Actually, my grandarents (who are just learning to use computers) are still using ISDN. But just about everyone else are using ADSL or some other broadband scheme...
Do you even read/. or simply post? Just because those you happen to know access the Internet through a broadband connection doesn't mean everyone in America (or wherever) does -
The title of this story actually makes sense. To boil a frog you can't just throw a live frog into a hot pot of water (it'll jump out). What you do is put a frog in a cold pot of water and slowly turn up the heat...
I don't have the patience to gradually increment the temperature in a pot of water. Can't I just put a lid on the pot to keep the frog from jumping out? Is this too obvious, or do you think I could seek a patent for my "discovery"?
Because if you serve XHTML to IE 5.x or 6.x under the application/xhtml+xml content-type, IE will render it not as an XHTML page but in a form more similar to source code: an XML tree.
I have and 80 gig USB 2.0 portable hardrive. It runs fine under 98,2000, and xp at USB 2.0 there is support, just a driver issue.
I stand corrected on that one point. Kinda. There do appear to be USB 2.0 interface cards with drivers for older versions of Windows. I assume by "driver issue" you mean that each vendor must provide its own [driver]. I guess whether it runs fine or not is something to take up with your vendor when it doesn't.
You learn something new every day. I don't think that guarantees USB 2.0 more ubiquity than FireWire on the x86 (yet), but it helps.
Re:What's with the attitude?
on
New MP3 Portables
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And it transfers with USB 2.0, which is both faster than the iPod's FireWire, and is also more commonly available on the PC platform.
I don't want to throw a monkeywrench in here, but I might as well try:
How is USB 2.0 support more ubiquitous for x86 in terms of OS-level support? I was under the impression that it's still being tweaked for Linux (but it's there) and that Windows support was confined to Windows 2000 and XP. At least, that's the impression I get from the Microsoft KB. For other x86 operating systems, I have no clue.
Somehow, I suspect FireWire support is (potentially) a bit more common, though it does require additional hardware for most x86 PCs. Beat me with a stick, but I seem to recall there being FireWire support in the OS for earlier versions of Windows, so at least it's an option (where it isn't with USB 2.0).
Memory... foggy. IIRC, Champions is based on the HERO System, but the two aren't identical. I may be wrong there. I simply wanted to correct it's representation alongside DC Heroes and Marvel Super Heroes... the name of the actual game line was Champions, not HERO. I may have flubbed things in doing so, but I belive the HERO system was just the innards upon which the Champions gameworld was built.
Now just remove the "div class" and you've got semantic, self-describing XML.
Except for one thing (and I pretty much assume you realize this): it's not XML, it's HTML. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'd say that's a *whole* lot better than three levels of nested tables and tags.
In a number of regards, this is true. I never disputed that. In terms of semantic gain, there isn't a whole lot apart from avoiding abuse of what TABLEs were meant to mean.
I'd use real XML along with XSLT and CSS instead of even any div tags, except [...]
And I'm certain you would. You have limiting conditions -- heck, all Web authors do. XHTML is a joke (why not just use HTML 4.01? why hide XHTML behind the text/html content-type?) now, and use of XHTML or XML on the Web is premature. The tools simply are too far behind the standards. Or the standards are too far ahead.
No matter how you look at it, true XML with custom tags or just div tags with classes, it kicks tables' asses.
I find it curious that you use the phrase "no matter how you look at it" after stating that repetitive DIV use isn't terribly meaningful from a semantic standpoint. Seems somewhat contradictatory to me.:p
Look, I know authors' backs are up against the wall to move away from TABLEs to lighter markup and better application of existing standards. However, given the flaws of existing user agents and the mess of W3C recommendations, much of the perceived progress is "illusory" in terms of actual semantic gain.
Now I did say, "whatever floats your boat." The Web is a do-what-works medium, and I recognize that. But I do think the amount of self-congratulation involved in moving to DIV... DIV... DIV... DIV constructions should be a bit muted. It's a markup translation that solves a number of practical issues surrounding use of TABLEs, but it doesn't really solve more significant, core issues.
