It plugged right into your Mac or PC. It made a game of teaching chords, timing and reading music. It allowed you to do recitals and graded you on them. It was freakin' wonderful.
Let me at the source code. I'll get it working again.
Condolences to the UK, but the US doesn't fare much better. Decades ago, NBC was in on the ground floor of a multibillion dollar franchise ("Star Trek"). They moved its time slot capriciously, as if trying to lose viewership, and cut its budget mercilessly. In its last season, just about every set was nothing but cheapo paper mache boulders. Then they cancelled it at the height of its popularity. In other words, they underestimated the public's appetite for sci-fi by tens of billions, dollars or pounds, take your pick.
Now we have a cable channel dedicated to sci-fi, and they changed their name to "Syfy". How's that's supposed to be pronounced, "siffie"? They used to produce remakes of Dune that were more faithful to the books, but "Syfy" now only makes end-of-the-world and big-animal movies. They've lost faith in sci-fi too, as much as NBC did.
"When Can I Use?" (http://www.caniuse.com/) updated right away that the current version Firefox is 4. Must be database driven to update everything so fast. Anyway, with "All" features selected, the final Summary lists current Firefox only 3% behind current Chrome and 10% ahead of current Safari. Of course, "When Can I Use?" is supported by Google to highlight Chrome's strengths in new technologies.
It's kinda sad, isn't it? Apple contributed WebKit to open source, Google used it to get a quick presence in the browser market, and now Google doesn't contribute its HTML5/CSS3/etc code back to the project to return the favor. Hmm, I wonder why?
It imaged display:table/table-row/table-cell better than Firefox 3.6.13. Much better, in fact, it was downright gorgeous. It couldn't handle display:inline-block, but it handled Mozilla's "-moz" CSS for rounded rectangles just fine. jQuery 1.5 traversed its DOM perfectly, but it reported wrong sizes for block elements in.width() and.height(). (It was in QuirksMode, and by that I mean that $.support.boxModel was false. So it appears that jQuery used the MSIE 6/7 QuirksMode algorithm for height and width, when it should have used W3C box model algorithm instead.) AJAX and JSON worked fine.
I just finished working on a CSS-manipulation jQuery plug-in, so I had a tester page handy to research this stuff. It's not like I researched it for hours or anything. I had all of this info at my fingertips pretty quickly. All in all, it appears that Netscape 8.1 was pretty amazing for its day, and well-tolerable, even now.
The original goal of copyrights and patents was to reward people for creating things that benefit all of us, not to create huge corporations that prevent people from creating things that benefit all of us.
Switching between FF 3 and 4 trashes all of my persistent sessions with "keep me logged in" sites, including Slashdot. Both directions (3 to 4 and 4 to 3). And FF 4 launches automatically if it's not up and I click on a hotlink, presumably because the OS wants to launch the latest and greatest. That means I have to keep FF 3 going all the time, in case, I want to click on a hotlink. Either that or default to FF 4 with all of its hounding for feedback. Stop punishing me for helping you test version 4's HTML5 features, Mozilla!
Why doesn't one version of Firefox want to honor a different version's "Keep until: they expire"???
The real problem is illustrated by all the videos of teenagers whacking each other with fluorescent bulbs across the back, till they bleed of shattered glass, just so that they can get featured on Break.com. Clearly radioactive rods are next.
Attachmate also made terminal emulation for Unisys 1100/2200 series mainframes. They did print ads referring to themselves as "The Perfect Mate" (for your mainframe) with very pretty girls to assist the emotional connection to the "perfect mate" message. Also, at conferences, the best looking ladies were in the Attachmate area and at their (free booze) receptions.
Being a systems programmer, I wasn't in a position to make purchasing decisions, and I also wasn't married. So neither my morals nor integrity were compromised by allowing myself to be schmoozed by those stunningly pretty girls. I have nothing but fond memories of Attachmate.
Also, their terminal emulation was top notch, though a little pricey compared to hungrier vendors.
