[W]hat about a system in which, when you go to a page from a Google search, Google adds a frame at the top of your page that let's you vote on how useful this page was on a scale of 1-10?
Actually, a while ago (at least a year past) Google
would periodically replace the URLs "behind" those displayed on results pages with redirectors to the sites ostensibly listed. I assumed then that it was to sample which results were receiving clickthrough traffic compared to other results within each set.
Whether Google actually did anything with those clickthrough results or not is beyond me. I don't believe they implement such redirection any more. It was an incredibly rare occurrence -- but with the traffic they receive, it would always seem as such to any individual user.
In other words, Google kinda-sorta implemented the kernel of your suggestion in the past in a way not so open to abuse.
Another direction in which your idea can be taken would be an openly human-moderated index of sites (what Yahoo! was so long ago, what the Open Directory could have been if they weren't so leadfooted about things). Now that the Web has grown so very, very large, an individual or group of individuals could find time to review only very small subsets of information in detail and retain any semblance of authority when establishing their rankings.
There's a point at which democracy becomes mobocracy. Just review any past/. poll:p
But there's nothing in this Slashback about
DoubleClick (as one might infer from the
title). WTF? Is the write-up embedded inside
a banner ad that only appears once in every
ten pageloads? Is this some new approach to/. traffic generation?
[Re: MSIE 6.x auto-scaling of images -]
Uhm...when you put your cursor over the image, a big-ass button pops up that allows you to show the full-size image. I don't see how that's hard to explain....
That one would have to explain at all is the real
issue here. I understand where you're coming from,
but -- *trust me* -- the feature confuses a lot of
those "average users" out there. I've actually had
to explain the process twice since the above reply
was posted to/. I believe the root of the isssue
is that one has to mouseover *and wait* for the
icons to appear. I'm not certain how this feature
passed through Microsoft's usability experts.
Ack. Too early on a Saturday morning. $users[$user]['userid'] and $users[$user]['username'] should simply be $user['userid'] and $user['username'], respectively. My PHP is a tad bit too rusty at the moment.:P
Duplicating the obhect notation is also quite possible, I simply chose and array of arrays as an example. Of all your PHP indictments, that was the weakest.
[Mozilla rendering the MARQUEE element], IMHO, is one instance of Mozilla playing a bad game of catchup to IE. Fortunately this hasn't happened too often, but everytime it does, it's a blow to W3 Standards, and an acknowledgement of Microsoft's market share.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but W3C offers recommendations, not standards. Sure, documents containing MARQUEE elements will not validate against the W3C [X]HTML DTDs, but does that invalidate the choice of a browser builder to support use of an element not in any W3C Recommendation?
"This specification does not define how conforming user agents handle general error conditions, including how user agents behave when they encounter elements, attributes, attribute values, or entities not specified in this document."
The
W3C notes concerning invalid documents
suggest that when "a user agent encounters an element it does not recognize, it should try to render the element's content."
Seems to me that it might be in the best interests
*to* recognize the "market leader" and render the content of a MARQUEE element (even in "strict mode"). That Mozilla would render the content as does MSIE, rather than as a static string of text, just means that certain Mozillains are making the most of a bad situation.
That situation being the simple existence of MARQUEE at all, not the ruination of some imagined, inflexible W3C Standard. Read the published recommendations a bit more closely, and you'll find that there is a surprising amount of leeway.
Think about this: the reason that people should do things the way Microsoft is doing them is not because Microsoft is doing it, but because Microsoft has implemented some good ideas.
Yeah, the by-default scaling of images in MSIE 6.x
is sheer genius when you have to explain to a relative of yours how to view a posted graphic "actual size"... please.
I'm scratching my head to think of good ideas that
Microsoft implemented that weren't (or aren't now)
part of any W3C recommendation. I'll give Microsoft
points for a better *inital* implementation of CSS
(Netscape pushing out a javascript-based implementation was just plain wrong). I'll give them a point or so for "shortcut icons", but their
implementation wasn't terribly well thought-out at
all. The whole notion of security "zones" nets them a few more points, but the implementation is confusing (at best) for most any user. I'll give them a few more points for giving P3P a go, but again, I find their implementation a bit suspect.
