Please check thy facts, kind sir. Javascript was conceived of as a Java-like script language. A poor man's Java for those that found object oriented concepts a little too brain intensive. Thrown in the first netscape browser to allow a little customisation of the DOM on the fly, for things that then then HTML 3 couldn't do properly.
You may be surprised to know that I am well in possession of the facts. I used to believe that Javascript (formerly Livescript, formerly Mocha) got its name in simply a cross-branding deal. In fact, it was far more complex than that. Javascript was created to script Java as well as the DOM. The original concept would have blown today's AJAX out of the water in usability. Alas, it was not to be.
Also, here's a bit of Javascript for you, demonstrating how powerful it was intended to be:
<script> var myobj = Packages.javax.swing.JOptionPane; var Frame = java.awt.Frame;
var frame = new Frame();
frame.show();
myobj.showConfirmDialog(frame, "Hello from Java! See Ma? No applet!");
frame.hide(); </script>
(That will work in FireFox with a recent Java plugin. I guarantee that it will not work on Internet Explorer.)
You have to remember, Java already existed in the browser when Javascript was created. Netscape internally discussed just using Java itself for scripting, but decided that a new, more dynamic scripting language would be more useful. (Source) Thus the birth of Javascript. Eich described the first revision as "having gotten out of the lab a bit earlier than intended". Javascript 1.1 was much closer to his vision, and what we think of today when we talk about Javascript.
You also need to understand that the Javascript language went beyond just the browser. Much of its development was driven by its use as a server-side CGI language. So it became a "real" language very quickly, despite its slow start.
And if you think that's cool, remind me sometime to tell you about how multipart/x-mixed-replace could have been server-side push long before AJAX, Comet, or <event-source> ever existed.;)
Javascript is not an object oriented language.
Incorrect. Prototype-based languages are very much OO languages. They're different from class-based, languages, but that doesn't make them any less powerful.
There is no polymorphesm
I think you misunderstand the very meaning of polymorphism if you believe that.
Here's the "Runnable" interface implemented in Javascript:
var MyObject1() {} MyObject1.prototype.run = function() { alert("Running 1!"); }
var MyObject2() {} MyObject2.prototype.run = function() { alert("Running 2!"); }
var objarray = [new MyObject1(), new MyObject2()];
Strong typing is not a OOP requirement. It is a feature of some languages. Nothing more, nothing less. In any case, Javascript actually has quite a few typing fe
No offense is intended, sir, but your comment reeks of inexperience. Javascript is far more capable than you give it credit for. And I say that as someone who's coded a variety of applications (including client/server) for well over a decade, in a variety of different languages. The number one problem I've found in Javascript critics? They have no idea how to actually code in the language. They don't understand that it's object oriented, they haven't given more than a cursory glance to the W3C specs, and they are blissfully unaware of where the WHATWG is taking HTML applications.
Want a customisable, interactive, client-server GUI. Code one in a real language. Like Javascript. If you know what you're doing, you'll actually find it a LOT easier than writing a comparable C, C++, C#, or Java GUI.
Oh, and Javascript was NOT designed as a "display customization language". It was originally designed to script (drumroll please...) Java. As in Java, Java. Not Java Applets (though that was included in the spec), but straight-up, plain-Jane, gosh-darn-that-looks-like-semantically-funny-Java Java. Mozilla still supports the full Livescript API in case you want to play around at some point.
AJAX apps are still not allowed to save data locally
...in Internet Explorer. GlobalStorage works fine in FireFox. It's even a standard to boot.
Javascript is not fast/powerful/scalable enough to implement significant local logic (for example to encrypt most of the data that it stores on the server)
Not sure what you mean here. Javascript is more than fast enough to implement a stream cipher like RC4. Meebo, for example, encrypts your password rather than using SSL to connect. (An SSL server *is* available, but they ask people to only use it if absolutely necessary due to the high server load.) Having implemented several ciphers in Javascript, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
And here's a cool video game: http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/ie/ (^^ Java required for those foolish enough to use Internet Explorer. MWHAHAHA! Oh, and click outside the block-dropping area before starting on IE. The Applet shunt for the CANVAS tag doesn't handle keypresses correctly yet.)
