Please see my other comment in this thread. I'm not complaining about people who don't understand what they're doing because they used a sub-par GUI web design tool. I'm talking about talented programmers who go to great lengths to deny non-IE access, and defend their decision to the death with comments like "it's not worth the added testing time for 1% of the market", or the people who, like you said, chose to use ActiveX for something that could have been done just as easily in a standards compliant fashion.
Any script kiddie with a WYSIWYG tool can generate a website that has hideous code but will be grokked by browsers. Making a standards-compliant website requires someone with actual knowledge and a certain passion
Webmasters of commercial websites that deny non-IE browser access are not typically script kiddies with WYSYWYG design tools. They're typically Microsoft fanboys with with Microsoft certifications that they don't want to become useless who took the time to figure out how to write the javascript needed to deny access to non IE browsers. Those types of things require the same amount of knowledge and an equal emount of (misguided) passion to pull off. This is especially so for the obnoxions ones I'm complaining about who defend their IE only decision with religious zeal in public forums such as the comments section to slashdot stories. I'm perfectly satisfied ignoring people who make non-compliant sites out of stupidity. I just want to rid the world of people who defend their decision to do something idiotic.
I guess in theory you could run several +12v wires around the car and provide power capability in series to everything that needs it. You would also need some type of data bus to each electrical or electronic component or modulate a signal down the same power wires with every device having an electronic reciever and power switching capability to handle the load.
That's where things are going already. In some newer GM vehicles, everything that isn't a light bulb or a speaker is connected to generic power and an in-car LAN called the i-Bus (i for instrument). Components like gagues the in-dash display, the stereo, and the ECM are all on the i-Bus, and need far fewer direct cables run to them than in earlier models. The little chip that each device needs to participate on the i-Bus are way lighter than the wires that would have had to be run, and the relays would have been there anyway, just at the other end of the wire.
10% of the browser market is probably 1000% or more of the AutoCAD market.
What really matters is wether it would cost more to make your site standards compliant than it would bring in through the added users. Since the cost of making the site correctly in the first place is very low, likely the same price as doing it incorrectly, that's almost never the case. Ignoring a segment of the market, no matter what percentage of the market it is, when the costs of supporting them are less than the return is stupid. As that segment grows, it becomes clear just how stupid neglecting that market segment was.
.. that all those obnoxious web developers who make their sites IE only "because it's got 99% of the market" will have to stop telling us to "just use IE" and learn to develop standards compliant websites?
It's amazing how you can imply that what this guy said was incorrect without anybody noticing. Lucky you that you can safely assume that nobody will do as you suggest and go to the candidates web sites to find out that, though spun slightly, what the parent to your comment is saying is actually the case.
Not only is supplying electricity to the grid illegal in most places without an approved and inspected setup, but practucally everywere uses ratcheted or electronic meters now, so the best you can do is stop it spinning, you can't spin it backwards and "sell back" any power you make.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Yeah yeah, and he went it to Haiti and Rwanda too. Great job there. Clinton loved the no-responsibility tactics of getting in and out quick. Better to keep public opinion on your side then to commit yourself to getting things fully stabilized.
You won't catch me defending Bush's reasoning for going in to Iraq. There were plenty of good reasons to do it, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to feel like explaining them for whatever reason. You also won't catch me criticizing his resolve in Iraq. Staying until things are stable is the right thing to do. It's hard not to wonder wether all the people who go on about how terribly things are going over there realize that it's only been a short period of time. Come back in five years and see how it's going. I don't see how anybody could expect it to be different than it is now given what's happened over there, or how anybody could have expected it to be different than this before we went in. Kerry doesn't win any points with me for pimping himself on the world stage. Especially when he follows his comments about how he's going to get the rest of the world on our side with comments about protectionist economic policy and how he's going to stick it to those same countries in order to keep jobs here. Should be interesting to see how that one turns out.
Maybe you should go do some reading about what *really* happened.
Clinton's agreement with the Nort Koreans resulted in us knowing where all their spent plutonium fuel rods were while we turned a blind to them building a bomb out of enriched uranium from other sources. North Korea thumbed their noses at the Clinton administration because they knew there would be no concequences to their blatent disregard of the negotiated terms. So under Clinton the North Koreans only managed to make two or three bombs instead of seven or eight. Woohoo. Great going there.
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program?