I guess I feel that Microsoft does dump on users any number of new features, often in advance of other browser builders, but nearly always, the implementation is incomplete or just plain ill-conceived. Yes, Microsoft does push the envelope, but to no (channels, anyone?), ill (broken CSS box model), or confused (most any user-configurable setting) consequence.
Microsoft does get the ball rolling on any number of ideas by getting a product out the door, but I wish (oh, how I wish!) those responsible for IE would think beyond being first to market and beyond the confines of Windows' collective idiosyncracies to make those first impressions a bit more palatable (and lasting).
Less than $100 gets you a decent processor and a built in Ethernet adapter.
Last time I checked, ethernet support on a Dreamcast required a BBA (BroadBand Adapter) which can be hacked together if not bought... although, I assume you know that, as the $100 seems a bit high for a stock Dreamcast (unlessin' th' price done gone up in afterm'rkit sales).
Maybe now I can find the motivation to unload
the 600+ issues of Dragon Magazine clogging up
my apartment... oh, well, someday.
Casual perusal of the Web site didn't turn up
reference to the (failed) attempt to collect
the "Wormy" cartoons into a single volume. I
believe the artist was making a stab at
self-publishing, selling "shares" to interested
individuals. I must have been thirteen or so
at the time, but I sent off for my "share" only
to have it refunded months later due to insufficient share sales. I believe I still have the nifty printed scrap of paper somewhere.
Also of note are the "Phil and Dixie" volumes
published by Phil Foglio long after its run in
Dragon Magazine. Again unlisted, but I guess the
site focuses on direct TSR publications only? Perhaps that's why the CD-ROM collection of a substantial number of Dragons is also missing (it gets brief mention in the "What's New" section. Maybe I'm simply too tired to comb through the site for the info.
The channels I have that come in digital are about 2x as clear and the sound is a lot better as well.
Since we're sharing personal experiences about "digital" TV... and I assume you mean regular digital, not HDTV... my experience with Comcast
digital cable service was far from pleasing. Image
compression pushed through the roof, haloing, blockiness on gradients (e.g., a scenes depicting
action in fog or minimally lit nighttime), and on
and on. I'm not certain who to blame, the channels offering the content or the cable company, but
digital cable frequently looked much the worse compared to analog signals. Granted, it's just one provider among many, but I'll hazard a guess that others have experienced similar displeasing use of digital trnasmission.
It's a nice idea and all, but the tool of digital transmission has already been misused by service providers to cram more (channels) into less (the actual connection) with disfavorable results. All I've read about networks planning HDTV-band splits to provide more channels instead of improved content suggests to me that quality will continue to come in second to quantity for many providers.
I thought there WAS a way to spoof the User Agent with one of the javascript settings. Is that not right?
The lazy could also install (it's a bit of an overkill) the
Context-Menu Extensions, and enable the advanced features
to specify an arbitrary UA string.
It's overkill. You may not need the options upon
options it adds to Moz...
Exactly, software should work, in default mode, like the other software on that platform. That is fundamental UI that the open-source community feels perfectly happy to neglect [...] Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for Windows' (and Mac's especially) success is that learning one application makes learning other applications much much easier.
Oh, and Microsoft, too, when they feel like it (to pick on one of the two OS developers you mention). For example, migrating to Office 2000 way back when introduced me to the horrors of the re-engineered menu bars set to hide drop-down options from me by default. Or the switch from SDI to MDI for Office applications? Windows Media Player 6.x/7.x bears little to no similarity to its predecessor, and it's frickin' skinnable!
Then again, since Microsoft wrote the platform, they can change the standards for acceptable behavior at any time...:P
Why would you want to chip an old IBM computer [PS/2]...
Or did you mean "PS2"?
Thank you. When people turn increasingly to
search engines to locate documents on the Web,
using the proper terminology is important. It
seems like hair-splitting, but it's not.
One point on which I don't agree is the idea that we own it forever. Apparently there was some recent disagreement (perhaps discussed here on the dot?) that involved a moon rock that had changed hands a few times. The first change of hands (from the U.S. to a foreign dignitary) was legit, but one or more of the later transfers were not legit. I don't agree that the U.S. has a legitimate claim to it.
Should I happen to be so lucky to recall this
particular dispute correctly, the issue was that
the lunar rock in question had been gifted to a
foreign dignitary, subsequently stolen, and was
now in process of being resold.