Even if users are comfortable with hosted data, they can not be thrilled over the fact that buying a top-of-the-line quad core computer does nothing to speed up their applications.
That's true. But not because Javascript is slow. Because your applications are only as fast as the network. And if the network is slow, the fastest processor in the world won't help you. On the other hand, I've seen webapps that are amazingly zippy when the server has low latency and fast response times.
However, one thing that continues to surprise me is how willing most people are to having a third party store all of their data. All AJAX apps essentially require that you do not hold your own data -- it's held by the application provider.
How does that differ from regular web applications holding your data? There's been well over a decade of time for users to become comfortable or uncomfortable with the idea of entrusting a third party with their data. So far, users have been leaning toward "comfortable".
Do the crime, serve the time. What's the difference?
The difference is that the US Constitution specifically prohibits this sort of search and seizure:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Takeaways are: 1. You MUST have a warrant before performing a seizure of someone's computer. 2. It is not up to Congress to decide to give a broad search and seizure privilege. Search and seizure is reserved for the Judicial Branch of government, and may ONLY be invoked when probably cause has been presented under oath in a court of law.
why not mention Microsoft's free download that adds PDF support to MS Office 2007?
Because I actually use OpenOffice? I don't have the cash to waste on Yet Another Pointless Update to Microsoft Office(TM). However, I (and many others) do have the $0 + 20 minutes required to install OpenOffice alongside MS Office 2003.
If the 2007 plugin works for you, that's awesome! But don't expect that others will be promoting a product they can't (and/or don't want to) use.
I don't use acrobat (osx preview seems much better)
Did it occur to you that OS X might handle the document a bit different?
the thumbnails display a little slowly as you scroll down so i was sure they got auto generated.
This is a bit misleading. One of the slowest parts of viewing a PDF is when images need to be drawn. (You may have noticed situations where engineering documents show an empty page for several seconds before a drawing appears.) Thumbnails in the file are small drawings, so they take a little bit of time to render. (Sometimes the drawing command is as simple as "show this TIFF", but Acrobat isn't tremendously optimized for the situation.)
On OS X, I believe the thumbnails are generated on the fly simply because the OS has the capacity to do it. It seems like it would be a waste if Apple didn't make use of a feature like that.;-)
I do see lots of PDF files without the index tho (the proper textual index) which causes preview to display thumbnails instead of the index down the side.
As you said, that just changes the default view. Thumbnails are still accessible in both Acrobat and OS X Preview.
Interestingly, you didn't identify which four of the groups you fall into.;-)
Here's a quick rundown of some of the tools I've had to put up with. Note that these are post-install comments as installing a piece of IBM software is a full 8 hour job for an experienced hand. If you haven't installed the software before, budget a few days of your time.
Rational Developer - To call this product "pitifully slow" would be giving it too much credit. Creating and deploying new web components is the height of confusion with settings hidden all over creation. "Errors" on non-error conditions pop up regularly with no explanation for their cause. (Can someone please tell me why FS search never completes successfully? I mean, it finds the files. It just doesn't finish with anything other than an error condition.) You're better off using a vanilla Eclipse install. It will do the same job, but with less memory and an easier install.
WebSphere - Bloated, slow, rarely does what you expect it to, semi-supports standards but pushes you toward IBM-specific APIs, has different code paths depending on whether you use GUI tools or command-line tools (creates some interesting deploy situations), poor documentation that would make Microsoft proud, costs about 1000x what it's worth, licensed under bizarre terms that can leave you with access to functionality you have no licensing to use, etc.