But that's not your fault. I'm not certain who got everyone into this mess. I can only hope a path opens to a better way within my lifetime. Besides, I bear bigger grudges against people who replace FONT elements with SPANs. HAND
Using "Table Data" to indicate a navigation bar makes MUCH more sense than a simple nondescript "division".
Never said that it was better. I just don't think the gains are all that great. You basically reiterated why: those DIV elements are nondescript. The CLASS atrributes permit separation of style rules, but the underlying containers are the same (DIVs). As I also said, whatever floats yer boat.
I mean just look at this post. Should I, and if I should, how do I, mark up "much" [etc.]
As with anything on the Web, author's choice. Good or bad. Being Slashdot, one poster's markup doesn't matter one way or the other. There are no community rules, so even if there a correct markup style, that one perfectly formatted post would be lost in a sea of posts. And tables.:p I abandoned such concerns on/. long ago. It's a lost cause.
Useful content based markup was pretty much DOA when they created the CODE tag [...]
I've built my personal homepage (click my URL, although it's down atm) entirely *without* tables. The only thing I use is a heirarchial system of <div> tags using different classes.
So you've traded tables for a collection of nested DIV elements? I guess the semantic web means nothing to you. Whatever floats your boat. The Web *is* a take-it or leave-it medium.
[OT: Of course, now I'm wondering why/. permits DIV elements in HTML Formatted posts. I just noticed. How on earth is this useful?]
[R]andom access memory is named that way for a good reason - no matter what memory address the system is accessing the time to access that memory will be the same - there is no seek time in RAM[.]
Nit to pick: "random access" != "no seek time"... hard drives are random access devices and they certainly have seek time. There may be no seek time in RAM, but it's not because it's because words "random access" are present. Besides, I like to think of it as RWM when speaking of it alongside ROM.:p
I think both DC and Marvel had a paper and pencil game loosely based on them.
Yes. Both did. There were several versions and spin-offs of "DC Heroes" games. I don't recall whether "Marvel Super Heroes" (MSH) was quite so prolific in its developement and expansion.
MSH wasn't "loose" at all -- players were encouraged, more or less, to play actual comic book characters. At least, that was the big pitch and there were frequent articles in Dragon Magazine covering new heroes from the Marvel Universe(TM).
From what I remember of the rating system, there wasn't one in terms of point-based character creation. If heroes or villains were to be formed from whole cloth, it was to be guided from story-telling, not point accounting.
Don't know about "DC Heroes" so much, but I assume there was a strong bias toward the comic characters there, as well -- I have a copy of the "Batman Role-Playing Game" [Mayfair Games] sitting somewhere in my apartment so I can only assume so.
You created new characters with sets of powers, each having a cost. You paid for these costs with selecting weaknesses.
I don't think the original "Marvel Super Heroes" worked that way (it's been a long, long time). I can't comment on the "DC Heroes" line. However, what you describe is very similar to other superhero roleplay systems: "Villians and Vigilantes", the "HERO" system, even the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" roleplaying system... all before GURPS popped onto the scene (and though I stopped following these things over a decade ago, I assume there is a GURPS superhero system now, too).
These games were far more open to invention of new heroes than the games sanctioned by Marvel and DC. At least, my recollection of the time when these games were first released is as such.
Yes. I'm a recovered RPG geek. Never really played, just collected rulebooks and analyzed systems. Honest. Except for Car Wars.
Pitch Black was hardly mainstream Hollywood. It was a US/Ozzie co-production.
I guess that would make LOTR "hardly mainstream Hollywood", too. I'd have to go back to verify your claim about distribution pick-up for Pitch Black, but just because a film is co-created overseas with backing from US film concerns doesn't automagically discount it as Hollywood fare.
Why oh why can't Hollywood make decent Sci-Fi movies?
They exist.
Donnie Darko (2001) is a little fringe and not a space opera, but I think counts for something. Just try to ignore Barrymore's acting. I think the last space-y sci-fi I enjoyed from mainstream Hollywood was Pitch Black (2000). Then again, I'm one of the few who enjoyed AI (2001).
