DIV and SPAN don't have any semantics beyond what you believe them to have. TABLE on the other hand has the semantics of tabular data.
I am not terribly interested in your rationale for misusing tables for layout (MSIE incompatibilities, delusions of what HTML is, or what not). I am just stating that you are.
In other words -- if Jackson hadn't spent every single moment of the movies hammering that point he wouldn't have had to change things all over the place.
The script doesn't have to be copied verbatim from the book. That doesn't mean one needs to add new things or change things entirely.
There are things in the book I find boring and some even downright silly (counting kills when you are in very much danger of being slaughtered?!). None of these things require that one needs to add a Warg scene or any other prolonged fighting scene.
My issue with the movies are that they completely disregard character development and instead focus on fast-paced action disrupted with beautiful scenery and sometimes teary-eyed stroke polluted close-ups.
There is no need to make these changes when there is plenty of action to be visualized. Sitting around a campfire and just talking or singing one of the songs would be IMO a welcome constrast to all the fighting.
I found the book to be a lot more about the journey and what it did to its partakers than it was about winning fights. This also allows a director a lot of leeway on how to visualize the actual fights, so there is no need to invent new fights.
When Sweden changed from left to right hand driving in 1967 the number of accidents halved. A number of studies before we took the decision (in 1963) to change showed the same.
Of course, there was a referendum on the issue in 1955 and then 83% of the people said no -- just like people now cling to the Windows way of button layout. In 1963 the parliament took it upon their selves to do the right thing.
Just like the developers of GNOME took the decision to do this based on real studies instead of caving to the whining of a few people.
"Noteably, it was one of the first publically available graphical interface web browser, and the very first with applets (3 years before the public appearence of Java)."
I suggest you actually read the article you referenced.
He says one shouldn't just automatically use the LGPL because the software is a library. Instead "when a library provides a significant unique capability" the GPL should be 'considered'.
Very little (if any) of KDE or GNOME have these unique capabilities that could be used as leverage and convey proprietary developers to accept the GPL.
Waaah! I suggest you look in the archives of the KDE mailing list and you will find the exact same sentiment towards slashdotters. And frankly on the whole they are right on./mill
From my limited experience with C++ gtkmm definitely provides a more C++-like (follows standard better and let the users use C++ as intended) interface than Qt. This doesn't mean it is necessary better since Qt gives you a supported (at a cost but anyway) cross platform toolkit with more widgets. I think gtkmm has an elegance advantage though.
Target market? Lets say you have a great interest in target-shooting and read articles on the www every day. Unfortunately you get hit by a car and end up visually impaired or even blind. Would you lose your great interest too? Wouldn't that be one of highlights of your life while you are learning how to live with your disabilities?
You don't know what your target market is.
Making accessible websites cost far less than what is wasted by "webdesigners" on perverting HTML and the legislation is for govt and those doing business with them.
Good thing you you are up front with this so I can avoid your websites though.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this says it all:
<span class="h1">Who am I?</span>
Or the fact that you don't even have a <body>.
In what way are GET and PUT horrible hacks?
DIV and SPAN don't have any semantics beyond what you believe them to have. TABLE on the other hand has the semantics of tabular data.
I am not terribly interested in your rationale for misusing tables for layout (MSIE incompatibilities, delusions of what HTML is, or what not). I am just stating that you are.
Umm, it isn't valid semantic markup if you are using tables for layout.
..and how many projects work like Linux?
h yn ot
http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.w
Because of variations in the raw material a chef will only use the recipes for guidance and taste the dish when deciding how much is appropriate.
I agree.
Characters aren't important when you want to "emphasize" the story with dwarf-jokes, the fake-death of Aragorn, and etc.
In other words -- if Jackson hadn't spent every single moment of the movies hammering that point he wouldn't have had to change things all over the place.
Perlcc translates Perl code into C code. Voila! All of a sudden Perl code is actually C code.
Hows a jet supposed to land in a tunnel?
Use the force, Luke.
Good thing not everyone measures success in terms of profit.
I thank the estate for doing their part in keeping The Hobbit out of the hands of Jackson.
I am very much in favor on making the movies, but not butchering them like Jackson have.
Of course after the FotR fiasco I really don't care anymore. I have no expectations so he can just as well butcher the lesser book The Hobbit too.
The script doesn't have to be copied verbatim from the book. That doesn't mean one needs to add new things or change things entirely.
There are things in the book I find boring and some even downright silly (counting kills when you are in very much danger of being slaughtered?!). None of these things require that one needs to add a Warg scene or any other prolonged fighting scene.
My issue with the movies are that they completely disregard character development and instead focus on fast-paced action disrupted with beautiful scenery and sometimes teary-eyed stroke polluted close-ups.
There is no need to make these changes when there is plenty of action to be visualized. Sitting around a campfire and just talking or singing one of the songs would be IMO a welcome constrast to all the fighting.
I found the book to be a lot more about the journey and what it did to its partakers than it was about winning fights. This also allows a director a lot of leeway on how to visualize the actual fights, so there is no need to invent new fights.
Well you can enjoy it. Just pick The Hobbit and read it.
You don't have to run all tales through the Jacksonian action filter before you may enjoy them. Sometimes the original might be good enough.
No, it is more like you peel off the first layer and find something tasty and useful, but after that it is the same layer after layer..
When Sweden changed from left to right hand driving in 1967 the number of accidents halved. A number of studies before we took the decision (in 1963) to change showed the same.
Of course, there was a referendum on the issue in 1955 and then 83% of the people said no -- just like people now cling to the Windows way of button layout. In 1963 the parliament took it upon their selves to do the right thing.
Just like the developers of GNOME took the decision to do this based on real studies instead of caving to the whining of a few people.
http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei
"Noteably, it was one of the first publically available graphical interface web browser, and the very first with applets (3 years before the public appearence of Java)."
I suggest you actually read the article you referenced.
He says one shouldn't just automatically use the LGPL because the software is a library. Instead "when a library provides a significant unique capability" the GPL should be 'considered'.
Very little (if any) of KDE or GNOME have these unique capabilities that could be used as leverage and convey proprietary developers to accept the GPL.
Why? Did he get a phone call after he looked at it? Has it gone a week yet?
Waaah! I suggest you look in the archives of the KDE mailing list and you will find the exact same sentiment towards slashdotters. And frankly on the whole they are right on. /mill
A related case.. http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News3485.lasso
So true. This is also the reason why Ericsson is doomed. There are no Gates or Ballmers to turn the company around.
Ahem. http://www.gtkmm.org/gtkmm2/docs/reference/html/cl assGlib_1_1ustring.html#_details
From my limited experience with C++ gtkmm definitely provides a more C++-like (follows standard better and let the users use C++ as intended) interface than Qt. This doesn't mean it is necessary better since Qt gives you a supported (at a cost but anyway) cross platform toolkit with more widgets. I think gtkmm has an elegance advantage though.
Copyright on work that are hundreds and even thousands of years old? Mickey isn't old enough to allow for such protection.
Found in the margin of one old copy of the bible "I have proved the existance of god which this margin is too small to contain -- Peter"
Target market? Lets say you have a great interest in target-shooting and read articles on the www every day. Unfortunately you get hit by a car and end up visually impaired or even blind. Would you lose your great interest too? Wouldn't that be one of highlights of your life while you are learning how to live with your disabilities?
You don't know what your target market is.
Making accessible websites cost far less than what is wasted by "webdesigners" on perverting HTML and the legislation is for govt and those doing business with them.
Good thing you you are up front with this so I can avoid your websites though.