You mean the nuclear weapons program that they were able to develop because every time North Korea broke the proliferation agreement with the US Clinton just let them keep getting thier aid money and said "Just don't do it again"?
Which side is supposed to be the one that's more informed here?
Good thing the rest of the world can't vote in this election.
Seriously, the rest of the world understandably is distrustful of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control. Well tough. Our job is to look out for ourselves first, not to win some popularity contest. The world isn't a warm fuzzy place and countries take advantage of any weakness they can. Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that. Clinton and Bush both recognized the same problems in the world (Iran, Iraq, Noth Korea, Afghanistan) but one of them only talked big an the other acted. That's has an enormous impact in US negotiating power. It remains to be seen if Kerry will go back to Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us. Let's hope not.
That said, I don't know of any site which lists *only* the acronym.
Last time I was shopping for laptops I noticed that Dell, HP/Compaq, and IBM all list the acronyms only.
As for your list...
Don't you think that it's confusing that the Q and H prefixes can be used to indicate larger (Quad) *and* smaller (Quarter, Half)? It's just stupid. List the resolution. That's the information you're trying to convey anyway.
Isn't it about time we depricated the use of those silly acronyms we've bastardized to not mean what they originally meant anymore anyway? Wasn't VGA 640x480 at a mere 256 colors? And didn't it imply a particular ISA bus interface as well? Plus, who can keep track of what WUXGA and QWVGA and UHDWMRXGA all mean? Was somebody just leaning on the keyboard, or did they mean to say something anybody could understand like "1600x1200"? Tell us the resolution in a way that doesn't require a lookup in a massive acronym table please. That way it will be easy to compare displays to each other.
Re:Has anyone considered Decnet?
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
So, you can use existing crimping tools, you can make cables in second instead of minutes that it takes to terminate with DB9 or DB25, you can visually distinguish telephone from serial, and nobody plugs their $1000 serial terminal to a phone jack and fries the communications logic when the phone rings or confuses the keyboard jack with the communications jack and calls tech support? Where's the downside?
Of course now, 25 years later and with DEC and serial terminals both gone, maybe it's a little bit of a pain to get cables for these things... But so what? PCs are cheaper than dumb terminals now. Upgrade!
Yeah, but I want to do the hardware building part, most likely with my own little tweaks and such. What fun is that if it comes with a ready made one?
It looks like they made a great little home-brew machine with a simple two layer board that I could mill and drill on my home CNC and drill press, and an eBook explaining why they made the decisions they made so you'd have a head start on deciding which tweaks you could make.
They bill this SDK as a "System Development Kit" instead of a "Software Development Kit", but then they go ahead and give you the system already developed and built. That's no fun.
What if you just want the eBook and you don't care about the hardware or the other stuff that comes in the $199 package? $199 is a little pricy for an eBook. I didn't even pay that much for my Knuth set.
Are you going to beat the crap out of every pair people having a conversation near you too, or does the cell phone make it especially annoying to you? Do you really find it easier to tune it out when both sides of the conversation are there? You're either nosy, or you have some mental issue where your decision to be annoyed by people on a phone makes it impossible for you to treat them like any other person talking somewhere.
I can understand being annoyed at ringers, or at people chattering away in places where conversation isn't usually permitted, but other than that you really need to grow up.
Oh, and don't come whining when you get the snot beat out of you by a bunch of raving drunks when you go and push that button in a sports bar somewhere. You had it coming.
I heard a great hour long interview with Nader this morning with a lot of people on both sides of his platform calling in to ask questions. Nader's argument is essentially that Kerry is just as much of a corporate shill as Bush and that Kerry's Iraq policy is just as bad as Bush's, so if you're a Nader supporter the argument that you are making isn't going to carry any weight. When you ask: "Can you really say that the outcome of the 2000 election was worth (y)our symbolic votes of protest?", their answer is going to be "yes", and "It's you that's doing the damage".
Too bad most of Nader's proposed policies are lunacy.
Actually, I'm thinking of getting one even though my regular PS2 has been working great since the initial release. I want one just beacuse there's no fan in it and it's supposedly much quieter. The original PS2 is way too noisy.
Slashdot Mirror
Please see my other comment in this thread. I'm not complaining about people who don't understand what they're doing because they used a sub-par GUI web design tool. I'm talking about talented programmers who go to great lengths to deny non-IE access, and defend their decision to the death with comments like "it's not worth the added testing time for 1% of the market", or the people who, like you said, chose to use ActiveX for something that could have been done just as easily in a standards compliant fashion.
