Those Chinese cars are almost as bad as an American pickup. Incidentally, the first Chinese car is an old Seat (who are Spanish) design and the second one has since been redesigned and now gets a far-from-deathtrap 3 out of 5 stars in Euro NCAP tests.
What would you use quantum mechanics for? A lot of the stuff you learn in a physics degree is applicable only if you want to work in the field. As to taking the mathematical bits on faith, I meant just so you could understand what the LHC was all about and follow the abstract of papers on the subject. You don't need to be able to follow every step of a proof for that. Besides, if you don't have your own particle accelerator in the shed you'll be taking it all on faith anyway.
You're doing a physics degree and you're not going to cover particle physics? I hope you at least do some quantum mechanics. I have a physics degree (BSc, 3 years) and neither were optional. I couldn't do the maths these days, but you don't need to to have a qualitative understanding of what they're talking about. Surely it's not that hard to follow if you take the mathematical bits on faith.
A terminal is not a WiFi device, hence the need for a server to manage it over the network.
That's a logical non-sequitur.
A terminal is just a fairly dumb device with a display and input devices which uses the computing horsepower of another machine to do the real work. Whether it connects via a serial port, ethernet, modem, WiFi, TCP/IP or an RFC 1149 network is irrelevant. This is the mainstream press definition of "terminal server" - it's probably just a box running SSH.
3. Check the MAC address tables in the switches to search for the correct switch port.
This guy seems reasonably clued-up. What's to say he hasn't installed unmanaged switches, even hubs, in appropriate locations? If I wanted to do something like this I'd make sure the switch was as dumb as possible, had lots of ports and everything else on that switch was a critical system which lacked network redundancy. You'd have to resort to pulling the network cables out of critical servers to find which wire the device was on. Far from impossible, but it raises the bar that bit further. For extra credit, have your device go silent for 8 hours when it loses network connectivity.
Kitt wasn't silver, so I think he's talking about the Cylons from Battlestar Galactica. Not that newfangled crap masquerading a Battlestar Galactica, the real deal. That's even freaking older.
Where does your ethical responsibility end and the boss's desires begin?
To me there isn't even a question. Fire me. Go ahead. I will get another job.
Do you think this guy will get another admin job once he's released from prison? Actually he probably will, but only by lying about his criminal history as he did to get this job. I wouldn't let him within fifty yards of my calculator.
From what I've read, his "hijacking" was limited to refusing to give the passwords to his boss whom he considered an idiot.
That and setting up the routers so they lose their configuration on reset. Even if your boss is an idiot, you get your concerns on the record and a direct instruction on the record and then do what you're fucking well told.
CDW specs the battery at 6450mAh and this is an add-on unit so together with a typical 4400mAh battery, that only gives you 10,850mAh of juice which means that the 24 hour run time is only achievable with a marathon typing session where the screen is at its darkest setting.
Without specifying the voltage of the packs those figures are meaningless, they do not specify how much energy they hold. The 6450mAh pack could run at twice or three times the voltage of the internal pack, giving a corresponding increase in energy storage.
It's not an entirely insignificant drain, but in an Eee 701 (hardly a power hog) it only accounts for 10% of the power consumption. About 1-1.5W, or 24-36Wh for the day, which is only two or three of the cylindrical Li-Ion cells used in laptop batteries.
This sentence betrays that you have no idea what design means, or what it involves.
This sentence betrays that you have no idea what context means. I was referring to web designers. I've worked on plenty of websites, the designers have only ever decided how it looks, not how it works. Of course designers in other fields may be all about function (eg. racing cars) or a combination of form and function (eg. furniture).
Let's not confuse the issue with the user missing fonts, increasing text size, or running at a different dpi than expected. Those things are not in the control of the standard or designer.
This is all about whether or not the renderer properly implements the standard and if it does it should look the same on Firefox, IE or Chrome.
If everything is explicitly specified, the system has all the facilities (fonts, screen size etc.) required and all options are the default then I agree the same page should look (and work) the same on different browsers[1]. Current web browsers do actually get pretty close to that ideal. However, I don't think it's right to expect consistent facilities to be available in every browser, or for the designer to be able to override user-specified options (eg font size), both of which would be required to actually achieve consistency in practice.
[1] Except, perhaps, the style of inputs in forms. There's a strong argument for consistency with the rest of the OS being more important than consistency with the same page viewed in another browser on another OS. Ideally, a designer would be able to specify the size so it fit with their design, but not alter the visual style so much as to make them unfamiliar.
