.... only Windows and OSX? What about Linux? Adobe ported the 64 bit version of Flash 10 to Linux first, and their Flash support is quite a bit better than "Moonlight" Although, to their credit, the Moonlight team seems to be making more progress than gnash.
But, I hear you. Shame IE8 had no interest in or - much less or even SVG.
The point is you can add hundreds of styles to a single document (see csszengarden.com for hundreds of examples that work even in IE, using basic CSS) with a single included file.
In many cases, accessing the HTML is not as easy, and requires rewriting a great deal of code, or code templates.
As for the 3 different versions, that is utter nonsense. Most people who have spent more than a few days getting the hang of CSS learn the few rules for working around IE (see haslayout.net which also gets into the abominable hacks that were crammed into Trident).
The other 3 browsers (Safari, Firefox and Opera) so long as you don't get too fancy, work fine with almost no surprises.
So. Basically, you make a style, easily, then you make a separate stylesheet for IE. Done.
Basically, you're defending this approach because yes, that's all there was when you and I started this sort of thing 15 years ago or more. But you know, even then CSS was in the works to deal with the frustrations of hacking it into HTML.
Times have changed in past 15 years. Deal with it.
I'm not sure how you missed the point so spectacularly.
Not only is there CSS to do the things people used tables, for, but table has always been an abuse of the semantic intent of that HTML document tag, muddying it and confusing parsers. Yes, HTML could use more tags, but tables are hardly necessary.
And setting aside the semantics, people who actually have to restyle your table layout later (when rewriting the site is not an option) will have every reason to curse you.
The decoupling of the layout CSS offers is a powerful tool.
And, no, web pages are not, and have never been intended to be, mapped to application UIs. Is nice that they can, but that's a very limited case, and not even the main use of web pages.
The CSS specification includes support for display: table; display: table-row; and display: table-cell; which are quite useful when you need table-like layout.
Shame IE never supported them. Until *drumroll* IE8 - shame they aren't doing so well on other fronts.
But, fortunately, you can work around this. Yes, it is a bit more work, but that is not the fault of CSS.
Additionally, working around it just takes a little getting used to. Those singing the praises of table layout in some cases just never got the hang of a more fluid layout. Hopefully you're not in that camp.
My computer is 8 years old AMD 1.4ghz - and yes, when I bought it, I checked the compatibility. It would be interesting if you posted the actual hardware you are having issues with. The problems may have been resolved. An out of the box linux has far better HW compatibility these days than Windows. The windows advantage is the manufacturers actually make sure the equipment has the drivers when they sell it to you. If you build on your own, which, if you are as poor as you say, you should, you can trivially ensure compatibility and save money as well.
Heh. At sea. Ever heard of aircraft carriers? Frankly, seabed turbines in the gulf stream seem less of an aesthetic and environmental impact than wind.
And. Yeah. Wiping out bats isn't an insignificant "hidden cost" of wind, without even considering we'd have to paper the entire west coast with those hideous things to do the same as a few nuclear power plants.
Nuclear reactors are still much smaller. And if you build larger turbines, that also means you can put fewer of 'em close to each other, I'm sure overall land use would be reduced, but I'd be delighted if you would give me a comparison in square kilometres. France pumps out 425,000,000MW of power using nuclear. Please, would you mind telling me what the French countryside would look like if that was done using wind?
The hidden costs of nuclear are exaggerated. Coal plants pump out far more radiation than nuclear, and US is behind the curve in reprocessing. And the entire world isn't 0 background radiation. Frankly, since we went to all the trouble to pull that material together to generate power, why not just dissolve it back into the sea, say, a tanker sent to the antarctic regions. You could say nuclear power reduced the overall amount of nuclear material in world.:-p Not saying that is reasonable, cost wise. Personally, I have no problem with burying it (yes, even IMBY if it was a similar construction).
Actually, if nuclear isn't green enough for you, in terms of reasonably scalable power you can build anywhere, I'm more excited about the possibilities of geothermal.
That article doesn't say wind farms scale, it just notes that multiple wind farms can take up the slack for each other. That article has a rather pathetic output for each one of these. 1.5MW of *peak* power which they are not producing all the time.