Any script kiddie with a WYSIWYG tool can generate a website that has hideous code but will be grokked by browsers. Making a standards-compliant website requires someone with actual knowledge and a certain passion
Webmasters of commercial websites that deny non-IE browser access are not typically script kiddies with WYSYWYG design tools. They're typically Microsoft fanboys with with Microsoft certifications that they don't want to become useless who took the time to figure out how to write the javascript needed to deny access to non IE browsers. Those types of things require the same amount of knowledge and an equal emount of (misguided) passion to pull off. This is especially so for the obnoxions ones I'm complaining about who defend their IE only decision with religious zeal in public forums such as the comments section to slashdot stories. I'm perfectly satisfied ignoring people who make non-compliant sites out of stupidity. I just want to rid the world of people who defend their decision to do something idiotic.
I guess in theory you could run several +12v wires around the car and provide power capability in series to everything that needs it. You would also need some type of data bus to each electrical or electronic component or modulate a signal down the same power wires with every device having an electronic reciever and power switching capability to handle the load.
That's where things are going already. In some newer GM vehicles, everything that isn't a light bulb or a speaker is connected to generic power and an in-car LAN called the i-Bus (i for instrument). Components like gagues the in-dash display, the stereo, and the ECM are all on the i-Bus, and need far fewer direct cables run to them than in earlier models. The little chip that each device needs to participate on the i-Bus are way lighter than the wires that would have had to be run, and the relays would have been there anyway, just at the other end of the wire.
Oh, and 10% for Firefox plus 19% for Mozilla is 29% for the Gecko rendering engine, and thus only 61% for IE, not 90%.
10% of the browser market is probably 1000% or more of the AutoCAD market.
What really matters is wether it would cost more to make your site standards compliant than it would bring in through the added users. Since the cost of making the site correctly in the first place is very low, likely the same price as doing it incorrectly, that's almost never the case. Ignoring a segment of the market, no matter what percentage of the market it is, when the costs of supporting them are less than the return is stupid. As that segment grows, it becomes clear just how stupid neglecting that market segment was.
.. that all those obnoxious web developers who make their sites IE only "because it's got 99% of the market" will have to stop telling us to "just use IE" and learn to develop standards compliant websites?
It's amazing how you can imply that what this guy said was incorrect without anybody noticing. Lucky you that you can safely assume that nobody will do as you suggest and go to the candidates web sites to find out that, though spun slightly, what the parent to your comment is saying is actually the case.
Not only is supplying electricity to the grid illegal in most places without an approved and inspected setup, but practucally everywere uses ratcheted or electronic meters now, so the best you can do is stop it spinning, you can't spin it backwards and "sell back" any power you make.
Could you, in this instance, host a web site...
If they have any sense whatsoever, everybody will get a NATed address and be behind a giant firewall, so you won't be hosting anything.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Yeah yeah, and he went it to Haiti and Rwanda too. Great job there. Clinton loved the no-responsibility tactics of getting in and out quick. Better to keep public opinion on your side then to commit yourself to getting things fully stabilized.
You won't catch me defending Bush's reasoning for going in to Iraq. There were plenty of good reasons to do it, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to feel like explaining them for whatever reason. You also won't catch me criticizing his resolve in Iraq. Staying until things are stable is the right thing to do. It's hard not to wonder wether all the people who go on about how terribly things are going over there realize that it's only been a short period of time. Come back in five years and see how it's going. I don't see how anybody could expect it to be different than it is now given what's happened over there, or how anybody could have expected it to be different than this before we went in. Kerry doesn't win any points with me for pimping himself on the world stage. Especially when he follows his comments about how he's going to get the rest of the world on our side with comments about protectionist economic policy and how he's going to stick it to those same countries in order to keep jobs here. Should be interesting to see how that one turns out.
Maybe you should go do some reading about what *really* happened.
Clinton's agreement with the Nort Koreans resulted in us knowing where all their spent plutonium fuel rods were while we turned a blind to them building a bomb out of enriched uranium from other sources. North Korea thumbed their noses at the Clinton administration because they knew there would be no concequences to their blatent disregard of the negotiated terms. So under Clinton the North Koreans only managed to make two or three bombs instead of seven or eight. Woohoo. Great going there.
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program?
You mean the nuclear weapons program that they were able to develop because every time North Korea broke the proliferation agreement with the US Clinton just let them keep getting thier aid money and said "Just don't do it again"?