DB2 - At its core it's capable of performing its SQL tasks. That's about the most I can say for it. It's a PITA to manage, the GUI tools not only look like they are straight from the 80's but they lock up regularly, it was practically the LAST database to get JDBC Type IV driver support, it has a variety of features that extend the SQL standard but break in odd ways when used, its performance is nothing to write home about, and it really fails to provide any value over alternative market options like Oracle and SQL Server.
Lotus Notes - "Could you resend that? We've been having problems with Lotus Notes deleting emails as of late." I can't count how many times I heard that phrase or phrases like it. Any product that makes Microsoft Exchange look reliable is a product to avoid. 'Nuff said.
Thus I ask again, which of the four groups are you in?:-)
I use IBM "products" (calling them that is generous) on a daily basis. Grandparent is right on. If you honestly think those software products are "awesome", you fall into one of the following categories:
You are in management. Congratulations, you've been suckered.
You have never seen anything other than IBM software. All of Slashdot offers its condolences.
You need your head checked. Feel free to post an "Ask Slashdot" asking for references.
You are an IBM shill. (Doesn't really seem their style, but there's a first time for everything!)
After reading through the author's argument, I agree that he did have a point. However, upon further reflection I believe the real issue is that SCO made it clear that they didn't actually want a trial. They wanted to delay things as long as possible so that they could continue to harass IBM and Autozone in hopes that SOMETHING would pop up in their favor.
Asking for a jury was one method of continuing these delay tactics. The judge saw right through the matter and made a summary judgment instead.
Rule #1: Don't piss off the judge. Rule #2: Don't make it look like you were trying to piss off the judge if you want any hope of appeal. Rule #3: Don't piss off the public at large or they won't come to help you if the legal system fails.
SCO effectively loaded a double-barreled shotgun and began shooting off their limbs. Just to make sure that they couldn't still bite anyone, they knocked out their teeth as well. I expect smashing their larynx is next on the list, least they bark at anyone.
It's not the pdf generator that makes the thumbnails, its your reader...
This is incorrect. Thumbnails are a stream inside the PDF format that are optionally displayed by the reader. They are well documented in the PDF specs. You can even download programs that will add thumbnails to documents that do not have them.
That said, your reader will only display the thumbnails by default if there isn't a proper index.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're actually taking a damaged file and loading it into Acrobat. When that happens, Acrobat will attempt to repair the file. Part of that repair is its normal editing procedure of creating thumbnails. (Personally I wish that Acrobat didn't do repairs as it would create pressure on certain software vendors *cough*quarkimlookingat*cough*you*cough* to FIX their PDF output features.)
A word to the wise: You're better off using a third party program to add the thumbnails. Damaging the file to invoke Acrobat's repair feature can give some... unfortunate results.
In any case, did you read the suggestions in this "handy guide" for "beating the ban"? Get a load of this:
The ban permits robots to explore Mars. But the law does not specify the exact size and shape of the robot concerned. If the robot just happened to have the same physical dimensions as a human being--if it was a humanoid robot, or android--then it could be sent to Mars using the same launch vehicles and modules as the human mission. The robot could be equipped with biochemical functions to test the mission's life support systems. And if legislators decide to lift the Mars ban, NASA could simply swap the humanoid robot with an actual human, and immediately begin a manned mission.
That has to be the worst suggestion I've heard yet. Not only would it be a lousy ruse ("Oh yeah, we're going to send a humanoid robot to Mars in a pressurized vessel. We're totally not trying to get around the spirit of the bill!"), but it would be close to logistically impossible. No robots exist today with the capability to autonomously emulate humans in vehicles designed for human piloting.
Methinks that congress would not be amused by the amount of robotics research necessary to produce a humanoid robot when a mission-specific robot could be developed on a shoe-string budget.
