If you decide to make a body of information about you public, it should be expected that the information will be processed, and the party observing will form an argument about that information that will benefit itself.
thats what marketing is. the most basic is that they observe you are a potential consumer and present their argument.
so they look in your share and now they know you have 50 brittney spears mp3's, and she just signed a pepsi deal. (http://rock.yahoo.com/rock/music_news/rolling_sto ne/story.html?s=n/rolling_stone/rock/news/20010208/20010208002)
now you get an IM to drink pepsi, britneys choice. suprise suprise. you made it public. deal with it.
if everything in the web world was puppy dogs and icecream, then maybe this would still stand true...but it doesnt anymore.
with websites going to graphical representations and layouts dependant on tables rendering correctly (unless layers are being used), the need for a browser to render html as it is supposed to is extremely important.
we arent in a basic text based world anymore. the whole idea of html being universal is not so that the OS/browser can read it the same...its so it can RENDER it the same. till that is achieved, it parallels any other situation where the code isnt read and presented correctly.
yes, you can. but only a basic list. these are problems that would be rooted out by a QA cycle in the first place. the real test of a site designer or html coder is to know what works between the browsers. often redundant code is inserted to address both browsers.
what would be far far more helpful is to document how WC3 html "desires" match up to how browsers REALLY render the code. that would not only allow a designer to check his good html vs. a list of the little bugs and nuances of the browsers, but also point out to the browser makers in a point by point list where exactly they are causing headaches.
absolutely true. thats why i use explorer to show the client the site, and netscape to find my bugs in html.
explorer has always been about taking any html code and making the best of it, while netscape has always been about rendering good html correctly....whether it does it or not.
im a web designer currently living up in san jose. on my way to work at our clients site, i pass netscape's headquearters every day.
we take great joy in yelling a different fix for their broswer every day out our window;
"how about rendering tables correctly?!"
"how about filed widths being consistent?!"
id be happy to yell any fixes anyone would like to see implemented.
oh the headaches of netscape. keeps me with a job though.
does anyone else find it interesting that the most obvious 'non-zero' type of game is based on reality.
It seems to confirm that, as is the post, reality is one of the few places that 'non-zero' is the norm, and the few places that reflect this are the sim world, reflecting that reality.
lets just forget the long ass already been done debate about this and get it ported to windows for the masses. i want clone tanks to run about $42.50 and to be just about as avaliable as printers.
then, after crackhead dave down the street stops burning mp3's and finally gets the usb cloning tank going, i want to see how this whole "nature balances itself" thing works out.
although it is a compelling argument that simulated child pornography should be ok if simulated murder is ok, (because of some sort of double standard), for that logic to stand, one must agree that child pornography is the same as murder are, and should be treated, the same.
yes, they are both illegal, but thats where the sililarities end.
they must be treated as different entities. yes, this would be a grey are aof interpretation left up to lawmakers, but that is where it belongs.
its not a charity you can donate $ too, but i try to mention this site whenever i can.
its got a working business model, and it takes about 10 seconds to donate a cup of food. you click "donate food" and it shows you 4 ads, with the amount of food that was just donated. you can do it once a day.
Slashdot Mirror
george carlin fan....and your absolutely right. "near miss! bullsh*t! its a near hit!"
i had a near touchdown on eros about 10 minutes ago.
then she slapped me.
If you decide to make a body of information about you public, it should be expected that the information will be processed, and the party observing will form an argument about that information that will benefit itself.
o ne/story.html?s=n/rolling_stone/rock/news/20010208 /20010208002)
thats what marketing is. the most basic is that they observe you are a potential consumer and present their argument.
so they look in your share and now they know you have 50 brittney spears mp3's, and she just signed a pepsi deal. (http://rock.yahoo.com/rock/music_news/rolling_st
now you get an IM to drink pepsi, britneys choice. suprise suprise. you made it public. deal with it.
if everything in the web world was puppy dogs and icecream, then maybe this would still stand true...but it doesnt anymore.
with websites going to graphical representations and layouts dependant on tables rendering correctly (unless layers are being used), the need for a browser to render html as it is supposed to is extremely important.
we arent in a basic text based world anymore. the whole idea of html being universal is not so that the OS/browser can read it the same...its so it can RENDER it the same. till that is achieved, it parallels any other situation where the code isnt read and presented correctly.
yes, you can. but only a basic list. these are problems that would be rooted out by a QA cycle in the first place. the real test of a site designer or html coder is to know what works between the browsers. often redundant code is inserted to address both browsers.
what would be far far more helpful is to document how WC3 html "desires" match up to how browsers REALLY render the code.
that would not only allow a designer to check his good html vs. a list of the little bugs and nuances of the browsers, but also point out to the browser makers in a point by point list where exactly they are causing headaches.
absolutely true. thats why i use explorer to show the client the site, and netscape to find my bugs in html.
explorer has always been about taking any html code and making the best of it, while netscape has always been about rendering good html correctly....whether it does it or not.
im a web designer currently living up in san jose. on my way to work at our clients site, i pass netscape's headquearters every day.
we take great joy in yelling a different fix for their broswer every day out our window;
"how about rendering tables correctly?!"
"how about filed widths being consistent?!"
id be happy to yell any fixes anyone would like to see implemented.
oh the headaches of netscape. keeps me with a job though.
does anyone else find it interesting that the most obvious 'non-zero' type of game is based on reality.
It seems to confirm that, as is the post, reality is one of the few places that 'non-zero' is the norm, and the few places that reflect this are the sim world, reflecting that reality.
lets just forget the long ass already been done debate about this and get it ported to windows for the masses. i want clone tanks to run about $42.50 and to be just about as avaliable as printers.
then, after crackhead dave down the street stops burning mp3's and finally gets the usb cloning tank going, i want to see how this whole "nature balances itself" thing works out.
although it is a compelling argument that simulated child pornography should be ok if simulated murder is ok, (because of some sort of double standard), for that logic to stand, one must agree that child pornography is the same as murder are, and should be treated, the same.
yes, they are both illegal, but thats where the sililarities end. they must be treated as different entities. yes, this would be a grey are aof interpretation left up to lawmakers, but that is where it belongs.
that 7up guy may come back then.
oh, were talking code. my bad. go trojans!
its not a charity you can donate $ too, but i try to mention this site whenever i can. its got a working business model, and it takes about 10 seconds to donate a cup of food. you click "donate food" and it shows you 4 ads, with the amount of food that was just donated. you can do it once a day.