Same question here. Some digging makes me think it's the Communications Decency Act. Why it has its own topic and the Constitution for an icon is beyond me. I'm open to better theories at this point...
SAT II Math IC & IIC even require them. And my TI-89 may not have the storage of the iPod, but it has a hell of a lot more functionality and programmability.
All that being said, it sounds like these students had them out during the verbal section - which is not allowed. Just wanted to point out why all blanket statements are bad... including this one.;-)
No one's talking about if someone will or will not develop for IE. This thread is asking about what IE does better than other browsers, especially Firefox. Citing IE-only CSS hacks is not an answer to that question. That is not a matter of merit. That is a matter of specific implementation. It is, in fact, worse. Just as Microsoft's JVM was worse than Sun's. It does not follow standards and it is likely as myopically designed as everything else MS does.
If you want to argue that it is a great property that W3C should have implemented, then fine. But you and other were arguing that because IE chose to create its own proprietary way of doing something and other browsers chose standards-compliance instead, that IE was superior in that respect.
I'm not questioning your ability to be realistic, nor your attitude towards Linux. I'm saying that you are making the common mistake of seeing IE as a standard unto itself. If that is the bar, then why not say that IE is superior because it supports Active-X and other browsers (thankfully) do not?
Then he talks about the user opening file:// URLs - what would cause the user to do that? If you have to tell the user "please type this URL into your address bar", that's not much of an exploit.
Dear User,
Please boot off of your Windows CD and delete everything in c:\windows\system32 because it'll make your system... go faster. Yeah.
BUT the issue is that most of the world DOESN'T USE MOZILLA, they use IE. Will you make a website that looks wrong but is still works with w3c standards... But that 95% of the world will not see properly!?!?!
I'm going to try very hard not to be mean. Seriously, did you (and everyone else who replied to the challenge to list one thing IE does better) not realize what you're saying???
These are IE-specific things!!! You're comparing apples and oranges. The only sane response is probably drag-n-drop bookmarks. Not IE-only CSS hacks! Look at it this way:
Name one thing IIS on Windows does better than Apache on Linux.
"Runs from an EXE & uses DLL's!!!"
But that's Windows-specific and is undesirable, in this case because it's a different OS.
"Everyone uses Windows!!! Linux is teh suck!"
Seriously, that's what it sounds like. Next you'll say that IE is better because of Active-X. Who gives a shit if IE has some IE-only, embrace and extend version of CSS? That's not the mark of a better browser, that's MS using their market dominace to screw with standards just enough to lock-out competitors. I'm open to "participating in a creative discussion", but be creative.
That's because it's actually version 0.21.3.1, but the damn thing's been sub-1.0 so long they finally dropped the leading zero.
Seriously, though - WTF do they want for feature completeness? Emacs is a kernel & a decent text editor away from being an operating system in its own right.;-)
Fine, you have the format for Flash, I don't know (and don't care) if Macromedia has released the format into the public domain or not.
Flash is a fucking animation engine. They bolted on accessibility. Great. What's my problem, you ask? Look at the Flash Accessibility FAQ:
What has been done to make Macromedia Flash more accessible?
Support for Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA) allows users of assistive technologies such as screen readers to access the contents of a Macromedia Flash movie.
Hey, Windows users can have accessibility! Awesome! Fuck you very much Macromedia.
The fact is that Flash is a plugin. Plugins are meant to supplement a site, not replace it. If your site depends on using a plugin - any plugin - you are building your house on sand & locking people out.
This all goes to the larger point. A solution not built on standards that are well written, extensible, and open to all is no solution at all. You want to brag about how your site runs on all browsers at platforms? Don't say it's because you're using Flash, because it will be a lie.
Not to metion we still have yet to talk about low bandwidth, small devices, those who aren't browsing graphically.
Mozilla DOES NOT need thier own scripting. That's for the W3C to decide. If we end up with Moz-only sites, then how does that improve our situation??? Hell, I love Mozilla, won't shut the hell up about it, use both the big suite and Firebird/Thunderbird, and even I don't want to see that happen.
I don't care for Safari or Konqueror, but I respect my friends who do enough not to want to lock them out. Not coding to standards and people adding application-specific CRAP to websites is what got us in the mess in the first place.
Stop it. Seriously, Flash is not the answer. The web is supposed to be browser, server, OS, & platform independant. It is, it really is. Honest. If we want to talk about a better way of doing things, don't suggest Flash as the answer.
