Check out http://www.rolex.com/ for example. The whole thing is Flash. And sure, much of it could've been done with JS/etc, but some of it could not (the animated watch hands, for example)
And before you decry the website for requiring Flash; it doesn't. Turn off Javascript and try again, there's a complete and fully functional HTML/CSS layer underneath (which is also very important for SEO & accessibility purposes). The Flash "pages" are also bookmarkable and handle the Back/Forward buttons, etc, properly, through use of the the hash text in the url. (This technique is also used to maintain state in AJAX-y apps such as GMail)
Rolex.com is a good example of a flash-heavy site done properly (added value, not a requirement).
Every single graphical trick done to either speed up or sexify your web site is done with tables inside tables inside tables
No offense to the OP, but how the hell is this rated 5?
If you use nested tables for everything, that's your business. But saying that EVERYTHING is done with nested tables, is just plain wrong, and has been for many years now.
This current Slashdot page, as but one example, does not use a single table tag.
(Disclaimer: Yes, there are still things you can't do without a table, ie dynamic-height block centering)
I have an 8GB OCZ Rally 2, the write speed is absolute garbage, especially for small files.
I have a 4GB Lexar Jumpdrive Lightning now, it is the fastest USB stick I've ever owned, gets about 24MB/sec sustained write.
The problem seems to be that once you go above 4GB, manufacturers are forced to use MLC instead of SLC. MLC is much more compact, but also much slower (at least for writes).
Definitely agree with your first two points. Thank heavens Spock's TINY LITTLE SHIP was there to save the universe by shooting the drill cable a couple times.
3) Because black-hole-Vulcan has exactly the same gravitational attraction as regular-Vulcan; it's the same amount of mass. That part makes sense.
4) I'd have to rewatch it, but I'm pretty sure they warped away from Earth (I remember a brief chase) before the final confrontation.
LUXURY! I had a cassette drive (at first anyway).;) Remember the old Epyx Fastload catridges?
Don't think I played Pool of Radiance, but I did play a number of the old SSI goldbox series, including Champions of Krynn which got me hooked on Dragonlance.
On a side-note, they have Impossible Mission remade for the Wii now. Must. Get.
Does any browser on the market today fail on invalid XHTML? (by "fail" I mean refusing to parse the page and render it)
Yes. But it actually has to be served as XHTML, and the vast majority is not.
There is a popular misconception that an XHTML DOCTYPE means the page is interpreted as XHTML, this is incorrect. All the DOCTYPE really does is turn off quirks mode in IE, the actual content-type of the page (which is sent in the HTTP response header from the server) is virtually always served as text/html.
In order to have a page truly interpreted as XHTML, it needs a content-type header of application/xhtml+xml, and this will indeed break rendering and display an XML parsing error for the most trivial of errors. And of course IE6 doesn't support application/xhtml+xml, so this is not a viable option unless you want to start serving different versions of your page based on the browser.
Thus the situation we have today, is that everyone writes "XHTML style" HTML (ie, self-closing tags, everything lowercase, quoted attributes, etc), but it's actually interpreted as poorly formed HTML by the browser. (ie, <br/> is technically not valid HTML) Luckily browsers are extremely forgiving of poorly formed HTML.
By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.
Presumably, it's only improved in the last 10 years.
Your XML version wasn't out of the JSON docs, that was your own contribution, and it was clearly minimizing use of tags and maximizing use of attributes.
If you're going to claim that's just the "right way", kindly link to some supporting documentation.
Would you say this is "bad" XML? <menu>
<menu-item>
<portion unit="mL">250</portion>
<name>Small soft drink</name>
</menu-item>
<menu-item>
<portion unit="g">500</portion>
<name>Sirloin steak</name>
</menu-item> </menu>
The fact of the matter is, closing tags create redundancy that doesn't exist in JSON. Pretending that closing tags aren't a significant part of any real-world XML document is just asinine.
Do you know why the Cylons had religion? Because of a single throwaway line from the mini-series, when Six tells Baltar that "God is love". Moore says as much in the Season 4.0 DVD extras.
If I give Moore credit for something, it's that he's been completely honest about how they've pretty much made everything up as they went.
The final five? Invented on the spot in season 3 to explain why Baltar wasn't seeing them on the baseship. The opera house? Meaningless. Starbuck as the "harbinger of death"? Meaningless.