Haven't seen much from this year's crop that would count as "good"...
This is a good point. Does this ambiguity trip up non-native speakers in addition to native speakers aware of the duplicity in meaning, I wonder... Context seems to make the meaning somewhat clear, though. The presumed typicality of the first meaning leaves only the second as suitably "amazing"...
As i said its pretty asinine to get worked up about spelling on slashdot.
Yeah, it's not like Slashdot offers users the option to search old posts by keyword or anything like that.
Most people take authors -- published or unpublished, on-line or off -- more seriously when they know how to use the language in which they compose their writings. Then again, you do state that you "dont care" if anyone reads your post or not. (But go ahead and apply your +1 posting bonus, anyway -- talk about sending mixed messages.)
For those playing at home, rkowen didn't write shit.
That is, unless rkowen is Bertram Schwarzschild (or an editor) over at Physics Today who wrote the abstract in the friggin' article linked to in the/. summary.
One might think the/. community is full of frauds...
For the consumer world, the user should never have to manually configure anything to run the program. This should also be true in the business world[.]
Now I understand why there's all that nonsense involving default admin passwords for databases connected to the 'Net. (Sorry, it was too easy to pass up.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my grandarents (who are just learning to use computers) are still using ISDN. But just about everyone else are using ADSL or some other broadband scheme...
Do you even read /. or simply post? Just because those you happen to know access the Internet through a broadband connection doesn't mean everyone in America (or wherever) does -
Report: Broadband Too Expensive for Many (23 September 2002)
Why You Don't Have a Broadband Connection (28 August 2002)
- krmt is right: broadband users are not a majority in America (at least).
The title of this story actually makes sense. To boil a frog you can't just throw a live frog into a hot pot of water (it'll jump out). What you do is put a frog in a cold pot of water and slowly turn up the heat...
I don't have the patience to gradually increment the temperature in a pot of water. Can't I just put a lid on the pot to keep the frog from jumping out? Is this too obvious, or do you think I could seek a patent for my "discovery"?
Because if you serve XHTML to IE 5.x or 6.x under the application/xhtml+xml content-type, IE will render it not as an XHTML page but in a form more similar to source code: an XML tree.
That's quite simply an awful reason.
I have and 80 gig USB 2.0 portable hardrive. It runs fine under 98,2000, and xp at USB 2.0 there is support, just a driver issue.
I stand corrected on that one point. Kinda. There do appear to be USB 2.0 interface cards with drivers for older versions of Windows. I assume by "driver issue" you mean that each vendor must provide its own [driver]. I guess whether it runs fine or not is something to take up with your vendor when it doesn't.
You learn something new every day. I don't think that guarantees USB 2.0 more ubiquity than FireWire on the x86 (yet), but it helps.
Seriously Dude, Where's My Car?
And it transfers with USB 2.0, which is both faster than the iPod's FireWire, and is also more commonly available on the PC platform.
I don't want to throw a monkeywrench in here, but I might as well try:
How is USB 2.0 support more ubiquitous for x86 in terms of OS-level support? I was under the impression that it's still being tweaked for Linux (but it's there) and that Windows support was confined to Windows 2000 and XP. At least, that's the impression I get from the Microsoft KB. For other x86 operating systems, I have no clue.
Somehow, I suspect FireWire support is (potentially) a bit more common, though it does require additional hardware for most x86 PCs. Beat me with a stick, but I seem to recall there being FireWire support in the OS for earlier versions of Windows, so at least it's an option (where it isn't with USB 2.0).
I also suffer from the delusion that USB 2.0 requires USB 2.0 hardware ports for full transfer rates. I would think most consumers are still stuck with USB 1.1 interfaces and so, with sub-optimal transfers relative to FireWire.
So, how is it more commonly available on the PC platform again?
I thought Champions == HERO?