Yes and no. Thumbnails are not too difficult to support, and can be managed by libraries like PDFBox and iText. The problem is that thumbnails are actually small drawings embedded in the PDF file. Unless you have a PDF renderer handy, they can often be a bit hard to create. Your best bet is to narrow down your choices to your language/platform of choice (e.g. Java,.NET, PHP, whatever), find one of the options that allows you to insert thumbnails, then render the thumbnail in the source program before inserting it into the PDF file. If your program is already graphical, then you shouldn't have too much trouble. If you are creating the PDF more dynamically, then you'll need to get creative.:)
While I realize this is supposed to be an amusing turn of phrase, there are actually quite a few tools out there. A few that I like are:
PDFBox - OSS Library for modifying PDFs on the fly. FOP - Use XSL-FO to design printable page layouts in XML, then use FOP to transform them to PDF documents. Foxit Tools - Alternative to the overpriced Adobe products. OpenOffice - The built-in support for PDFs is absolutely wonderful. I rarely give out DOC files anymore. FPDF - PHP PDF generation tools. iText - A great library for your own custom PDF generation.
Those are just a few. The PDF format itself is actually not too bad. (When Adobe isn't breaking it with needless revisions, that is.) It's biggest strength is that the psuedo-text nature of the format allows one to diagnose the internals of a file pretty easily. Its greatest weakness is that things like text fields are needlessly convoluted. At the end of the day, though, it's a pretty good format.
Many laws are passed as patches to existing laws. So if you check the text of the resolution, it will say stuff like, "Section(1)Paragraph(7) change word 'shall' to 'must'". In my (admittedly limited) experience, you only see the full law in the resolution if it's completely new.
Which is why after 40 years of computing, we're still getting hacked by buffer overflows.
It will be exactly the same until a charismatic visionary steps up to the plate, gets funding, and pushes one of the many well-known alternatives to today's Operating System and code design. Java and.NET* are a good start. Let's take it that much farther.
* Sorta. When it's not exposing brain-dead APIs lower in the system.
But I guess there was a MICROS~1 on a SMB/NetBIOS domain controller on an IPX/SPX network all along;)
Actually, Microsoft probably hooked up their Xenix machines to the Internet for better inter-company and company-university communications. Believe it or not, Microsoft couldn't really run itself on DOS machines at the time. Xenix was used to provide the various networked services (like email) necessary for day-to-day operations.
That also caught my eye. Given that Symbolics was a workstation vendor (as opposed to, say, Sun's "Network is the Computer" schtik) I would have expected them to be in the '87 second-tier like Apple.
Another registration that caught my eye:
PRIME.COM March 4 1987
Doctor: "It's a PRIME Computer! The most sophisticated computer ever!" Rommana: "Ask it what to do with a woman Doctor." PRIME: "MARRY HER" Doctor: "Oh-" Rommana: "Clever PRIME" Doctor: "You can say that again..." Rommana: "Clever PRIME"
I haven't delved too deeply into your article, but it sounds to me like you're trying to make something work that CSS isn't designed to do. Specifically, getting three column layout with header/footer AND eliminating the source-order. The problem is, the ordering of the information does have some meaning which is why CSS relies on it. The idea being that if the CSS style sheet isn't there, the rendered page still reads in-order.
If you are willing to accept that the order of the code is important, then the following code should meet your other criteria:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
<title>The Holy Grail of Layouts: Example #4: A List Apart</title>
<style type="text/css">
When is someone who's fighting against friends and soldiers of their legal government a patriot? When is someone who kills more of (supposedly) their own people than the "enemy" they're fighting a "good guy"?
CSS 101 is learning to float left and right. If you're trying to create three physical columns, you're doing it wrong. You need to create three divs, float two of them to either side, and your center will resize correctly. Easy, peasy.:-)
You can even have the text wrap around the ends of the floated columns or clear the area beneath them completely.
Because the assumption is that Foo is from a third party and Bar is either internal or also from a third party. I'm discussing the use-case of code sharing and reusability. Crockford's solution fails miserably in that use case. A use case which was important enough for the DOM 2 Events standard to be invented.
(Don't even get me started on the number of times the singularity of DOM 0 events have bit me in the ass.)