A nuclear power plant will produce 2000MW. The average wind turbine according to Wikipedia, produces an average of 0.35MW. "Typical capacity factors are 20-40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites. For example, a 1 megawatt turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 megawatt-hours in a year (1x24x365), but only 0.35x24x365 = 3,066 MWh, averaging to 0.35 MW." (thanks wikipedia)
That means almost 6000 turbines(!) to match one nuclear power plant.
I don't think the parent was questioning our capacity to distribute power, I think they were questioning the number of turbines we can reasonably fit without 'em taking over the landscape (wind power kills far more animals than nuclear power - think of the fuzzy bats). And, yeah, those turbines are *huge*. You can count the number of turbines that you can fit in a massive wind farm in the dozens.
6000 turbines to equal one nuclear power plant. Dunno. I think that's what he was talking about.
You sound like a good person to ask. Ok. The whole evaporating thing. Quite plausible, I'm instantly willing to believe it. Fact that cosmic rays have as much energy. I'm with you.
But, just wondering. If a miniature black hole is spawned in a beam that's whipping past, dumping its energy into those nifty graphite blocks such that they glow. Not the howling emptiness of normal matter but a tightly packed bunch of particles. Could enough of 'em get crammed into it to it to stabilise it to a size where it can start gobbling molecules? Or would the mini black hole be so tiny it couldn't even chomp on a proton?
And, is this situation strictly comparable to normal cosmic rays, or are there any variations?
But although the flash launched, that wasn't enough to get the attack going. And given how much it takes for me to do even that, I don't think NoScript users have much to be worried about.
While Firefox 3 chose to abandon Windows 95 compatibility, Firefox 2 is still being patched and maintained. Unlike the IE6 users of Windows 95, who no longer get MS patches.
Clearly not just broken code. Comment #1 on a bugzilla bug I'm not going to link to out of thoughtfulness to bugzilla.
"FF2, FF3, Opera9.2x and Opera9.5b have the behavior, which DOM 2 Range defines (although the wording in the spec could be better for sure). Safari3.1 doesn't have that behavior nor does "ACID3'ed-Opera".
I've proposed that ACID3 should be fixed, but so far no success in that."
And that is exactly why CSS styles need to be more flexible. Otherwise, you could just set the minimum text size to one that you can comfortably read on a high-resolution screen. You can still do that, but, yeah. Breaks stupid sites.
Also, your window manager or OS probably has a quick zoom? In compiz, for example, can hold super down while using mouse wheel for a quick look at part of the screen. Handy for those horrible flash videos.
That's a rather weak nitpick. We had a consistent crasher in the ATI driver when I was doing windows dev. The most frustrating thing was to breakpoint the crash, dive past our lovely debugged source into incomprehensible graphics driver assembly. All we could do was send a reproducing testcase to ATI and hope for the best. It never did get fixed.
Erm. That's not what "many eyes make bugs shallow" means. Well. Just reading the source is part of it, but not all. Fact is, if I run into odd behaviour when testing/using - if the source is available I can read it, I can breakpoint. I cannot do that with a binary.
So yes. Things did occur as they were supposed to. Someone found something odd, they were able to look at code in question, and fix it.
The shallowness is the fact that there is a direct connection between the thousands of testers/users and the code in question. Instant turnaround. No "user reports behaviour in detailed fashion, including testcase, to some corporate e-mail address, and maybe it eventually gets a to a developer three layers down who may be able to figure it out and fix it if he has the time"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a little confused why you would say there is no semantic analysis - perhaps it depends on the hits/searches.
I typed in "chrome"
And the result was:
Item Name: Google Chrome Image: [browser screenshot] Size: A A A (WTF?) Preview Release: No value found License: Freeware
That doesn't seem like additional search terms to me.
Offhand guess they picked LAMP back when prices *were* more of a concern for them, and have no incentive to switch now.
Frig. I thought /. was clever enough to escape tags in "plain old text" mode. Didn't notice this "extrans" option. Shows how much I use it. *previews*
That should have read:
But, I hear you. Shame IE8 had no interest in <video> or <audio> - much less <canvas> or even SVG.
.... only Windows and OSX?
What about Linux? Adobe ported the 64 bit version of Flash 10 to Linux first, and their Flash support is quite a bit better than "Moonlight"
Although, to their credit, the Moonlight team seems to be making more progress than gnash.
But, I hear you. Shame IE8 had no interest in or - much less or even SVG.