Memory ... foggy. IIRC, Champions is based on the HERO System, but the two aren't identical. I may be wrong there. I simply wanted to correct it's representation alongside DC Heroes and Marvel Super Heroes ... the name of the actual game line was Champions, not HERO. I may have flubbed things in doing so, but I belive the HERO system was just the innards upon which the Champions gameworld was built.
Now just remove the "div class" and you've got semantic, self-describing XML.
Except for one thing (and I pretty much assume you realize this): it's not XML, it's HTML. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'd say that's a *whole* lot better than three levels of nested tables and tags.
In a number of regards, this is true. I never disputed that. In terms of semantic gain, there isn't a whole lot apart from avoiding abuse of what TABLEs were meant to mean.
I'd use real XML along with XSLT and CSS instead of even any div tags, except [...]
And I'm certain you would. You have limiting conditions -- heck, all Web authors do. XHTML is a joke (why not just use HTML 4.01? why hide XHTML behind the text/html content-type?) now, and use of XHTML or XML on the Web is premature. The tools simply are too far behind the standards. Or the standards are too far ahead.
No matter how you look at it, true XML with custom tags or just div tags with classes, it kicks tables' asses.
I find it curious that you use the phrase "no matter how you look at it" after stating that repetitive DIV use isn't terribly meaningful from a semantic standpoint. Seems somewhat contradictatory to me. :p
Look, I know authors' backs are up against the wall to move away from TABLEs to lighter markup and better application of existing standards. However, given the flaws of existing user agents and the mess of W3C recommendations, much of the perceived progress is "illusory" in terms of actual semantic gain.
Now I did say, "whatever floats your boat." The Web is a do-what-works medium, and I recognize that. But I do think the amount of self-congratulation involved in moving to DIV ... DIV ... DIV ... DIV constructions should be a bit muted. It's a markup translation that solves a number of practical issues surrounding use of TABLEs, but it doesn't really solve more significant, core issues.
But that's not your fault. I'm not certain who got everyone into this mess. I can only hope a path opens to a better way within my lifetime. Besides, I bear bigger grudges against people who replace FONT elements with SPANs. HAND
Using "Table Data" to indicate a navigation bar makes MUCH more sense than a simple nondescript "division".
Never said that it was better. I just don't think the gains are all that great. You basically reiterated why: those DIV elements are nondescript. The CLASS atrributes permit separation of style rules, but the underlying containers are the same (DIVs). As I also said, whatever floats yer boat.
I mean just look at this post. Should I, and if I should, how do I, mark up "much" [etc.]
As with anything on the Web, author's choice. Good or bad. Being Slashdot, one poster's markup doesn't matter one way or the other. There are no community rules, so even if there a correct markup style, that one perfectly formatted post would be lost in a sea of posts. And tables. :p I abandoned such concerns on /. long ago. It's a lost cause.
Useful content based markup was pretty much DOA when they created the CODE tag [...]
I don't quite understand your argument here.
dude.
I've built my personal homepage (click my URL, although it's down atm) entirely *without* tables. The only thing I use is a heirarchial system of <div> tags using different classes.
So you've traded tables for a collection of nested DIV elements? I guess the semantic web means nothing to you. Whatever floats your boat. The Web *is* a take-it or leave-it medium.
[OT: Of course, now I'm wondering why /. permits DIV elements in HTML Formatted posts. I just noticed. How on earth is this useful?]
One more lead I forgot (and the system I enjoyed the most that I read over): "Champions" ... great system.
I never played, true believers. Honest.
[R]andom access memory is named that way for a good reason - no matter what memory address the system is accessing the time to access that memory will be the same - there is no seek time in RAM[.]
Nit to pick: "random access" != "no seek time" ... hard drives are random access devices and they certainly have seek time. There may be no seek time in RAM, but it's not because it's because words "random access" are present. Besides, I like to think of it as RWM when speaking of it alongside ROM. :p
I think both DC and Marvel had a paper and pencil game loosely based on them.
Yes. Both did. There were several versions and spin-offs of "DC Heroes" games. I don't recall whether "Marvel Super Heroes" (MSH) was quite so prolific in its developement and expansion.