You've got it backwards. The "large fonts" option solves problems. Specifically, it solves some of the problems faced by visually impaired users and users with high-resolution displays. These are real problems faced by real people who pay real money for software. The problems lie not with the "large fonts" option or HTML's flexible layout, but with the varying needs of users. Catering for these varying needs does cause problems, but don't blame the problems on the tools provided to solve them.
Yeah, except requiring things to be rendered the same way all the time isn't "harming functionality", it's common sense. In fact, where exactly does one get off saying that you have a "standard" if there's any room for interpretation at all?
Sorry if designing for the web is a hard job, but the notion that the web should get easier for everyone to use (because we don't have to adjust to any differences in different browsers) is only appealing to everyone.
Your concern is touching, but I'm not a web developer. Also, fixed that for you.
I assumed you were a web designer rather than web developer, but either way I was wrong. I think I get what you're saying now though. You want what you would see if you borrowed my computer to be consistent with what you see when you use your computer. Sorry, but my needs are not consistent with your needs and our experiences shouldn't be consistent either. If you want a consistent experience, you can have it - just don't change things at your end. Demanding that your experience be consistent with mine simply for the sake of consistency, which is what your desires amount to, is wholly unreasonable.
Incidentally, if you want to strongly emphasise something, the correct tag is <strong> (which means "strongly emphasise this", typically rendered as bold in graphical browser, but will be emphasised by audio readers, text-mode browsers etc. as well). The <b> tag means "make this bold if you can, but you're free to ignore this tag if you can't" and the emphasis may be lost in an audio or text-mode browser. An extremely common mistake (it's not always a mistake to use <b>, but in your case it was as loss of the emphasis would change the semantics) and one which displays the widespread misunderstanding of the design of HTML and why it works the way it does. It's inconsistent because it's better for conveying information that way.
"You know that the standards allow me to render things in slightly different ways, don't you? It's one of the most abused principles behind HTML. if you need pixel perfect rendering web designers like me aren't the right targets. I don't design for that."
I'm a (former) web developer, not a designer. The only way to achieve pixel-perfect rendering is if your entire page is one big image. Can you make sure every line of text wraps at the same point on every browser on every platform with every combination of installed fonts and user-selected options? I'd be amused to see you try.
The most effective way I've found to design sites is for me to sit down with a designer, have them sketch and me point out what should stretch, what will change on different browsers, what they can control and most importantly what they can't control. After a few iterations of this with a designer they're generally pretty good at designing flexible layouts which look good, comply with standards and degrade properly. Designs which work on small and large screens. Designs which still look OK with images turned off. Designs which work if the user turns off CSS. Designs which work when a visually impaired person makes the fonts 4x the size or uses their audio browser. The better ones "get it" and relish the challenge and often go on to become highly competent at HTML and CSS so they can do all the front-end work themselves.
I was amazed how many still (this was a couple of years ago, but the web was a decade old by then) didn't know this stuff, they just worked in Photoshop and handed off designs to be coded up, expecting it to always look exactly they way their PSD did. Perhaps things have improved drastically in the past couple of years and the majority of web designers have added a text editor to their armoury, but judging by many of the sites I see that still hasn't happened.
Your post is a perfect example of why designers constantly need to be kept in check. Looking really good is an admirable aim but is not an "excellent reason" to harm functionality. A designer's role is secondary to function. Making something which just looks good is an artist's job, not a designer's job. Designers have to make things which look good and work well. Failing at either one is a total failure. Many designers are frustrated artists and would love to be able to just make something pretty, which would be so much easier if the damn thing didn't have to work too.
Car designers hate having to have boots (trunks) which can hold a set of golf clubs, because it means cars have to have high, fat arses. They hate having to cater for tall people in the back seats because it ruins the roof line. They hate laws about how high your bumpers (fenders) need to be, the fact that an airbag makes the steering wheel fat and the need for fat pillars so the occupants don't get crushed to death in a rollover. The car industry is more mature than the web design industry and there's a lot more money at stake, so the wannabe-artists get weeded out, re-educated or (only they're phenomenally talented artists) set to work on concepts which don't really need to work properly. We need to get rid of the wannabe-artists from the world of web design too.
Sorry if designing for the web is a hard job, but the notion that the web should get harder for everyone to use so it's easier for a few wannabe-artists to design for is only appealing to wannabe-artists.