Ah. Here's
a reference to the lunar dispute.
Seems the Feds want to reclaim a rock originally
given to Honduras by President Nixon so that they
may return it to the Honduran government. The
person most recently in possession of the rock
claimed to have bought it from a Honduran military
officer who, in turn, claimed to have been given
it as a gift some time ago. The Honduran gov't
claims they never let it go willingly in the first
place.
And here's a
1995 lunar rock dispute,
wherein the Feds claimed a rock put up for sale
was stolen in the mail some twenty-odd years back.
No idea what the resolution was in that case.
Two things I note, here: (1) proposed sale of lunar material invites close scrutiny by the Feds; and (2) the Feds don't seem to be claiming ownership without end, but instead inspection and enforcement of transfer to and among individuals.
Makes me wonder whether such intervention on the part of the Federal Government is really out of line with handling of similar national treasures.
(Yes, though given as goodwill trinkets to other nations, I do believe the expense and historical value of the materials in question qualify them as such.)
I know that creators should have absolute control, but it is a shame that Star Wars will likely die with Lucas, Calvin and Hobbes will die with BW and Peanuts will die with CS.
I know you may not take this well, so please
sit down before reading any further.
[Y]ou're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.
Well, (a) is why I have chosen not to respond to
the bulk of the parent post, though I can only
hope not to succumb to the temptation of (b) in
kind.
Google is geeky correct...
slashdot.org... php.net...
mysql.com[?] In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including
[the W3C site].
Yep. No arguing the facts. And in several of
those cases -- notably/. -- the markup misconstruction has been hashed over time
and again. As you so astutely point out in an
earlier post, they simply don't care. As you want
to suggest, they probably should.
As far as "finding something better to do", don't
worry. Running a one-minute scan over a single
Web document isn't going to derail my day.
Other thoughts of yours that probably deserve a
little attention:
Doesn't unsolicited critique of someones ancient and abandoned markup fall into the same category of critique of their fourth grade book report's grammar?
(from here)
A very interesting point. I guess I believe that
people who insist on hosting a live site or page
should invest a little time in its upkeep. Should
an adult (by analogy) continue to reproduce
the grammatical errors from his or her 4th grade
compositions in public, well... *shrug*
If you don't care about the Internet, why are
you even hosting a page (still)?
Oh, I did apologize in advance for selecting
a DTD... none was supplied.:p
The reason we say you should have possessed this knowledge is that TODAY you claim to be (in your own words) a "quasi geek", and we believe that every "quasi geek" possesses full and absolute knowledge of at least one DTD from birth.
In a/. world -- which I hope neither of us
inhabits beyond these few scattered words --
I'd say you were deserving of several +1
Funny mods. Not much else, though.
Your page may be three years old, but I visited
it yesterday. You may have given up on HTML and
turned your back on the Internet, and
yet the page is there. You may think you're being
persecuted unfairly for no reason other than I'm
a prig. You're wrong.
You may think somehow I've confused a handful of
HTML elements for your personage. You're wrong
there, too.
You were being a smartass from your
first response on.
When confronted with
your own lack of caring, you could have just
said, "Yeah. And?"
Instead, you post what you did.
What all that is or reveals, I'm still not
quite certain.
Slashdot Mirror
[W]hat about a system in which, when you go to a page from a Google search, Google adds a frame at the top of your page that let's you vote on how useful this page was on a scale of 1-10?
Actually, a while ago (at least a year past) Google would periodically replace the URLs "behind" those displayed on results pages with redirectors to the sites ostensibly listed. I assumed then that it was to sample which results were receiving clickthrough traffic compared to other results within each set.
Whether Google actually did anything with those clickthrough results or not is beyond me. I don't believe they implement such redirection any more. It was an incredibly rare occurrence -- but with the traffic they receive, it would always seem as such to any individual user.
In other words, Google kinda-sorta implemented the kernel of your suggestion in the past in a way not so open to abuse.
Another direction in which your idea can be taken would be an openly human-moderated index of sites (what Yahoo! was so long ago, what the Open Directory could have been if they weren't so leadfooted about things). Now that the Web has grown so very, very large, an individual or group of individuals could find time to review only very small subsets of information in detail and retain any semblance of authority when establishing their rankings.