I will remember BSG for many things. For tackling difficult modern day issues like suicide bombing and torture. For some great characters and good show-to-show writing. For slick production values and stellar special effects. But in terms of the big picture, story is king, and they really shat the bed on that one. After all the buildup, all the "all shall be revealed" bullshit, we deserved better than "Oh, god did it" for all their hanging plot holes.
Time to dust off my Babylon 5 DVDs, for a cohesive epic storyline that actually pays off in the long run, and benefits from multiple viewings. (Which, I might add, has religion and prophecy aplenty, but didn't use it to fill in the gaps of lazy writing)
This is just Javascript. Javascript's been around for ~15 years. Do you see a rash of viruses (and no, ads don't count) "hijacking" webpages with annoying Javascript and demanding money now? No? Then this won't change that.
I used to think they were basically making up BSG entirely as they went (ie, they did indeed pull the "Final Five" out of their ass in season 3), but I'm not so sure now.
I read in a recent interview that Ron Moore figured out how the series would end, half way through the first season. That's not too bad. Even JMS had to stay flexible for B5 (ie, taking Talia out and effectively replacing her with Lyta), you can't plan EVERYTHING out in advance.
Anyway, I have somewhat renewed faith in BSG to pull out an epic, brilliant, planned well in advance ending. Guess we'll know in a couple weeks.
You are making excuses for Diebold. If that's not an apologist the term has no meaning.
Anybody who says this couldn't possibly happen by accident...
Where did I say that? I'm not in the habit of making absolute pronouncements like that. I have an opinion on which I consider more likely, that's all. Ad hominem and a strawman so far, wonderful start.
YOU, on the other hand, were making an absolute statement: "NEVER ascribe to malice, that which CAN be explained by incompetence."
We should just give a free pass to anything that can POSSIBLY be explained by incompetence? Fuck that. The question is whether it is believable or not. Hence why the word "adequately" is important in that quote.
IN MY OPINION (and one shared by many others), Diebold has a track record of competence. To suddenly display gross (and persistent) incompetence on such an important deliverable raises legitimate questions about whether it was deliberate. Connections to the Republican party and some "statistically interesting" results in the 2004 election only add fuel to the fire. No, this isn't a court of law and obviously one would be needed to settle this formally, but we're entitled to hold opinions.
And for the record, I've worked on my share of software disasters (I'm working on one now, that something like 6 other firms have mangled beyond all recognition) and know exactly how stupid developers can be, so please don't play the Argument from Authority card.
Why is it whenever some apologist trots out Napolean's quote to "prove" that incompetence should always be assumed instead of malice, they always leave off the very important qualifier, "adequately"?
Can all the gigantic, mind blowing holes in Diebold's software be ADEQUATELY explained by incompetence?
Hypothetical: Imagine "the cure" turns out to be some natural compound that the pharma companies can't patent and monopolize. In such a scenario, it would likely be far more profitable to continue selling expensive "treatment".
Not saying it's true, just that finding a cure doesn't automatically guarantee maximum profits. (On the flip side, you can't dismiss such a possibility with "They just wouldn't do that"... tobacco companies sat on their knowledge of the deadly and addictive properties of smoking for years, in the name of profit)
I am not "making shit up" like your supernova example.
I explicitly linked to a story from a few days ago, indicating that LHC may indeed create long-lived (relatively speaking) black holes. The exact quote, from Roberto Casadio of the Universita di Bologna, is "the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly > 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models".
I simply was asking for clarification why this wouldn't be a problem if it did in fact happen. So please just SFTU if you don't have an answer, instead of trying to be clever with an unwarranted appeal to ridicule.
Slashdot Mirror
...and to build extremely rich media websites.
Check out http://www.rolex.com/ for example. The whole thing is Flash. And sure, much of it could've been done with JS/etc, but some of it could not (the animated watch hands, for example)
And before you decry the website for requiring Flash; it doesn't. Turn off Javascript and try again, there's a complete and fully functional HTML/CSS layer underneath (which is also very important for SEO & accessibility purposes). The Flash "pages" are also bookmarkable and handle the Back/Forward buttons, etc, properly, through use of the the hash text in the url. (This technique is also used to maintain state in AJAX-y apps such as GMail)
Rolex.com is a good example of a flash-heavy site done properly (added value, not a requirement).