BTW, what you did is exactly what I said would have to happen. You'd need to create a new event system. That's feasible for reasonably small projects, but gets more complex and painful as projects grow in size. Much better to use the one already specced out by HTML 5 so that everyone uses it up front.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be surprised to know that I am well in possession of the facts. I used to believe that Javascript (formerly Livescript, formerly Mocha) got its name in simply a cross-branding deal. In fact, it was far more complex than that. Javascript was created to script Java as well as the DOM. The original concept would have blown today's AJAX out of the water in usability. Alas, it was not to be.
Here's more history for you: http://safari.oreilly.com/0768666775/ch01lev1sec1
Also, here's a bit of Javascript for you, demonstrating how powerful it was intended to be:
(That will work in FireFox with a recent Java plugin. I guarantee that it will not work on Internet Explorer.)
;)
You have to remember, Java already existed in the browser when Javascript was created. Netscape internally discussed just using Java itself for scripting, but decided that a new, more dynamic scripting language would be more useful. (Source) Thus the birth of Javascript. Eich described the first revision as "having gotten out of the lab a bit earlier than intended". Javascript 1.1 was much closer to his vision, and what we think of today when we talk about Javascript.
You also need to understand that the Javascript language went beyond just the browser. Much of its development was driven by its use as a server-side CGI language. So it became a "real" language very quickly, despite its slow start.
And if you think that's cool, remind me sometime to tell you about how multipart/x-mixed-replace could have been server-side push long before AJAX, Comet, or <event-source> ever existed.
Incorrect. Prototype-based languages are very much OO languages. They're different from class-based, languages, but that doesn't make them any less powerful.
I think you misunderstand the very meaning of polymorphism if you believe that.
Here's the "Runnable" interface implemented in Javascript:
The polymorphism appears to work fine?
Funny, Netscape's Client Guide has an entire chapter on that.
Strong typing is not a OOP requirement. It is a feature of some languages. Nothing more, nothing less. In any case, Javascript actually has quite a few typing fe
No offense is intended, sir, but your comment reeks of inexperience. Javascript is far more capable than you give it credit for. And I say that as someone who's coded a variety of applications (including client/server) for well over a decade, in a variety of different languages. The number one problem I've found in Javascript critics? They have no idea how to actually code in the language. They don't understand that it's object oriented, they haven't given more than a cursory glance to the W3C specs, and they are blissfully unaware of where the WHATWG is taking HTML applications.
Want a customisable, interactive, client-server GUI. Code one in a real language. Like Javascript. If you know what you're doing, you'll actually find it a LOT easier than writing a comparable C, C++, C#, or Java GUI.
Oh, and Javascript was NOT designed as a "display customization language". It was originally designed to script (drumroll please...) Java. As in Java, Java. Not Java Applets (though that was included in the spec), but straight-up, plain-Jane, gosh-darn-that-looks-like-semantically-funny-Java Java. Mozilla still supports the full Livescript API in case you want to play around at some point.
Not sure what you mean here. Javascript is more than fast enough to implement a stream cipher like RC4. Meebo, for example, encrypts your password rather than using SSL to connect. (An SSL server *is* available, but they ask people to only use it if absolutely necessary due to the high server load.) Having implemented several ciphers in Javascript, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
Here's a few cipher implementations: http://shop-js.sourceforge.net/crypto.htm
And here's a cool video game: http://java.dnsalias.com/tetris/ie/
(^^ Java required for those foolish enough to use Internet Explorer. MWHAHAHA! Oh, and click outside the block-dropping area before starting on IE. The Applet shunt for the CANVAS tag doesn't handle keypresses correctly yet.)
That's true. But not because Javascript is slow. Because your applications are only as fast as the network. And if the network is slow, the fastest processor in the world won't help you. On the other hand, I've seen webapps that are amazingly zippy when the server has low latency and fast response times.