There's a point at which democracy becomes mobocracy. Just review any past /. poll :p
But there's nothing in this Slashback about DoubleClick (as one might infer from the title). WTF? Is the write-up embedded inside a banner ad that only appears once in every ten pageloads? Is this some new approach to /. traffic generation?
How to stick turtles to the ceiling?
Lick and throw, my friend.
Sadly, HMV is not an American franchise. Granted, I'd kill to see on of them stateside...
I cannot speak for the rest of the United States, but there certainly are HMVs in New York City.
Checking HMV.com and its store locator, I turn up ten HMV stores in four states.
[Re: MSIE 6.x auto-scaling of images -] Uhm...when you put your cursor over the image, a big-ass button pops up that allows you to show the full-size image. I don't see how that's hard to explain....
That one would have to explain at all is the real issue here. I understand where you're coming from, but -- *trust me* -- the feature confuses a lot of those "average users" out there. I've actually had to explain the process twice since the above reply was posted to /. I believe the root of the isssue
is that one has to mouseover *and wait* for the
icons to appear. I'm not certain how this feature
passed through Microsoft's usability experts.
Ack. Too early on a Saturday morning. $users[$user]['userid'] and $users[$user]['username'] should simply be $user['userid'] and $user['username'], respectively. My PHP is a tad bit too rusty at the moment. :P
* HTML embedding - Ever heard of MVC? I'm sorry, but if you compare something like [...] the equiv in Template Toolkit:
<ul>
[% FOREACH user = users %]
<li><a href="user.pl?userid=[% user.userid %]">[% user.username %]</li>
[% END %] </ul>
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out, but the equivalent PHP construct could look something like this:
<ul>
<?php foreach( $users as $user ) { ?> {
<li><a href="user.pl?userid=<?php echo $users[$user]['userid']; ?>"><?php echo $users[$user]['username']; ?></li>
<?php } ?> </ul>
Duplicating the obhect notation is also quite possible, I simply chose and array of arrays as an example. Of all your PHP indictments, that was the weakest.
[Mozilla rendering the MARQUEE element], IMHO, is one instance of Mozilla playing a bad game of catchup to IE. Fortunately this hasn't happened too often, but everytime it does, it's a blow to W3 Standards, and an acknowledgement of Microsoft's market share.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but W3C offers recommendations, not standards. Sure, documents containing MARQUEE elements will not validate against the W3C [X]HTML DTDs, but does that invalidate the choice of a browser builder to support use of an element not in any W3C Recommendation?
The W3C certainly has nothing to say about this w/r/t the HTML 4.01 Recommendation:
The W3C notes concerning invalid documents suggest that when "a user agent encounters an element it does not recognize, it should try to render the element's content." Seems to me that it might be in the best interests *to* recognize the "market leader" and render the content of a MARQUEE element (even in "strict mode"). That Mozilla would render the content as does MSIE, rather than as a static string of text, just means that certain Mozillains are making the most of a bad situation.
That situation being the simple existence of MARQUEE at all, not the ruination of some imagined, inflexible W3C Standard. Read the published recommendations a bit more closely, and you'll find that there is a surprising amount of leeway.
Think about this: the reason that people should do things the way Microsoft is doing them is not because Microsoft is doing it, but because Microsoft has implemented some good ideas.
Yeah, the by-default scaling of images in MSIE 6.x is sheer genius when you have to explain to a relative of yours how to view a posted graphic "actual size" ... please.
I'm scratching my head to think of good ideas that Microsoft implemented that weren't (or aren't now) part of any W3C recommendation. I'll give Microsoft points for a better *inital* implementation of CSS (Netscape pushing out a javascript-based implementation was just plain wrong). I'll give them a point or so for "shortcut icons", but their implementation wasn't terribly well thought-out at all. The whole notion of security "zones" nets them a few more points, but the implementation is confusing (at best) for most any user. I'll give them a few more points for giving P3P a go, but again, I find their implementation a bit suspect.
I guess I feel that Microsoft does dump on users any number of new features, often in advance of other browser builders, but nearly always, the implementation is incomplete or just plain ill-conceived. Yes, Microsoft does push the envelope, but to no (channels, anyone?), ill (broken CSS box model), or confused (most any user-configurable setting) consequence.