No offense to the OP, but how the hell is this rated 5?
If you use nested tables for everything, that's your business. But saying that EVERYTHING is done with nested tables, is just plain wrong, and has been for many years now.
This current Slashdot page, as but one example, does not use a single table tag.
(Disclaimer: Yes, there are still things you can't do without a table, ie dynamic-height block centering)
They are if you want proper gaming controls.
I have an 8GB OCZ Rally 2, the write speed is absolute garbage, especially for small files.
I have a 4GB Lexar Jumpdrive Lightning now, it is the fastest USB stick I've ever owned, gets about 24MB/sec sustained write.
The problem seems to be that once you go above 4GB, manufacturers are forced to use MLC instead of SLC. MLC is much more compact, but also much slower (at least for writes).
Definitely agree with your first two points. Thank heavens Spock's TINY LITTLE SHIP was there to save the universe by shooting the drill cable a couple times.
3) Because black-hole-Vulcan has exactly the same gravitational attraction as regular-Vulcan; it's the same amount of mass. That part makes sense.
4) I'd have to rewatch it, but I'm pretty sure they warped away from Earth (I remember a brief chase) before the final confrontation.
LUXURY! I had a cassette drive (at first anyway). ;) Remember the old Epyx Fastload catridges?
Don't think I played Pool of Radiance, but I did play a number of the old SSI goldbox series, including Champions of Krynn which got me hooked on Dragonlance.
On a side-note, they have Impossible Mission remade for the Wii now. Must. Get.
Yes. But it actually has to be served as XHTML, and the vast majority is not.
There is a popular misconception that an XHTML DOCTYPE means the page is interpreted as XHTML, this is incorrect. All the DOCTYPE really does is turn off quirks mode in IE, the actual content-type of the page (which is sent in the HTTP response header from the server) is virtually always served as text/html.
In order to have a page truly interpreted as XHTML, it needs a content-type header of application/xhtml+xml, and this will indeed break rendering and display an XML parsing error for the most trivial of errors. And of course IE6 doesn't support application/xhtml+xml, so this is not a viable option unless you want to start serving different versions of your page based on the browser.
Thus the situation we have today, is that everyone writes "XHTML style" HTML (ie, self-closing tags, everything lowercase, quoted attributes, etc), but it's actually interpreted as poorly formed HTML by the browser. (ie, <br /> is technically not valid HTML) Luckily browsers are extremely forgiving of poorly formed HTML.
A couple links on the subject:
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/04/08/doctype-declaration-and-content-type-headers
http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
My Commodore 64 in 1985 DID boot in milliseconds.
Doing everything instantly though, not so much.
Convincing voice morphing technology was demonstrated as early as 1999:
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
Presumably, it's only improved in the last 10 years.
Your XML version wasn't out of the JSON docs, that was your own contribution, and it was clearly minimizing use of tags and maximizing use of attributes.
If you're going to claim that's just the "right way", kindly link to some supporting documentation.
Would you say this is "bad" XML?
<menu>
<menu-item>
<portion unit="mL">250</portion>
<name>Small soft drink</name>
</menu-item>
<menu-item>
<portion unit="g">500</portion>
<name>Sirloin steak</name>
</menu-item>
</menu>
Because it's from an IBM article called Principles of XML design: When to use elements versus attributes.
The fact of the matter is, closing tags create redundancy that doesn't exist in JSON. Pretending that closing tags aren't a significant part of any real-world XML document is just asinine.
Well anyone can present a contrived example...
But in actual practice, XML contains a lot of redundancy in the form of open/close tags.
Or do you think everything should be expressed as attributes?
Do you know why the Cylons had religion? Because of a single throwaway line from the mini-series, when Six tells Baltar that "God is love". Moore says as much in the Season 4.0 DVD extras.
If I give Moore credit for something, it's that he's been completely honest about how they've pretty much made everything up as they went.
The final five? Invented on the spot in season 3 to explain why Baltar wasn't seeing them on the baseship. The opera house? Meaningless. Starbuck as the "harbinger of death"? Meaningless.
I will remember BSG for many things. For tackling difficult modern day issues like suicide bombing and torture. For some great characters and good show-to-show writing. For slick production values and stellar special effects. But in terms of the big picture, story is king, and they really shat the bed on that one. After all the buildup, all the "all shall be revealed" bullshit, we deserved better than "Oh, god did it" for all their hanging plot holes.