The point is you can add hundreds of styles to a single document (see csszengarden.com for hundreds of examples that work even in IE, using basic CSS) with a single included file.
In many cases, accessing the HTML is not as easy, and requires rewriting a great deal of code, or code templates.
As for the 3 different versions, that is utter nonsense.
Most people who have spent more than a few days getting the hang of CSS learn the few rules for working around IE (see haslayout.net which also gets into the abominable hacks that were crammed into Trident).
The other 3 browsers (Safari, Firefox and Opera) so long as you don't get too fancy, work fine with almost no surprises.
So. Basically, you make a style, easily, then you make a separate stylesheet for IE. Done.
Basically, you're defending this approach because yes, that's all there was when you and I started this sort of thing 15 years ago or more.
But you know, even then CSS was in the works to deal with the frustrations of hacking it into HTML.
Times have changed in past 15 years.
Deal with it.
I'm not sure how you missed the point so spectacularly.
Not only is there CSS to do the things people used tables, for, but table has always been an abuse of the semantic intent of that HTML document tag, muddying it and confusing parsers. Yes, HTML could use more tags, but tables are hardly necessary.
And setting aside the semantics, people who actually have to restyle your table layout later (when rewriting the site is not an option) will have every reason to curse you.
The decoupling of the layout CSS offers is a powerful tool.
And, no, web pages are not, and have never been intended to be, mapped to application UIs. Is nice that they can, but that's a very limited case, and not even the main use of web pages.
"Explore the intricacies of HTML and CSS here: http://www.htmlhelp.com/ , http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ , http://www.brainjar.com/ , http://www.htmldog.com/ , http://css.maxdesign.com.au/"
-- ZofBot db
The CSS specification includes support for display: table; display: table-row; and display: table-cell;
which are quite useful when you need table-like layout.
Shame IE never supported them. Until *drumroll* IE8 - shame they aren't doing so well on other fronts.
But, fortunately, you can work around this. Yes, it is a bit more work, but that is not the fault of CSS.
Additionally, working around it just takes a little getting used to.
Those singing the praises of table layout in some cases just never got the hang of a more fluid layout. Hopefully you're not in that camp.
My computer is 8 years old AMD 1.4ghz - and yes, when I bought it, I checked the compatibility.
It would be interesting if you posted the actual hardware you are having issues with.
The problems may have been resolved.
An out of the box linux has far better HW compatibility these days than Windows.
The windows advantage is the manufacturers actually make sure the equipment has the drivers when they sell it to you.
If you build on your own, which, if you are as poor as you say, you should, you can trivially ensure compatibility and save money as well.
"The ability to rotate pictures with a right click (to really rotate, not just in the thumbnail preview) is also nice. "
sudo apt-get install nautilus-image-converter
Excellent point re: picking and choosing.
I do hope you'll pass your opinion on to the ACLU.
http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/
... 425,000,000MWh.
So, equivalent to around 140,000+ turbines.
Heh. At sea. Ever heard of aircraft carriers? Frankly, seabed turbines in the gulf stream seem less of an aesthetic and environmental impact than wind.
And. Yeah. Wiping out bats isn't an insignificant "hidden cost" of wind, without even considering we'd have to paper the entire west coast with those hideous things to do the same
as a few nuclear power plants.
Nuclear reactors are still much smaller.
And if you build larger turbines, that also means you can put fewer of 'em close to each other, I'm sure overall land use would be reduced, but I'd be delighted if you would give me a comparison in square kilometres.
France pumps out 425,000,000MW of power using nuclear.
Please, would you mind telling me what the French countryside would look like if that was done using wind?
The hidden costs of nuclear are exaggerated. Coal plants pump out far more radiation than nuclear, and US is behind the curve in reprocessing. And the entire world isn't 0 background radiation. Frankly, since we went to all the trouble to pull that material together to generate power, why not just dissolve it back into the sea, say, a tanker sent to the antarctic regions. You could say nuclear power reduced the overall amount of nuclear material in world. :-p
Not saying that is reasonable, cost wise. Personally, I have no problem with burying it (yes, even IMBY if it was a similar construction).
Actually, if nuclear isn't green enough for you, in terms of reasonably scalable power you can build anywhere, I'm more excited about the possibilities of geothermal.
That article doesn't say wind farms scale, it just notes that multiple wind farms can take up the slack for each other.