Using flash screws many people - those who are vision impaired, those who are browsing from a CLI, those who attempting to interface programatically with your site, those with low-bandwidth connections, and (here's a big one) those using mobile devices, such as PDA's and cell phones.
Furthermore, Flash is a proprietary format. It is not open & it is not in the best interest of the web. Flash is the fat cousin of IE-only hacks. In other words, you're not helping the situation. Push for open standards and standards-compliant browsers. You're no better than Microsoft hacking their old broken API's to death if you use Flash.
Seriously, why in the world would you want to build a site in Flash? If using XHTML, CSS, etc. will not give you a rich enough interface, then write the damn thing in Java.
which is why they have a signature, but it is a lot like a flock of birds, not an airplane.
Actually, I remember reading an article where one of the guys at Skunkworks who developed the technology said that the F-117's signature was about the size of a crow.
And according to this the B-2's and F-22's signatures are about the size of an aluminum marble and an aluminum golf ball, respectively. For comparison's sake, the source says a B-52 signature is that of a sphere with a 170-foot diameter.
I'm assuming DVD-R. I've just gotten the notification that I may start seeing it soon. Perhaps they have the means to copy the DVD's onto the same style media as the originals.
That does not include the cost of replacing all the DVDs that get worn-out/broken quite often.
Don't know about Netflix, but DVDBarn (a similar service) is starting to send out copies of the originals. They have the originals in a vault and maintain a 1:1 ratio, so they're well within fair use rights. That drives the replacement cost much lower, because now the replacement cost is only that of whatever DVD-R is in bulk and a few minutes of employee time.
I don't know the whole history of this Rambus thing. Could someone explain what they did so wrong? I keep hearing about "what they did at that technology conference."
Well, according to this, there have been a few problems. The story that it points to is mostly Ballmer gloating, though.
IIRC, the problems are mostly what you would expect from a massive platform migration like this and things have been steadily improving. The Register points out that a lot of the problems stem from small vendors who don't know enough about OSS to port their software.
Slashdot Mirror
*pssst* Word has it that all email is good for that...
John Rhys-Davies is less than two years younger than Harrison Ford.
That being said, Sean Connery was ~59 when Last Crusade was released. Harrison Ford just turned 62 a few weeks ago. That blows my fucking mind...
Same question here. Some digging makes me think it's the Communications Decency Act. Why it has its own topic and the Constitution for an icon is beyond me. I'm open to better theories at this point...
and take another look at the SAT Acceptable Calculators policy.
;-)
SAT II Math IC & IIC even require them. And my TI-89 may not have the storage of the iPod, but it has a hell of a lot more functionality and programmability.
All that being said, it sounds like these students had them out during the verbal section - which is not allowed. Just wanted to point out why all blanket statements are bad... including this one.
Was. Was running it...
No one's talking about if someone will or will not develop for IE. This thread is asking about what IE does better than other browsers, especially Firefox. Citing IE-only CSS hacks is not an answer to that question. That is not a matter of merit. That is a matter of specific implementation. It is, in fact, worse. Just as Microsoft's JVM was worse than Sun's. It does not follow standards and it is likely as myopically designed as everything else MS does.
If you want to argue that it is a great property that W3C should have implemented, then fine. But you and other were arguing that because IE chose to create its own proprietary way of doing something and other browsers chose standards-compliance instead, that IE was superior in that respect.
I'm not questioning your ability to be realistic, nor your attitude towards Linux. I'm saying that you are making the common mistake of seeing IE as a standard unto itself. If that is the bar, then why not say that IE is superior because it supports Active-X and other browsers (thankfully) do not?
Replace "Mac" with "Volvo" and "Win/PC" with "Yugo" and say it agin with a straight face.
You think people said more expensive safely-built cars weren't a "viable alternative" once people realized that Yugos were POS deathtraps???
Dear User,
Please boot off of your Windows CD and delete everything in c:\windows\system32 because it'll make your system... go faster. Yeah.
I'm going to try very hard not to be mean. Seriously, did you (and everyone else who replied to the challenge to list one thing IE does better) not realize what you're saying???
These are IE-specific things!!! You're comparing apples and oranges. The only sane response is probably drag-n-drop bookmarks. Not IE-only CSS hacks! Look at it this way:
Seriously, that's what it sounds like. Next you'll say that IE is better because of Active-X. Who gives a shit if IE has some IE-only, embrace and extend version of CSS? That's not the mark of a better browser, that's MS using their market dominace to screw with standards just enough to lock-out competitors. I'm open to "participating in a creative discussion", but be creative.