How does that differ from regular web applications holding your data? There's been well over a decade of time for users to become comfortable or uncomfortable with the idea of entrusting a third party with their data. So far, users have been leaning toward "comfortable".
The difference is that the US Constitution specifically prohibits this sort of search and seizure:
Takeaways are:
1. You MUST have a warrant before performing a seizure of someone's computer.
2. It is not up to Congress to decide to give a broad search and seizure privilege. Search and seizure is reserved for the Judicial Branch of government, and may ONLY be invoked when probably cause has been presented under oath in a court of law.
Because I actually use OpenOffice? I don't have the cash to waste on Yet Another Pointless Update to Microsoft Office(TM). However, I (and many others) do have the $0 + 20 minutes required to install OpenOffice alongside MS Office 2003.
If the 2007 plugin works for you, that's awesome! But don't expect that others will be promoting a product they can't (and/or don't want to) use.
Did it occur to you that OS X might handle the document a bit different?
This is a bit misleading. One of the slowest parts of viewing a PDF is when images need to be drawn. (You may have noticed situations where engineering documents show an empty page for several seconds before a drawing appears.) Thumbnails in the file are small drawings, so they take a little bit of time to render. (Sometimes the drawing command is as simple as "show this TIFF", but Acrobat isn't tremendously optimized for the situation.)
On OS X, I believe the thumbnails are generated on the fly simply because the OS has the capacity to do it. It seems like it would be a waste if Apple didn't make use of a feature like that.
As you said, that just changes the default view. Thumbnails are still accessible in both Acrobat and OS X Preview.
Here's a quick rundown of some of the tools I've had to put up with. Note that these are post-install comments as installing a piece of IBM software is a full 8 hour job for an experienced hand. If you haven't installed the software before, budget a few days of your time.
Thus I ask again, which of the four groups are you in?
After reading through the author's argument, I agree that he did have a point. However, upon further reflection I believe the real issue is that SCO made it clear that they didn't actually want a trial. They wanted to delay things as long as possible so that they could continue to harass IBM and Autozone in hopes that SOMETHING would pop up in their favor.
Asking for a jury was one method of continuing these delay tactics. The judge saw right through the matter and made a summary judgment instead.
Rule #1: Don't piss off the judge.
Rule #2: Don't make it look like you were trying to piss off the judge if you want any hope of appeal.
Rule #3: Don't piss off the public at large or they won't come to help you if the legal system fails.
SCO effectively loaded a double-barreled shotgun and began shooting off their limbs. Just to make sure that they couldn't still bite anyone, they knocked out their teeth as well. I expect smashing their larynx is next on the list, least they bark at anyone.
This is incorrect. Thumbnails are a stream inside the PDF format that are optionally displayed by the reader. They are well documented in the PDF specs. You can even download programs that will add thumbnails to documents that do not have them.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're actually taking a damaged file and loading it into Acrobat. When that happens, Acrobat will attempt to repair the file. Part of that repair is its normal editing procedure of creating thumbnails. (Personally I wish that Acrobat didn't do repairs as it would create pressure on certain software vendors *cough*quarkimlookingat*cough*you*cough* to FIX their PDF output features.)
A word to the wise: You're better off using a third party program to add the thumbnails. Damaging the file to invoke Acrobat's repair feature can give some... unfortunate results.
In any case, did you read the suggestions in this "handy guide" for "beating the ban"? Get a load of this:
That has to be the worst suggestion I've heard yet. Not only would it be a lousy ruse ("Oh yeah, we're going to send a humanoid robot to Mars in a pressurized vessel. We're totally not trying to get around the spirit of the bill!"), but it would be close to logistically impossible. No robots exist today with the capability to autonomously emulate humans in vehicles designed for human piloting.
Methinks that congress would not be amused by the amount of robotics research necessary to produce a humanoid robot when a mission-specific robot could be developed on a shoe-string budget.