MSH wasn't "loose" at all -- players were encouraged, more or less, to play actual comic book characters. At least, that was the big pitch and there were frequent articles in Dragon Magazine covering new heroes from the Marvel Universe(TM). From what I remember of the rating system, there wasn't one in terms of point-based character creation. If heroes or villains were to be formed from whole cloth, it was to be guided from story-telling, not point accounting.
Don't know about "DC Heroes" so much, but I assume there was a strong bias toward the comic characters there, as well -- I have a copy of the "Batman Role-Playing Game" [Mayfair Games] sitting somewhere in my apartment so I can only assume so.
You created new characters with sets of powers, each having a cost. You paid for these costs with selecting weaknesses.
I don't think the original "Marvel Super Heroes" worked that way (it's been a long, long time). I can't comment on the "DC Heroes" line. However, what you describe is very similar to other superhero roleplay systems: "Villians and Vigilantes", the "HERO" system, even the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" roleplaying system ... all before GURPS popped onto the scene (and though I stopped following these things over a decade ago, I assume there is a GURPS superhero system now, too).
These games were far more open to invention of new heroes than the games sanctioned by Marvel and DC. At least, my recollection of the time when these games were first released is as such.
Yes. I'm a recovered RPG geek. Never really played, just collected rulebooks and analyzed systems. Honest. Except for Car Wars.
Pitch Black was hardly mainstream Hollywood. It was a US/Ozzie co-production.
I guess that would make LOTR "hardly mainstream Hollywood", too. I'd have to go back to verify your claim about distribution pick-up for Pitch Black, but just because a film is co-created overseas with backing from US film concerns doesn't automagically discount it as Hollywood fare.
Jinx.
This just in: ditors at Slashdot ar no longr prmittd to us th lttr '' in articl titls!
You're the only person laughing at that retarded joke.
I wish it had been meant as a joke. I also wish /. editors would exercise greater care with TLAs.
Hint: OSI was used to refer to Origin long before any kind of Open Source Initiative.
Hint: I've probably played Origin titles over a far greater span of time than most here.
I'd hate to discover that OSI had significance long before any kind of Origin Systems, Inc. What ever would we do, then?
What ever would we do?
Whatever.
Oh, it isn't *that* OSI? Never mind, then.
Why oh why can't Hollywood make decent Sci-Fi movies?
They exist. Donnie Darko (2001) is a little fringe and not a space opera, but I think counts for something. Just try to ignore Barrymore's acting. I think the last space-y sci-fi I enjoyed from mainstream Hollywood was Pitch Black (2000). Then again, I'm one of the few who enjoyed AI (2001). Haven't seen much from this year's crop that would count as "good"...
This is a good point. Does this ambiguity trip up non-native speakers in addition to native speakers aware of the duplicity in meaning, I wonder... Context seems to make the meaning somewhat clear, though. The presumed typicality of the first meaning leaves only the second as suitably "amazing"...
As i said its pretty asinine to get worked up about spelling on slashdot.
Yeah, it's not like Slashdot offers users the option to search old posts by keyword or anything like that.
Most people take authors -- published or unpublished, on-line or off -- more seriously when they know how to use the language in which they compose their writings. Then again, you do state that you "dont care" if anyone reads your post or not. (But go ahead and apply your +1 posting bonus, anyway -- talk about sending mixed messages.)
rkowen writes...
For those playing at home, rkowen didn't write shit. That is, unless rkowen is Bertram Schwarzschild (or an editor) over at Physics Today who wrote the abstract in the friggin' article linked to in the /. summary.
One might think the /. community is full of frauds...
[Granting Microsoft a patent] means no one else can create such an operating system without a legal battle.
Or merely licensing the technology from the patent-holder. Duh.
For the consumer world, the user should never have to manually configure anything to run the program. This should also be true in the business world[.]
Now I understand why there's all that nonsense involving default admin passwords for databases connected to the 'Net. (Sorry, it was too easy to pass up.)