Why do we need it now? Because many so many designers are control freaks stuck in the days of print and can't adjust their mindset? Resolution independence is coming to every major OS in the next few years. The web is viewable on everything from mobile phones to conference projection screens. Pixel-perfect rendering for a medium designed to reach those devices and everything in between is an utterly, utterly stupid idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Those Chinese cars are almost as bad as an American pickup. Incidentally, the first Chinese car is an old Seat (who are Spanish) design and the second one has since been redesigned and now gets a far-from-deathtrap 3 out of 5 stars in Euro NCAP tests.
Diesel currently costs about 10% more than petrol in the UK. It was slightly cheaper three or four years ago, but not any more.
Why do you equate zero tolerance of crappy software with pirating that same software? to me, zero tolerance means using some other software instead.
What would you use quantum mechanics for? A lot of the stuff you learn in a physics degree is applicable only if you want to work in the field. As to taking the mathematical bits on faith, I meant just so you could understand what the LHC was all about and follow the abstract of papers on the subject. You don't need to be able to follow every step of a proof for that. Besides, if you don't have your own particle accelerator in the shed you'll be taking it all on faith anyway.
You're doing a physics degree and you're not going to cover particle physics? I hope you at least do some quantum mechanics. I have a physics degree (BSc, 3 years) and neither were optional. I couldn't do the maths these days, but you don't need to to have a qualitative understanding of what they're talking about. Surely it's not that hard to follow if you take the mathematical bits on faith.
That's a logical non-sequitur.
A terminal is just a fairly dumb device with a display and input devices which uses the computing horsepower of another machine to do the real work. Whether it connects via a serial port, ethernet, modem, WiFi, TCP/IP or an RFC 1149 network is irrelevant. This is the mainstream press definition of "terminal server" - it's probably just a box running SSH.
This guy seems reasonably clued-up. What's to say he hasn't installed unmanaged switches, even hubs, in appropriate locations? If I wanted to do something like this I'd make sure the switch was as dumb as possible, had lots of ports and everything else on that switch was a critical system which lacked network redundancy. You'd have to resort to pulling the network cables out of critical servers to find which wire the device was on. Far from impossible, but it raises the bar that bit further. For extra credit, have your device go silent for 8 hours when it loses network connectivity.
1. Erect straw man.
2. Knock him down.
3. There is no step 3.
4. +5 Insightful!
I once discovered I was being paid 1/8th what I was charged out at. That soon changed!
Kitt wasn't silver, so I think he's talking about the Cylons from Battlestar Galactica. Not that newfangled crap masquerading a Battlestar Galactica, the real deal. That's even freaking older.
From TFA: "Childs served prison time following a 1983 robbery conviction, a fact he concealed in his city job application forms."
Do you think this guy will get another admin job once he's released from prison? Actually he probably will, but only by lying about his criminal history as he did to get this job. I wouldn't let him within fifty yards of my calculator.
That and setting up the routers so they lose their configuration on reset. Even if your boss is an idiot, you get your concerns on the record and a direct instruction on the record and then do what you're fucking well told.
Without specifying the voltage of the packs those figures are meaningless, they do not specify how much energy they hold. The 6450mAh pack could run at twice or three times the voltage of the internal pack, giving a corresponding increase in energy storage.
TFA provides the configuration, but not the test conditions under which they achieved that battery life, which is what the gp was pondering.
If I was in that Arby's, I'd make damn sure I was out the door ten minutes before the hour.
It's not an entirely insignificant drain, but in an Eee 701 (hardly a power hog) it only accounts for 10% of the power consumption. About 1-1.5W, or 24-36Wh for the day, which is only two or three of the cylindrical Li-Ion cells used in laptop batteries.
This sentence betrays that you have no idea what context means. I was referring to web designers. I've worked on plenty of websites, the designers have only ever decided how it looks, not how it works. Of course designers in other fields may be all about function (eg. racing cars) or a combination of form and function (eg. furniture).
If everything is explicitly specified, the system has all the facilities (fonts, screen size etc.) required and all options are the default then I agree the same page should look (and work) the same on different browsers[1]. Current web browsers do actually get pretty close to that ideal. However, I don't think it's right to expect consistent facilities to be available in every browser, or for the designer to be able to override user-specified options (eg font size), both of which would be required to actually achieve consistency in practice.