Which side is supposed to be the one that's more informed here?
Actually, the bashing was about Kerry saying that, but refusing to disclose *who* the other world leaders were.
Good thing the rest of the world can't vote in this election.
Seriously, the rest of the world understandably is distrustful of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control. Well tough. Our job is to look out for ourselves first, not to win some popularity contest. The world isn't a warm fuzzy place and countries take advantage of any weakness they can. Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that. Clinton and Bush both recognized the same problems in the world (Iran, Iraq, Noth Korea, Afghanistan) but one of them only talked big an the other acted. That's has an enormous impact in US negotiating power. It remains to be seen if Kerry will go back to Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us. Let's hope not.
That said, I don't know of any site which lists *only* the acronym.
Last time I was shopping for laptops I noticed that Dell, HP/Compaq, and IBM all list the acronyms only.
As for your list...
Don't you think that it's confusing that the Q and H prefixes can be used to indicate larger (Quad) *and* smaller (Quarter, Half)? It's just stupid. List the resolution. That's the information you're trying to convey anyway.
Half VGA also means 320x480. Confused yet? Half VGA, hell, even "VGA" is a stupid term. It's 4 more characters to be specific, so why don't they?
Isn't it about time we depricated the use of those silly acronyms we've bastardized to not mean what they originally meant anymore anyway? Wasn't VGA 640x480 at a mere 256 colors? And didn't it imply a particular ISA bus interface as well? Plus, who can keep track of what WUXGA and QWVGA and UHDWMRXGA all mean? Was somebody just leaning on the keyboard, or did they mean to say something anybody could understand like "1600x1200"? Tell us the resolution in a way that doesn't require a lookup in a massive acronym table please. That way it will be easy to compare displays to each other.
So, you can use existing crimping tools, you can make cables in second instead of minutes that it takes to terminate with DB9 or DB25, you can visually distinguish telephone from serial, and nobody plugs their $1000 serial terminal to a phone jack and fries the communications logic when the phone rings or confuses the keyboard jack with the communications jack and calls tech support? Where's the downside?
Of course now, 25 years later and with DEC and serial terminals both gone, maybe it's a little bit of a pain to get cables for these things... But so what? PCs are cheaper than dumb terminals now. Upgrade!
Yeah, but I want to do the hardware building part, most likely with my own little tweaks and such. What fun is that if it comes with a ready made one?
It looks like they made a great little home-brew machine with a simple two layer board that I could mill and drill on my home CNC and drill press, and an eBook explaining why they made the decisions they made so you'd have a head start on deciding which tweaks you could make.
They bill this SDK as a "System Development Kit" instead of a "Software Development Kit", but then they go ahead and give you the system already developed and built. That's no fun.
What if you just want the eBook and you don't care about the hardware or the other stuff that comes in the $199 package? $199 is a little pricy for an eBook. I didn't even pay that much for my Knuth set.
a perfectly polite poster...
Who's so polite about turning off other people's TVs and jamming their cell phones?
a portable cell phone jammer
Are you going to beat the crap out of every pair people having a conversation near you too, or does the cell phone make it especially annoying to you? Do you really find it easier to tune it out when both sides of the conversation are there? You're either nosy, or you have some mental issue where your decision to be annoyed by people on a phone makes it impossible for you to treat them like any other person talking somewhere.
I can understand being annoyed at ringers, or at people chattering away in places where conversation isn't usually permitted, but other than that you really need to grow up.
Oh, and don't come whining when you get the snot beat out of you by a bunch of raving drunks when you go and push that button in a sports bar somewhere. You had it coming.
I heard a great hour long interview with Nader this morning with a lot of people on both sides of his platform calling in to ask questions. Nader's argument is essentially that Kerry is just as much of a corporate shill as Bush and that Kerry's Iraq policy is just as bad as Bush's, so if you're a Nader supporter the argument that you are making isn't going to carry any weight. When you ask: "Can you really say that the outcome of the 2000 election was worth (y)our symbolic votes of protest?", their answer is going to be "yes", and "It's you that's doing the damage".
Too bad most of Nader's proposed policies are lunacy.
Actually, I'm thinking of getting one even though my regular PS2 has been working great since the initial release. I want one just beacuse there's no fan in it and it's supposedly much quieter. The original PS2 is way too noisy.
Nice "sig".
Try adjusting the carter numbers for inflation.