUND tag for example, is much easier to control from javascript than the EMBED tag), but the vast majority of the "new features" introduced to IE this way were either pointless, needlessly convoluted for the developer, or just plain harmful. (As the many people who had their bank accounts raided by ActiveX malware, or their computer's power turned off by visiting a prank site will agree.)
Since IE was windows-only for the most part, Microsoft was free to include as many proprietary things as they wanted, slap copywrites, patents, and all sorts of other protections on them, and basically make it impossible for people on other platforms to add those features to their browsers. It's important to remember that in the early days of the internet (when Mosaic and Netscape first came out, and thus when the actual mindset regarding their feature paths was determined), Windows only barely supported internet access at all, and was in the extreme minority of systems on the internet, which were mostly Unix based. (Yes, Microsoft's browser did technically originate on a Unix system, I've used the original first version of Mosaic when it was first released, on a black-and-white X Terminal attached to an SGI Challenge system.) That meant that while Microsoft was free to make things that worked only on their system and call it good, nobody else could get away with it, as most of their userbase would be left behind.
Besides, adding a new spec like HTML 5 will not fix the browser gap - even now, as new technologies are coming out and new standards and specs are being released, the browser developers are still putting their own unique and incompatible spins on how things work. Ever tried to embed video in a web page and have it be completely XHTML compliant? You can do it in Firefox. You can do it in IE too. You just can't do it in both with the same code, because they interpret the specs differently. That has nothing to do with IE needing to support backwards compatibility at all, since backwards compatibility relies on a different set of tags completely. It also has nothing to do with Firefox's developers being immature and combative, since they took the simpler and saner route of the two, which didn't involve ActiveX, or embedding the Microsoft Media Player. (Yes, ActiveX in web pages is still bad, even if it can't get at your bank software or power off register anymore.)
After years and years, a critical mass of people are finally learning a, b, u, i, big, super, img, and other standard tags, most of which just don't work the same or at all under XHTML.
/> at the end.
Um, what? Seriously, the b, u, i and big tags are _exactly the same_ in XHTML. There was never a super element in HTML 4, it's just sup, and it's unchanged. The a tag does everything from HTML 4 the same way in XHTML. The only difference in it is that it's allowed extra attributes.
Out of all of those things, the only one that's changed at all is the img tag, and that's only in two places - first, in XHTML you are required to provide an alt= attribute (instead of just strongly recommended like in HTML 4), and second, you have to close the tag properly, with a
Frames are also still part of the XHTML spec.
The font tag however, is gone and won't be missed any more than the blink tag was, by anyone other than frontpage (which absolutely loves adding thirty or so font tags in a row setting and unsetting the color 'white' from the text.
At least IPv6 can't get patented!
No, but fixing the problem in it's implementation can be. Then of course, MS can just sit on the bug without fixing it like they used to, but now they'd have a scapegoat to point at as for why. "We can't fix it because the patent troll is demanding more than we want to pay. You'll have to wait for the next OS release for that feature to be changed."
Another good choice. For the lazy, here's the link to download that one:
http://www.editpadpro.com/editpadlite.html
Remember, we're talking about a teaching aid here - not a professional productivity suit.
And that's where The Gimp is not a good choice. If you want, as the OP said, "that outputs CMYK files that printing companies will accept.", you're pretty much going to have to end up on Photoshop eventually. If it was for making web-graphics, Gimp is awesome, but when the printing companies are involved, and you need output they can use, it's no good. As for the training part, teaching someone graphics with Gimp and then sending them off to PhotoShop is BAD BAD BAD! Don't do that! I learned graphic editing first on Gimp, and when I had to do stuff with PhotoShop so that a printer could use the output, I spent most of the time lost on menus that seemed completely counter-intuitive (much the same way that people who've learned with PhotoShop feel when confronted with the Gimp's setup), and eventually had to get someone else (who had learned on PhotoShop in the first place) to fix it before the deadline with the printers. Going back to that overly abused vehicle analogy, teaching someone to use PhotoShop with the Gimp as your teaching aid is like teaching someone to drive a transport truck using a bicycle as your teaching aid. They don't really work the same, even if they both have wheels and can get you from point A to point B.
And I'm not familiar with any products that are better than FrontPage yet still easy to use for Web design.
Wow. Um, better than FrontPage? I seriously hope that was a slip, and that you meant "DreamWeaver" and aren't trying to teach people web design with FrontPage - anyone who uses FrontPage and claims to be a "professional" anything to do with web design needs to be taken out into the streets and heckled to death.
As for DreamWeaver, while it does provide some nice tools for visualizing what you're doing while you do it, you really don't learn it any faster than if you were typing your data in with a text editor and saving/browser reloading frequently. There are a few good text editors out there that do syntax highlighting, for example Notepad++, and Crimson Editor. Both of which are useful for not only HTML editing, but for many other programming languages, as they change syntax highlighting based on the file extension (for HTML, PHP, Java, C, and so on...)