[1] Except, perhaps, the style of inputs in forms. There's a strong argument for consistency with the rest of the OS being more important than consistency with the same page viewed in another browser on another OS. Ideally, a designer would be able to specify the size so it fit with their design, but not alter the visual style so much as to make them unfamiliar.
You've got it backwards. The "large fonts" option solves problems. Specifically, it solves some of the problems faced by visually impaired users and users with high-resolution displays. These are real problems faced by real people who pay real money for software. The problems lie not with the "large fonts" option or HTML's flexible layout, but with the varying needs of users. Catering for these varying needs does cause problems, but don't blame the problems on the tools provided to solve them.
I assumed you were a web designer rather than web developer, but either way I was wrong. I think I get what you're saying now though. You want what you would see if you borrowed my computer to be consistent with what you see when you use your computer. Sorry, but my needs are not consistent with your needs and our experiences shouldn't be consistent either. If you want a consistent experience, you can have it - just don't change things at your end. Demanding that your experience be consistent with mine simply for the sake of consistency, which is what your desires amount to, is wholly unreasonable.
Incidentally, if you want to strongly emphasise something, the correct tag is <strong> (which means "strongly emphasise this", typically rendered as bold in graphical browser, but will be emphasised by audio readers, text-mode browsers etc. as well). The <b> tag means "make this bold if you can, but you're free to ignore this tag if you can't" and the emphasis may be lost in an audio or text-mode browser. An extremely common mistake (it's not always a mistake to use <b>, but in your case it was as loss of the emphasis would change the semantics) and one which displays the widespread misunderstanding of the design of HTML and why it works the way it does. It's inconsistent because it's better for conveying information that way.
If you, as a user, want consistency then don't use different browsers, operating systems, window sizes or settings. Problem solved.
Can you give some specific examples of inconsistencies which have caused you trouble?
I'm a (former) web developer, not a designer. The only way to achieve pixel-perfect rendering is if your entire page is one big image. Can you make sure every line of text wraps at the same point on every browser on every platform with every combination of installed fonts and user-selected options? I'd be amused to see you try.
The most effective way I've found to design sites is for me to sit down with a designer, have them sketch and me point out what should stretch, what will change on different browsers, what they can control and most importantly what they can't control. After a few iterations of this with a designer they're generally pretty good at designing flexible layouts which look good, comply with standards and degrade properly. Designs which work on small and large screens. Designs which still look OK with images turned off. Designs which work if the user turns off CSS. Designs which work when a visually impaired person makes the fonts 4x the size or uses their audio browser. The better ones "get it" and relish the challenge and often go on to become highly competent at HTML and CSS so they can do all the front-end work themselves.
I was amazed how many still (this was a couple of years ago, but the web was a decade old by then) didn't know this stuff, they just worked in Photoshop and handed off designs to be coded up, expecting it to always look exactly they way their PSD did. Perhaps things have improved drastically in the past couple of years and the majority of web designers have added a text editor to their armoury, but judging by many of the sites I see that still hasn't happened.
Your post is a perfect example of why designers constantly need to be kept in check. Looking really good is an admirable aim but is not an "excellent reason" to harm functionality. A designer's role is secondary to function. Making something which just looks good is an artist's job, not a designer's job. Designers have to make things which look good and work well. Failing at either one is a total failure. Many designers are frustrated artists and would love to be able to just make something pretty, which would be so much easier if the damn thing didn't have to work too.
Car designers hate having to have boots (trunks) which can hold a set of golf clubs, because it means cars have to have high, fat arses. They hate having to cater for tall people in the back seats because it ruins the roof line. They hate laws about how high your bumpers (fenders) need to be, the fact that an airbag makes the steering wheel fat and the need for fat pillars so the occupants don't get crushed to death in a rollover. The car industry is more mature than the web design industry and there's a lot more money at stake, so the wannabe-artists get weeded out, re-educated or (only they're phenomenally talented artists) set to work on concepts which don't really need to work properly. We need to get rid of the wannabe-artists from the world of web design too.
Sorry if designing for the web is a hard job, but the notion that the web should get harder for everyone to use so it's easier for a few wannabe-artists to design for is only appealing to wannabe-artists.
Why do we need it now? Because many so many designers are control freaks stuck in the days of print and can't adjust their mindset? Resolution independence is coming to every major OS in the next few years. The web is viewable on everything from mobile phones to conference projection screens. Pixel-perfect rendering for a medium designed to reach those devices and everything in between is an utterly, utterly stupid idea.