Time to dust off my Babylon 5 DVDs, for a cohesive epic storyline that actually pays off in the long run, and benefits from multiple viewings. (Which, I might add, has religion and prophecy aplenty, but didn't use it to fill in the gaps of lazy writing)
This is just Javascript. Javascript's been around for ~15 years. Do you see a rash of viruses (and no, ads don't count) "hijacking" webpages with annoying Javascript and demanding money now? No? Then this won't change that.
You've played Kitty Kannon too??
I used to think they were basically making up BSG entirely as they went (ie, they did indeed pull the "Final Five" out of their ass in season 3), but I'm not so sure now.
I read in a recent interview that Ron Moore figured out how the series would end, half way through the first season. That's not too bad. Even JMS had to stay flexible for B5 (ie, taking Talia out and effectively replacing her with Lyta), you can't plan EVERYTHING out in advance.
Anyway, I have somewhat renewed faith in BSG to pull out an epic, brilliant, planned well in advance ending. Guess we'll know in a couple weeks.
That's why Cavil in Battlestar is so great. He's like the anti-Data.
"I DON'T WANT TO BE HUMAN!!!"
150 odd comments about "SSDs", and not a single bad Star Wars joke? Very disappointing. Here I'll start...
Use SSDs for software development? Why, I'd think you could use a super star destroyer for just about anything you wanted to.
Ba dum ching.
You are making excuses for Diebold. If that's not an apologist the term has no meaning.
Where did I say that? I'm not in the habit of making absolute pronouncements like that. I have an opinion on which I consider more likely, that's all. Ad hominem and a strawman so far, wonderful start.
YOU, on the other hand, were making an absolute statement: "NEVER ascribe to malice, that which CAN be explained by incompetence."
We should just give a free pass to anything that can POSSIBLY be explained by incompetence? Fuck that. The question is whether it is believable or not. Hence why the word "adequately" is important in that quote.
IN MY OPINION (and one shared by many others), Diebold has a track record of competence. To suddenly display gross (and persistent) incompetence on such an important deliverable raises legitimate questions about whether it was deliberate. Connections to the Republican party and some "statistically interesting" results in the 2004 election only add fuel to the fire. No, this isn't a court of law and obviously one would be needed to settle this formally, but we're entitled to hold opinions.
And for the record, I've worked on my share of software disasters (I'm working on one now, that something like 6 other firms have mangled beyond all recognition) and know exactly how stupid developers can be, so please don't play the Argument from Authority card.
Why is it whenever some apologist trots out Napolean's quote to "prove" that incompetence should always be assumed instead of malice, they always leave off the very important qualifier, "adequately"?
Can all the gigantic, mind blowing holes in Diebold's software be ADEQUATELY explained by incompetence?
Not in my opinion. YMMV.
How many automatically interpreted that last as "Read The Motherfucking Protocol" or something similar? ;)
Meh, I dunno. Sure I wonder "what he did", but that doesn't mean I assume he's guilty of breaking the law.
Obviously he did something to be in the back of a cop car, even if that means simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's only natural to be curious about an arrested person's circumstances, doesn't necessarily imply assumption of guilt, IMHO.
Then again (and perhaps more to the OP's point) we're talking about average jury members here, not analytical /. geeks. ;)
Hypothetical: Imagine "the cure" turns out to be some natural compound that the pharma companies can't patent and monopolize. In such a scenario, it would likely be far more profitable to continue selling expensive "treatment".
Not saying it's true, just that finding a cure doesn't automatically guarantee maximum profits. (On the flip side, you can't dismiss such a possibility with "They just wouldn't do that"... tobacco companies sat on their knowledge of the deadly and addictive properties of smoking for years, in the name of profit)
RTFA
Heh... I figured I was ahead of the curve by even reading the article and abstract. ;)
What is with the hostile sarcasm, seriously?
I am not "making shit up" like your supernova example.
I explicitly linked to a story from a few days ago, indicating that LHC may indeed create long-lived (relatively speaking) black holes. The exact quote, from Roberto Casadio of the Universita di Bologna, is "the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly > 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models".
I simply was asking for clarification why this wouldn't be a problem if it did in fact happen. So please just SFTU if you don't have an answer, instead of trying to be clever with an unwarranted appeal to ridicule.