That's because it's actually version 0.21.3.1, but the damn thing's been sub-1.0 so long they finally dropped the leading zero.
;-)
Seriously, though - WTF do they want for feature completeness? Emacs is a kernel & a decent text editor away from being an operating system in its own right.
LG's (or at least the LG VX-6000) come with it set to E-911 only.
I'm gonna trust something that says "February 2004", "Updated Date: April 16, 2004", and "through October 2003" within four lines of each other.
Incidentally, this page has been fucked for some time. If Microsoft gave a rat's ass, you wouldn't see things like this crap.
I'm not saying the CD is totally useless - I'm saying the end user has NO WAY of knowing what they are getting.
Flash is a fucking animation engine. They bolted on accessibility. Great. What's my problem, you ask? Look at the Flash Accessibility FAQ:
Hey, Windows users can have accessibility! Awesome! Fuck you very much Macromedia.
The fact is that Flash is a plugin. Plugins are meant to supplement a site, not replace it. If your site depends on using a plugin - any plugin - you are building your house on sand & locking people out.
This all goes to the larger point. A solution not built on standards that are well written, extensible, and open to all is no solution at all. You want to brag about how your site runs on all browsers at platforms? Don't say it's because you're using Flash, because it will be a lie.
Not to metion we still have yet to talk about low bandwidth, small devices, those who aren't browsing graphically.
Mozilla DOES NOT need thier own scripting. That's for the W3C to decide. If we end up with Moz-only sites, then how does that improve our situation??? Hell, I love Mozilla, won't shut the hell up about it, use both the big suite and Firebird/Thunderbird, and even I don't want to see that happen.
I don't care for Safari or Konqueror, but I respect my friends who do enough not to want to lock them out. Not coding to standards and people adding application-specific CRAP to websites is what got us in the mess in the first place.
Stop it. Seriously, Flash is not the answer. The web is supposed to be browser, server, OS, & platform independant. It is, it really is. Honest. If we want to talk about a better way of doing things, don't suggest Flash as the answer.
Using flash screws many people - those who are vision impaired, those who are browsing from a CLI, those who attempting to interface programatically with your site, those with low-bandwidth connections, and (here's a big one) those using mobile devices, such as PDA's and cell phones.
Furthermore, Flash is a proprietary format. It is not open & it is not in the best interest of the web. Flash is the fat cousin of IE-only hacks. In other words, you're not helping the situation. Push for open standards and standards-compliant browsers. You're no better than Microsoft hacking their old broken API's to death if you use Flash.
Seriously, why in the world would you want to build a site in Flash? If using XHTML, CSS, etc. will not give you a rich enough interface, then write the damn thing in Java.
Actually, I remember reading an article where one of the guys at Skunkworks who developed the technology said that the F-117's signature was about the size of a crow.
And according to this the B-2's and F-22's signatures are about the size of an aluminum marble and an aluminum golf ball, respectively. For comparison's sake, the source says a B-52 signature is that of a sphere with a 170-foot diameter.
I'm assuming DVD-R. I've just gotten the notification that I may start seeing it soon. Perhaps they have the means to copy the DVD's onto the same style media as the originals.
Don't know about Netflix, but DVDBarn (a similar service) is starting to send out copies of the originals. They have the originals in a vault and maintain a 1:1 ratio, so they're well within fair use rights. That drives the replacement cost much lower, because now the replacement cost is only that of whatever DVD-R is in bulk and a few minutes of employee time.
And I totally disagree with you even being a high school student.
The fact that linuxquestions.org or a web search is needed to answer such a question should be your first clue that something is seriously amiss.
No problem.
I think the parent poster was referring to www.di.fm, not FM radio. RDS only applies to over-the-air FM radio broadcasts.
For DI.FM's MP# streams, it would be ID3.
I'm a Marine. We don't get jealous - we know we're better than everyone already. ;-)
Apparently since March 13, 2002.
Well, according to this, there have been a few problems. The story that it points to is mostly Ballmer gloating, though.
IIRC, the problems are mostly what you would expect from a massive platform migration like this and things have been steadily improving. The Register points out that a lot of the problems stem from small vendors who don't know enough about OSS to port their software.