Actually, I'm about 3 feet taller than the really short person, and the article says the ceilings they used were 8 feet and 10 feet, so a difference of two feet, which is less than the height difference. (and if you work on height ratios and keep things to scale, the person-height difference is even larger than the ceiling height difference, at 1:2 versus 4:5).
The one I'm talking about is just a bit under 3 feet tall himself, and can't jump more than four or five inches on a good day. With a desk at 2 feet, 6 inches (30" total), his reach standing on the desk and jumping would be just about six feet. (really small people with really small legs can't jump as high as full sized people.)
The industry I'm talking about is computer programming/web design. We get stuffed into closets to work at times - my current office has a ceiling at 6 feet, 10 inches, though I've worked in other offices/closets that ranged from 14 foot ceilings (the back office at a furniture place) down to the 6 foot 6 inch ceiling I mentioned before (the 'server room' for a foriegn car dealership, which was added to the top of the building as an afterthought, and really felt like a strong wind would rip it off the top of the place. Most of the details I was focused on when I was there were "get this thing fixed fast so I can get the heck out of here!")
The 6 foot 6 inch programmer I knew never had to work there (in the 6'6" office), but if he had, he'd have been able to pop out ceiling tiles with his head by stretching.
The next question is - since ceiling height really is relative to how tall the person in the room is, (a 6.5 foot high ceiling would brush some people's heads and feel cramped, while others I know in the industry would not be able to reach it while standing on their desks and jumping.) does this mean that very short people are generally more prone to activating the idea of "freedom", while ludicrously tall people are more prone to thinking in constrained, confined concepts, when both are placed in an identical office environment?
As far as I could tell from reading the complaint itself, the part against and about Kotaku was the ammendment that got struck - the rest of the lawsuit is conspiracy charges against the Florida Bar Association. Reading it through reminded me of a grade appeal I got from a student once - over 200 pages of ranting about conspiracies and all of the people out to get him, and only one sentance actually related to the course, and his grade in it. (Only stating that he was appealing it, nothing more.)
That's easy - first they make the plugin so that people will say "Oh, it's supported everywhere! I'll use this new technology!" and then once everyone's using it, they steadily downgrade the quality of the plugin for the competition's browsers and OSes in future releases (bug fixes and security updates! Really!) until it only _really_ works in IE on Windows Vista. When people complain, they answer with "Well, that's what you get for using that free crap. You should use IE and Vista, it's a better browser and OS! That's why you're having problems."
I would rather see someone put in jail for 12 days on a small mistake such as this because they acted promptly and in the best interest of the school's populus
That's a really easy claim to make when you're not the one who has been 'inconvenicenced' by something like this.
Will you say the same thing when it's you who spend the better part of two weeks in jail on terrorism charges because of raving incompetance? (Yes, it is exactly that - incompetance with the daylight savings thing, and a lack of verification before or even immediately after the arrest was made, and raving as in "You're a criminal, criminals lie all the time!") Will you sit there in the cell for twelve days being happy that you're locked up in a little room with no job, and a brand-shiny-new criminal record for something someone else (who is free, and probably laughing at you as we speak) did? Or are you going to scream bloody murder, and sue the crap out of everyone involved?
In anybody's case, I'm willing to bet they'd take the second option - if the bomb threat had been real, there'd be a very destroyed school building, and possibly dead and injured people, all because some brainless twit decided that "even though this person claims innocence, we're going to just assume he's guilty, and not bother even trying to verify his story". The principle in question, as well as the police involved in the arrest all need to be given large ammounts of unpaid time off, as a reward for potentially endangering the lives of the students at that school with their stupidity. That, in addition to the massive lawsuits that this kid is hopefully going to be laying on them.
I dunno about that - there've been some pretty bad drivers around, well before the newer breed of "use the other cars as rails to help you go around the corner faster" racing games.
The sad part is, back when people were all angry about video game violence causing real violence, and people were blaming DOOM (yes, DOOM, not DOOM 2 or anything... the first one, back in the stone age) for shootings and de-humanizing the youth of the day, every time some idiot would cut me (or whoever I was with at the time) off in traffic, I'd turn to the person with me and say "I blame Pole Position."
My second favourite warning label that I've seen is on the fire starting logs you can buy at the local grocery store - the front says "Start fires easily! Burns fast and clean!", and the back says "Warning: Contents are flammable". Well I should certainly HOPE so!