... not the numbers themselves. The real number system differs from rational numbers in that uncountably many of them do not have a repeating decimal expansion and have to be represented by an approximation. That's what the decimal expansion is, a representation based on an approximation. What makes the approximation a valid representation is that, for any value epsilon (usually thought of as a very small number), the approximation can get within epsilon of the number.
In other words, an infinite decimal expansion is a series that converges to a limit (the real number itself). So 1.000... = 1 + 0/10 + 0/100 + 0/1000 +..., which is a series that converges to one. And 0.999... = 0 + 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/000 +..., which is also a series that converges to one. Therefore they're equally valid series for representing the same limit, one.
My point is that this is true by the DEFINITION of a real number. It's axiomatic. You don't prove axioms, because there would be only one step to proof, to point out that it's an axiom.
I once told a boss, "Well, you have to remember that half of all people are below the median in intelligence." He got all indignant and said "You don't know that! You can't prove that!" This thread reminds me of that altercation. And my own explanation just now reminds me of the fireworks factory explosion at the beginning of that Naked Gun movie and Frank Drebben saying "Nothing to see here! Move along!" If your goal is to come up with the funniest response, the correct response misses the point.
Isn't that what HIP is for? Maintaining identity/virtual connections as one transitions across multiple Internet access points? At first glance, this appears to be reinventing the wheel.
You're referring to the "same origin policy" and you're right. There are 3 new mechanisms in HTML5 for remembering something across page loads (added to the older 4th mechanism, cookies), and all 4 of them are subject to the same origin policy.
Many of the new features of HTML5 exist to allow browsers to do the same things as plug-ins. A poorly written plug-in is a much bigger security vulnerability than the well-thought-out new features of HTML5, which were largely contributed by browser vendors themselves. The browser vendor has a vested interest in keeping the browser secure against attack. And they know how to accomplish that, because they're more familiar with their own internal security model and they're more motivated to follow it rigorously.
Implementing the same origin policy thoroughly and correctly is in the vendor's best interest. I'm pretty sure that HTML5 will make us more secure than the plug-in riddled environment we have now.
If it were just someone who reads all the specs and writes a book about it, I would agree with you. But Remy Sharp and Mark Pilgrim are not just someones who have read all the specs. They actually know stuff.
Mark Pilgrim's book is good. Very practical advice about how to use features. Also good (personal experience): Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp, Introducing HTML5, and Peter Lubbers, Brian Albers and Frank Salim, Pro HTML5 Programming. Also good (Ben Nadel raves about it): Jeremy Keith, HTML5 for Web Designers. (I can't speak from personal experience about that one yet, but it was the first one on the iBookstore and I have the sample.)
A little history about HTML5 books: For the longest time, people held off on publishing because of the same sort of FUD that W3C is spreading. What if it changes? What if I publish and a new feature becomes the hot topic and no one buys my book because I published too soon? But then Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp published. Then I guess the other publishing houses realized that they'd better publish soon, or else Bruce and Remy were going to soak up all the disposable income that's been waiting on an actual book. So, like, one or two weeks later, Mark's book shipped. Then, like, 2 or 3 weeks later, Peter, Brian and Frank's book. So here's a big Thank You to Bruce and Remy for breaking the ice.
The cat's out of the bag, W3C. People are getting antsy to code. I don't you're going to get that cat back in the bag.
Slashdot Mirror
... oops, not that kind of surfing.
Surprised EVERYONE.
It plugged right into your Mac or PC. It made a game of teaching chords, timing and reading music. It allowed you to do recitals and graded you on them. It was freakin' wonderful .
Let me at the source code. I'll get it working again.
Condolences to the UK, but the US doesn't fare much better. Decades ago, NBC was in on the ground floor of a multibillion dollar franchise ("Star Trek"). They moved its time slot capriciously, as if trying to lose viewership, and cut its budget mercilessly. In its last season, just about every set was nothing but cheapo paper mache boulders. Then they cancelled it at the height of its popularity. In other words, they underestimated the public's appetite for sci-fi by tens of billions, dollars or pounds, take your pick.