Yes and no. Thumbnails are not too difficult to support, and can be managed by libraries like PDFBox and iText. The problem is that thumbnails are actually small drawings embedded in the PDF file. Unless you have a PDF renderer handy, they can often be a bit hard to create. Your best bet is to narrow down your choices to your language/platform of choice (e.g. Java, .NET, PHP, whatever), find one of the options that allows you to insert thumbnails, then render the thumbnail in the source program before inserting it into the PDF file. If your program is already graphical, then you shouldn't have too much trouble. If you are creating the PDF more dynamically, then you'll need to get creative. :)
While I realize this is supposed to be an amusing turn of phrase, there are actually quite a few tools out there. A few that I like are:
PDFBox - OSS Library for modifying PDFs on the fly.
FOP - Use XSL-FO to design printable page layouts in XML, then use FOP to transform them to PDF documents.
Foxit Tools - Alternative to the overpriced Adobe products.
OpenOffice - The built-in support for PDFs is absolutely wonderful. I rarely give out DOC files anymore.
FPDF - PHP PDF generation tools.
iText - A great library for your own custom PDF generation.
Those are just a few. The PDF format itself is actually not too bad. (When Adobe isn't breaking it with needless revisions, that is.) It's biggest strength is that the psuedo-text nature of the format allows one to diagnose the internals of a file pretty easily. Its greatest weakness is that things like text fields are needlessly convoluted. At the end of the day, though, it's a pretty good format.
Many laws are passed as patches to existing laws. So if you check the text of the resolution, it will say stuff like, "Section(1)Paragraph(7) change word 'shall' to 'must'". In my (admittedly limited) experience, you only see the full law in the resolution if it's completely new.
BEER...GOOD!
NAPSTER...<ah, heck. you know the rest.>
Which is why after 40 years of computing, we're still getting hacked by buffer overflows.
It will be exactly the same until a charismatic visionary steps up to the plate, gets funding, and pushes one of the many well-known alternatives to today's Operating System and code design. Java and
* Sorta. When it's not exposing brain-dead APIs lower in the system.
Never. Excuses can be made for not supporting your legal government. Excuses cannot be made for willful carnage against your own people.
Actually, Microsoft probably hooked up their Xenix machines to the Internet for better inter-company and company-university communications. Believe it or not, Microsoft couldn't really run itself on DOS machines at the time. Xenix was used to provide the various networked services (like email) necessary for day-to-day operations.
Another registration that caught my eye:
Doctor: "It's a PRIME Computer! The most sophisticated computer ever!"
Rommana: "Ask it what to do with a woman Doctor."
PRIME: "MARRY HER"
Doctor: "Oh-"
Rommana: "Clever PRIME"
Doctor: "You can say that again..."
Rommana: "Clever PRIME"
If you are willing to accept that the order of the code is important, then the following code should meet your other criteria:
When is someone who's fighting against friends and soldiers of their legal government a patriot? When is someone who kills more of (supposedly) their own people than the "enemy" they're fighting a "good guy"?
Nah, it's nothing against you. I just try to keep the mods honest around here. Though it's been a lot harder since I stopped posting so much. :)
CSS 101 is learning to float left and right. If you're trying to create three physical columns, you're doing it wrong. You need to create three divs, float two of them to either side, and your center will resize correctly. Easy, peasy. :-)
You can even have the text wrap around the ends of the floated columns or clear the area beneath them completely.
Because the assumption is that Foo is from a third party and Bar is either internal or also from a third party. I'm discussing the use-case of code sharing and reusability. Crockford's solution fails miserably in that use case. A use case which was important enough for the DOM 2 Events standard to be invented.
(Don't even get me started on the number of times the singularity of DOM 0 events have bit me in the ass.)
BTW, what you did is exactly what I said would have to happen. You'd need to create a new event system. That's feasible for reasonably small projects, but gets more complex and painful as projects grow in size. Much better to use the one already specced out by HTML 5 so that everyone uses it up front.