Microsoft does get the ball rolling on any number of ideas by getting a product out the door, but I wish (oh, how I wish!) those responsible for IE would think beyond being first to market and beyond the confines of Windows' collective idiosyncracies to make those first impressions a bit more palatable (and lasting).
Does anyone still develop SCSI CDRW drives?
Plextor does, has, and probably always will as long as SCSI means anything in the marketplace.
Less than $100 gets you a decent processor and a built in Ethernet adapter.
Last time I checked, ethernet support on a Dreamcast required a BBA (BroadBand Adapter) which can be hacked together if not bought ... although, I assume you know that, as the $100 seems a bit high for a stock Dreamcast (unlessin' th' price done gone up in afterm'rkit sales).
Maybe now I can find the motivation to unload the 600+ issues of Dragon Magazine clogging up my apartment ... oh, well, someday.
Casual perusal of the Web site didn't turn up reference to the (failed) attempt to collect the "Wormy" cartoons into a single volume. I believe the artist was making a stab at self-publishing, selling "shares" to interested individuals. I must have been thirteen or so at the time, but I sent off for my "share" only to have it refunded months later due to insufficient share sales. I believe I still have the nifty printed scrap of paper somewhere.
Also of note are the "Phil and Dixie" volumes published by Phil Foglio long after its run in Dragon Magazine. Again unlisted, but I guess the site focuses on direct TSR publications only? Perhaps that's why the CD-ROM collection of a substantial number of Dragons is also missing (it gets brief mention in the "What's New" section. Maybe I'm simply too tired to comb through the site for the info.
The channels I have that come in digital are about 2x as clear and the sound is a lot better as well.
Since we're sharing personal experiences about "digital" TV ... and I assume you mean regular digital, not HDTV ... my experience with Comcast
digital cable service was far from pleasing. Image
compression pushed through the roof, haloing, blockiness on gradients (e.g., a scenes depicting
action in fog or minimally lit nighttime), and on
and on. I'm not certain who to blame, the channels offering the content or the cable company, but
digital cable frequently looked much the worse compared to analog signals. Granted, it's just one provider among many, but I'll hazard a guess that others have experienced similar displeasing use of digital trnasmission.
It's a nice idea and all, but the tool of digital transmission has already been misused by service providers to cram more (channels) into less (the actual connection) with disfavorable results. All I've read about networks planning HDTV-band splits to provide more channels instead of improved content suggests to me that quality will continue to come in second to quantity for many providers.
I thought there WAS a way to spoof the User Agent with one of the javascript settings. Is that not right?
The lazy could also install (it's a bit of an overkill) the Context-Menu Extensions, and enable the advanced features to specify an arbitrary UA string. It's overkill. You may not need the options upon options it adds to Moz...
Exactly, software should work, in default mode, like the other software on that platform. That is fundamental UI that the open-source community feels perfectly happy to neglect [...] Perhaps one of the greatest reasons for Windows' (and Mac's especially) success is that learning one application makes learning other applications much much easier.
Oh, and Microsoft, too, when they feel like it (to pick on one of the two OS developers you mention). For example, migrating to Office 2000 way back when introduced me to the horrors of the re-engineered menu bars set to hide drop-down options from me by default. Or the switch from SDI to MDI for Office applications? Windows Media Player 6.x/7.x bears little to no similarity to its predecessor, and it's frickin' skinnable!
Then again, since Microsoft wrote the platform, they can change the standards for acceptable behavior at any time... :P
Why would you want to chip an old IBM computer [PS/2] ...
Or did you mean "PS2"?
Thank you. When people turn increasingly to search engines to locate documents on the Web, using the proper terminology is important. It seems like hair-splitting, but it's not.
Then again maybe it is, but I don't care.
Anyone who has successfully downloaded the new Mandrake beta want to comment on that?
What? We're no longer permitted to respond in-band? Or can the Mandrake Beta now claim to be /.'s quickest
Slashback topic?
In other words: huh?
One point on which I don't agree is the idea that we own it forever. Apparently there was some recent disagreement (perhaps discussed here on the dot?) that involved a moon rock that had changed hands a few times. The first change of hands (from the U.S. to a foreign dignitary) was legit, but one or more of the later transfers were not legit. I don't agree that the U.S. has a legitimate claim to it.