The absolute best I've seen though, in the same store even, was something I deeply regret not buying and taking home to show people as proof right then. It was the store's brand of peanut-brittle (a candy made mostly of peanuts) and the warning label said "Warning: MAY contain peanuts" (You mean they're not SURE? I think they need to re-check their manufacturing process if they think there's a chance that there might not be peanuts in the peanut brittle.) Sadly, that one went off the shelves a week later and hasn't been back since...
How hard would it be to change the name on the menu?
Actually, it was changed on my menu - it was the startup splash-screen "GIMP!" and the title on the header bar that got me into trouble. Some people are way too sensitive about stuff.
I would agree with that on some fronts, but there's one major problem with wide-spread adoption of the Gimp in the corporate workplace. It has a politically incorrect name, and having an icon, or even menu item that says "the Gimp" when working in say, a corporate office overrun with politically correct "file a complaint about anything they can" idiots, or a health care office that deals with physically disabled individuals who might see your screen and be offended, is a bad idea. I have actually had someone fly off the handle at me over that entry in my menu, and it took a full five minutes to calm them down, and I was still ordered to remove the program from the computer for "PC reasons".
In summary, unless you work in an area that doesn't have to deal with the public seeing your computer screen _ever_, and have laid back co-workers, The Gimp isn't an option at work no matter how effective it may be.
However, it will still use the same controller as the ps1
But they can't use the ps1 controller - they got sued over a patent violation for that, and had to take parts out of it.
One thing to consider is this - how often has perl been completely overhauled and replaced with something more or less incompatible with itself in the last 15 years, compared to how often the MS platform of preference has been completely overhauled and replaced with something more or less incompatible with itself?
.Net, and remember to keep up with the latest MS programming languages or you'll be laid off as irrelevant. Big companies won't be bothered giving you time to train in whatever new system they want to use when they can always just hire a fresh batch of new graduates who only know that language.
Perl vs Perl vs Perl compares well to VB vs VBScript vs J++ vs VB.Net vs C# vs whatever is next
Remember that if you're going into the MS programming job, you're going to have to re-learn every new language MS comes out with to stay relevant to your job as they "switch over" to the latest greatest thing the marketing people have pushed on you, and some of them may only be there for a few months before you once again must switch over to the new latest buzz-word compliant new toy.
What you really need to ask yourself is, "Is the added stress of the impersonal environment and having to re-do all of my work in a slightly different language every 3 to 18 months worth the extra money?"
If the answer is yes, then go for the
Sorry if you re-compile anything it doesn't "just work". You had to do something.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear - the distribution uses the same driver code, re-compiled in 64 bits (by redhat, slackware, or whoever). All _I_ did was install from the 64 bit distribution instead of the 32 bit one, so yes, it did "just work" for me with no extra effort. The indication of a problem was that the linux drivers _can_ have that done with them, and will work fine, yet to make their OS run in 64 bit mode, MS pretty much broke the entire driver interface, so that new custom drivers would be needed (and not provided) for it.
because some dork told them to get a 64-bit chip. Which, of course, everyone's parents really need, having 8GB of RAM and all.
No, because some dork owns the computer, and needs to use it to do programming work, and their parents just want to use it to type out letters, read email, and play games (which they've already switched to linux for) - the difference is now they also use it for reading their mail and typing letters because the printer won't work in windows. They'd still be using their old P3 system with windows 98, but it died explosively last month. (pretty sparkles, smelly smoke, and one power cord ripped out of the wall in a hurry...)
XP won't touch them, and when I went to the HP driver download pages and typed in my model number, it said "no support for the 64 bit edition of Windows XP Professional is available yet" I can't find the specific support page (I'm not on the 64 bit computer right now, and the "driver download" page just offers me a 32 bit driver instead of a link to the support pages.) However, here's a link to the support forums where some other people describe the same problem: The link
I'll look more later for the specific help page about it.
If Microsoft puts so much effort into hardware compatibility, then why do my nice new HP scanner and laser printer work well with Linux, but not at all in XP Pro? HP's official story is "we can't get drivers to work on the 64 bit version of XP". Linux uses the same drivers for 32 bit and 64, just re-compiled, and they work with an out-of-the-box install of Fedora Core 6.
That doesn't look like "just works" to me.
On the plus side, this means that my parents now use Linux pretty much exclusively, because that's where the printer works.
Um, the United States doesn't cover a whole continent - only about 1/3 of one.
Though they _are_ working on that fence thing from what I've seen.
No kidding. Why'd they have to screw up all of the donuts, anyways?
It's worse what they did to the boxes though - you used to be able to get a box of a dozen donuts and hold it in one hand. now you need at least two hands (usually more) to stop the stupid thing from folding and falling apart. Timmie's should _not_ have tried to emulate Krispy Kreeme - all of the KK's around here went out of business after a year because the novelty of donuts made of 90% sugar wore off, and people quit going there.
Now we mostly just complain about how Tim Hortons went downhill when they changed things.