Now we have a cable channel dedicated to sci-fi, and they changed their name to "Syfy". How's that's supposed to be pronounced, "siffie"? They used to produce remakes of Dune that were more faithful to the books, but "Syfy" now only makes end-of-the-world and big-animal movies. They've lost faith in sci-fi too, as much as NBC did.
Both sides of the Atlantic, sad to say.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Talk-Like-Christopher-Walken-Day-March-31st/191561644207105
http://xkcd.com/327/
"When Can I Use?" (http://www.caniuse.com/) updated right away that the current version Firefox is 4. Must be database driven to update everything so fast. Anyway, with "All" features selected, the final Summary lists current Firefox only 3% behind current Chrome and 10% ahead of current Safari. Of course, "When Can I Use?" is supported by Google to highlight Chrome's strengths in new technologies.
It's kinda sad, isn't it? Apple contributed WebKit to open source, Google used it to get a quick presence in the browser market, and now Google doesn't contribute its HTML5/CSS3/etc code back to the project to return the favor. Hmm, I wonder why?
Microsoft's Giorgio Sardo begins his "HTML 5 and Internet Explorer 9" video with a mock funeral for IE 6 at http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/07/17/seven-must-see-videos-and-presentations-for-web-app-developers/
It imaged display:table/table-row/table-cell better than Firefox 3.6.13. Much better, in fact, it was downright gorgeous. It couldn't handle display:inline-block, but it handled Mozilla's "-moz" CSS for rounded rectangles just fine. jQuery 1.5 traversed its DOM perfectly, but it reported wrong sizes for block elements in .width() and .height(). (It was in QuirksMode, and by that I mean that $.support.boxModel was false. So it appears that jQuery used the MSIE 6/7 QuirksMode algorithm for height and width, when it should have used W3C box model algorithm instead.) AJAX and JSON worked fine.
I just finished working on a CSS-manipulation jQuery plug-in, so I had a tester page handy to research this stuff. It's not like I researched it for hours or anything. I had all of this info at my fingertips pretty quickly. All in all, it appears that Netscape 8.1 was pretty amazing for its day, and well-tolerable, even now.
The original goal of copyrights and patents was to reward people for creating things that benefit all of us, not to create huge corporations that prevent people from creating things that benefit all of us.
Switching between FF 3 and 4 trashes all of my persistent sessions with "keep me logged in" sites, including Slashdot. Both directions (3 to 4 and 4 to 3). And FF 4 launches automatically if it's not up and I click on a hotlink, presumably because the OS wants to launch the latest and greatest. That means I have to keep FF 3 going all the time, in case, I want to click on a hotlink. Either that or default to FF 4 with all of its hounding for feedback. Stop punishing me for helping you test version 4's HTML5 features, Mozilla!
Why doesn't one version of Firefox want to honor a different version's "Keep until: they expire"???
*grabs crotch*
Vince: "... Flamenco Dancers of Death. They would swoop down and carry off small babies in their beaks. ..."
Sheldon: "Their BEAKS! Mosquitoes with BEAKS!"
Vince: "... Their great wings flapping off into the sunset."
David Byrne on the future of entertainment production and distribution: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
Well, I'd have to say Torain has more drive than Portis. But neither one shuts off his engine.
The real problem is illustrated by all the videos of teenagers whacking each other with fluorescent bulbs across the back, till they bleed of shattered glass, just so that they can get featured on Break.com. Clearly radioactive rods are next.
Attachmate also made terminal emulation for Unisys 1100/2200 series mainframes. They did print ads referring to themselves as "The Perfect Mate" (for your mainframe) with very pretty girls to assist the emotional connection to the "perfect mate" message. Also, at conferences, the best looking ladies were in the Attachmate area and at their (free booze) receptions.