Should I happen to be so lucky to recall this particular dispute correctly, the issue was that the lunar rock in question had been gifted to a foreign dignitary, subsequently stolen, and was now in process of being resold.
Ah. Here's a reference to the lunar dispute. Seems the Feds want to reclaim a rock originally given to Honduras by President Nixon so that they may return it to the Honduran government. The person most recently in possession of the rock claimed to have bought it from a Honduran military officer who, in turn, claimed to have been given it as a gift some time ago. The Honduran gov't claims they never let it go willingly in the first place.
And here's a 1995 lunar rock dispute, wherein the Feds claimed a rock put up for sale was stolen in the mail some twenty-odd years back. No idea what the resolution was in that case.
Two things I note, here: (1) proposed sale of lunar material invites close scrutiny by the Feds; and (2) the Feds don't seem to be claiming ownership without end, but instead inspection and enforcement of transfer to and among individuals.
Makes me wonder whether such intervention on the part of the Federal Government is really out of line with handling of similar national treasures. (Yes, though given as goodwill trinkets to other nations, I do believe the expense and historical value of the materials in question qualify them as such.)
Randomly? Yes, that's wrong. However...
Yes. I was a bit too loose with my quick reply.
[U]nless you're telling me that ibtagmrq@hotmail.com is a popular name.
Unless you're telling me that some of these people don't have the time to just randomly generate email addys @hotmail.com just to see what turns up...
Can you imagine AOL, Opera, Macromedia etc all having to pay money to their primary competitor just to be allowed to compete?
Since when is Macromedia in competition with Microsoft? Surely, you can't be comparing FrontPage with Dreamweaver...
I know that creators should have absolute control, but it is a shame that Star Wars will likely die with Lucas, Calvin and Hobbes will die with BW and Peanuts will die with CS.
I know you may not take this well, so please sit down before reading any further.
Charles Schultz died nearly 2 1/2 years ago.
Thus, in conclusion... "Yeah, and?"
About damn time. :)
peace.
[Y]ou're never going to a.) sound intelligent while attacking someone personally or b.) get anything short of a rabid-frothing at the mouth response from anyone whilst attacking them personally.
Well, (a) is why I have chosen not to respond to the bulk of the parent post, though I can only hope not to succumb to the temptation of (b) in kind.
Google is geeky correct ...
slashdot.org ... php.net ...
mysql.com[?] In fact, pretty much every page I tested came up with multiple errors, including
[the W3C site].
Yep. No arguing the facts. And in several of those cases -- notably /. -- the markup misconstruction has been hashed over time
and again. As you so astutely point out in an
earlier post, they simply don't care. As you want
to suggest, they probably should.
As far as "finding something better to do", don't worry. Running a one-minute scan over a single Web document isn't going to derail my day. Other thoughts of yours that probably deserve a little attention:
Doesn't unsolicited critique of someones ancient and abandoned markup fall into the same category of critique of their fourth grade book report's grammar? (from here)
A very interesting point. I guess I believe that people who insist on hosting a live site or page should invest a little time in its upkeep. Should an adult (by analogy) continue to reproduce the grammatical errors from his or her 4th grade compositions in public, well... *shrug* If you don't care about the Internet, why are you even hosting a page (still)?
Oh, I did apologize in advance for selecting a DTD ... none was supplied. :p
In concluding here:
The reason we say you should have possessed this knowledge is that TODAY you claim to be (in your own words) a "quasi geek", and we believe that every "quasi geek" possesses full and absolute knowledge of at least one DTD from birth.
In a /. world -- which I hope neither of us
inhabits beyond these few scattered words --
I'd say you were deserving of several +1
Funny mods. Not much else, though.
Your page may be three years old, but I visited it yesterday. You may have given up on HTML and turned your back on the Internet, and yet the page is there. You may think you're being persecuted unfairly for no reason other than I'm a prig. You're wrong. You may think somehow I've confused a handful of HTML elements for your personage. You're wrong there, too.
You were being a smartass from your first response on. When confronted with your own lack of caring, you could have just said, "Yeah. And?" Instead, you post what you did. What all that is or reveals, I'm still not quite certain.
Perl is definitely a good thing(tm), your favorite website depends on it!
No, it doesn't!
"Sorry, couldn't resist," he shouted while running for cover.