That article has a rather pathetic output for each one of these. 1.5MW of *peak* power which they are not producing all the time.
A nuclear power plant will produce 2000MW.
The average wind turbine according to Wikipedia, produces an average of 0.35MW.
"Typical capacity factors are 20-40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites. For example, a 1 megawatt turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 megawatt-hours in a year (1x24x365), but only 0.35x24x365 = 3,066 MWh, averaging to 0.35 MW." (thanks wikipedia)
That means almost 6000 turbines(!) to match one nuclear power plant.
I don't think the parent was questioning our capacity to distribute power, I think they were questioning the number of turbines we can reasonably fit without 'em taking over the landscape (wind power kills far more animals than nuclear power - think of the fuzzy bats).
And, yeah, those turbines are *huge*.
You can count the number of turbines that you can fit in a massive wind farm in the dozens.
6000 turbines to equal one nuclear power plant. Dunno. I think that's what he was talking about.
You sound like a good person to ask.
Ok. The whole evaporating thing. Quite plausible, I'm instantly willing to believe it. Fact that cosmic rays have as much energy.
I'm with you.
But, just wondering. If a miniature black hole is spawned in a beam that's whipping past, dumping its energy into those nifty graphite blocks such that they glow.
Not the howling emptiness of normal matter but a tightly packed bunch of particles.
Could enough of 'em get crammed into it to it to stabilise it to a size where it can start gobbling molecules?
Or would the mini black hole be so tiny it couldn't even chomp on a proton?
And, is this situation strictly comparable to normal cosmic rays, or are there any variations?
Apologies - indeed whitelisting the flash was all that was needed.
I had used the X paste buffer (middle click) first time around.
Retested.
Worked.
NoScript 1.7.8
Shockwave Flash 10.0.0 d569
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008072820 Firefox/3.0.1
Ubuntu
Did you whitelist the domain for javascript as well, or just click on the flash?
Wonder if it was using 10.0.0 or if I was just lucky.
But although the flash launched, that wasn't enough to get the attack going.
And given how much it takes for me to do even that, I don't think NoScript users have much to be worried about.
... not that I think this is at all the reason people don't update.
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Windows 98 is listed as less than 1%.
And I'm pretty sure FF3 still works on Windows 2000 which just barely beats out Linux in popularity.
While Firefox 3 chose to abandon Windows 95 compatibility, Firefox 2 is still being patched and maintained.
Unlike the IE6 users of Windows 95, who no longer get MS patches.
Clearly not just broken code. Comment #1 on a bugzilla bug I'm not going to link to out of thoughtfulness to bugzilla.
"FF2, FF3, Opera9.2x and Opera9.5b have the behavior, which DOM 2 Range defines
(although the wording in the spec could be better for sure).
Safari3.1 doesn't have that behavior nor does "ACID3'ed-Opera".
I've proposed that ACID3 should be fixed, but so far no success in that."
And that is exactly why CSS styles need to be more flexible.
Otherwise, you could just set the minimum text size to one that you can comfortably read on a high-resolution screen.
You can still do that, but, yeah. Breaks stupid sites.
Also, your window manager or OS probably has a quick zoom?
In compiz, for example, can hold super down while using mouse wheel for a quick look at part of the screen.
Handy for those horrible flash videos.
View->Zoom
Check off "text zoom only"
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
Don't forget w3counter.
27.46%
w3schools of course is totally off, but w3counter on the other hand...
That's a rather weak nitpick.
We had a consistent crasher in the ATI driver when I was doing windows dev.
The most frustrating thing was to breakpoint the crash, dive past our lovely debugged source into incomprehensible graphics driver assembly.
All we could do was send a reproducing testcase to ATI and hope for the best.
It never did get fixed.
Erm. That's not what "many eyes make bugs shallow" means.
Well. Just reading the source is part of it, but not all.
Fact is, if I run into odd behaviour when testing/using - if the source is available I can read it, I can breakpoint.
I cannot do that with a binary.
So yes. Things did occur as they were supposed to. Someone found something odd, they were able to look at code in question, and fix it.
The shallowness is the fact that there is a direct connection between the thousands of testers/users and the code in question.
Instant turnaround. No "user reports behaviour in detailed fashion, including testcase, to some corporate e-mail address, and maybe it eventually gets a to a developer three layers down who may be able to figure it out and fix it if he has the time"