Being a systems programmer, I wasn't in a position to make purchasing decisions, and I also wasn't married. So neither my morals nor integrity were compromised by allowing myself to be schmoozed by those stunningly pretty girls. I have nothing but fond memories of Attachmate.
Also, their terminal emulation was top notch, though a little pricey compared to hungrier vendors.
I was referring to the 0-to-60 mph in 3.7 seconds know-how.
The resources of Toyota. The electric car know-how of Tesla. The factory's in the US and will create jobs here. Absolutely excellent news.
... not the numbers themselves. The real number system differs from rational numbers in that uncountably many of them do not have a repeating decimal expansion and have to be represented by an approximation. That's what the decimal expansion is, a representation based on an approximation. What makes the approximation a valid representation is that, for any value epsilon (usually thought of as a very small number), the approximation can get within epsilon of the number.
..., which is a series that converges to one. And 0.999... = 0 + 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/000 + ..., which is also a series that converges to one. Therefore they're equally valid series for representing the same limit, one.
In other words, an infinite decimal expansion is a series that converges to a limit (the real number itself). So 1.000... = 1 + 0/10 + 0/100 + 0/1000 +
My point is that this is true by the DEFINITION of a real number. It's axiomatic. You don't prove axioms, because there would be only one step to proof, to point out that it's an axiom.
I once told a boss, "Well, you have to remember that half of all people are below the median in intelligence." He got all indignant and said "You don't know that! You can't prove that!" This thread reminds me of that altercation. And my own explanation just now reminds me of the fireworks factory explosion at the beginning of that Naked Gun movie and Frank Drebben saying "Nothing to see here! Move along!" If your goal is to come up with the funniest response, the correct response misses the point.
Isn't that what HIP is for? Maintaining identity/virtual connections as one transitions across multiple Internet access points? At first glance, this appears to be reinventing the wheel.
You're referring to the "same origin policy" and you're right. There are 3 new mechanisms in HTML5 for remembering something across page loads (added to the older 4th mechanism, cookies), and all 4 of them are subject to the same origin policy.
Many of the new features of HTML5 exist to allow browsers to do the same things as plug-ins. A poorly written plug-in is a much bigger security vulnerability than the well-thought-out new features of HTML5, which were largely contributed by browser vendors themselves. The browser vendor has a vested interest in keeping the browser secure against attack. And they know how to accomplish that, because they're more familiar with their own internal security model and they're more motivated to follow it rigorously.
Implementing the same origin policy thoroughly and correctly is in the vendor's best interest. I'm pretty sure that HTML5 will make us more secure than the plug-in riddled environment we have now.
Bullies like to beat up nerds when the nerds get attention. That hasn't changed since the '50s.
If it were just someone who reads all the specs and writes a book about it, I would agree with you. But Remy Sharp and Mark Pilgrim are not just someones who have read all the specs. They actually know stuff.
Mark Pilgrim's book is good. Very practical advice about how to use features. Also good (personal experience): Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp, Introducing HTML5, and Peter Lubbers, Brian Albers and Frank Salim, Pro HTML5 Programming. Also good (Ben Nadel raves about it): Jeremy Keith, HTML5 for Web Designers. (I can't speak from personal experience about that one yet, but it was the first one on the iBookstore and I have the sample.)
A little history about HTML5 books: For the longest time, people held off on publishing because of the same sort of FUD that W3C is spreading. What if it changes? What if I publish and a new feature becomes the hot topic and no one buys my book because I published too soon? But then Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp published. Then I guess the other publishing houses realized that they'd better publish soon, or else Bruce and Remy were going to soak up all the disposable income that's been waiting on an actual book. So, like, one or two weeks later, Mark's book shipped. Then, like, 2 or 3 weeks later, Peter, Brian and Frank's book. So here's a big Thank You to Bruce and Remy for breaking the ice.
The cat's out of the bag, W3C. People are getting antsy to code. I don't you're going to get that cat back in the bag.