I guess I am just fortunate that I don't need those. I hate being interrupted (performance slowdown) by a scheduled task. And my preferred tool for the registry is regedit.
I'm talking more about basic commandline stuff...
ps|grep iexplore|wc -l type crap...crap most windows users don't do because they have no clue about the command-line... Aliases, tab completion, scripting in such a way that scripts run identically on all 5 computers [and references to specific files work the same on all 5]... crap like that.
Gee, maybe if you don't like a command-line interface, you can run another. Like JPSoft's 4NT. It's far more useful to me than any unix command-line ever has. But it takes a few years to grow into it.
Combined with cygwin I can do most things that unix users can do, but every unix user I have ever met cannot do all of the things that I do.
Unfortunately, you cannot get qualified advice from a doctor if a) the drugs in question have not been researched and b) the DEA blocks any efforts to research it, and c) the federal government has used confidential medical records to find and bust people taking medicine legal under state law.
You're living in a manufactured reality. One that gives pharmaceutical companies much more money than they need, in exchange for wasted lives and millions in prison. It sounds worth it to you. Wake the fuck up.
0) Have a box with GOOD tv out (ATI cards).
1) Get an IRMan IR receiver if your computer does not already have one.
2) Get Girder
3) Download windows media player girder hooks
4) Using ANY remote, beam the codes you want in for each function (play, stop, etc)
5) VideoLAN/VLC player plays ALL formats with built in codecs. Although it does not have girder hooks, you can stop with spacebar, and it is easy to set girder up to send a space bar with a specific IR code. (So I can pause/unpause, which is all I really need a remote for. I don't want to CHOOSE the video with a remote control, that is better done via command-line tab-completion.. wanna watch simpsons? s)
They do. It's called "LifeLine" for the PS2, and it's completely voice controlled. "Shoot. Shoot high. Run. Turn around." It's surprisingly hard. You play with the same PS2 headset used for Karaoke Revolution and Manhunt.
making my window borders thicker (so they are easy to grab, I have trouble with precise mouse selections sometimes) should not affect CSS-P placement of content inside the browser. www.whatever.com shouldn't look different just because I have fisher-price borders.
Thank you for your sanity. A standard is an interesting idea. It IS an unrealistic expectation but one I have nonetheless. And yes, HTML is too vague at places.
And so is CSS-P. (Still irked that making my window have thicker (4px thicker) borders affected layout (making some things 4px off), but only in Netscape not IE, if memory serves.)
Well, with blogging, we have tons of pages that are being updated every day by people who have no knowledge of coding. "Average is retarded", remember.
You're making an argument for lower functionality. I believe functionality should always be as high as possible. Why should a user care how hard it was to program his browser? He just wants it to work. There is nothing wrong with that.
Response to broken HTML is definitely an issue. If one browser can make sense of a gobblegook page while another browser can't -- the one that can is automatically more useful (for that situation).
Your indication of willingness to exclude those who can't code perfectly is unnecessary technical snobbery.
I find it laughable that you seem to imply that just because some group of standards-makers got together and created some new standards, that the entire internet must be rewritten to comply. Your post seems to imply that it's okay if browsers can't render a 5 year old page, because of disdain against the developers for daring to possibly use and older, valid flavor of HTML. That's crap. Standards don't die, they fade away. They should be held onto as long as possible. If a browser can't render a table right, why would I even use it? Out of some psuedo-macho technical snobbery?
And my experiences are all from my own 2 eyes. I do a lot of weird things that put me in weird situations so I expect skepticism from the elitist crowd.
You seem to act as if what I said is what you said. It is not. I never suggested DEPARTING from standards. But rather, smart code that renders a page properly despite failures.
My example I tend to use is a table where row 3 out of 5 has a (/TR) tag missing. Woop de doo. I can render it in my brain, but it would break Netscape. Wouldn't it make more sense that if, when the browser hits a (TR), it assumes an implied (/TR) from the row before, rather than giving up?
Browsers should let you browse. Not give up at the first sign of non-compliancy to punish those forsakers who did not use the King's English.
(Never heard of DWIM. Do what I mean?)
I've been thinking about the slashdot rendering... I set my window borders to be 5 pixels thick instead of the default 1... and some programs don't properly compensate -- some CSS-P computations are performed on the edge of the window and THIS IS WRONG because window border thicknesses are configurable and should not affect anything inside the browser.
You guys are weird. *I* make a page in IE, then it takes forever to get it working in Netscape.
One example: The world is imperfect. It's conceivable that someone might forget to close a table cell with a TD or close a table row with a TR.
In all my experiences, when this happened, Netscape stops rendering at the point that this happens. IE stops rendering the table at the point that this happens, and dumps out the remaining cells to the page. Ugly, but the information intended to go to the user actually does.
And no, I'm not making any Firefox comparisons because I have little experience with it. But I like what I see, and it already "feels" as good as netscape. But it didn't render slashdot quite right for me, surprisingly.
standards-based? WTF. Either it renders as the author intended or it does not. IE does a better job at doing this. Firefox didn't even render slashdot right for me -- the slashdot sidebar obscured the first column of text in the articles. Ugly. Not as intended.
Firefox will hopefully win in the long run, but clinging to "standards" too tightly means mis-rendering non-standard pages. It's an imperfect world and I think IE handles imperfect pages better.
Is there a way to get the author to add that to his article?
Maybe if i wear thick enough tinfoil i can convince myself he omitted it to protect apple from prosecution.. nahhh.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking more about basic commandline stuff...
ps|grep iexplore|wc -l type crap...crap most windows users don't do because they have no clue about the command-line... Aliases, tab completion, scripting in such a way that scripts run identically on all 5 computers [and references to specific files work the same on all 5]... crap like that.
You chose to be exploited. If more of us had the balls to say no, this shit wouldn't happen. You must be a slave to your job. Married with children?
Gee, maybe if you don't like a command-line interface, you can run another. Like JPSoft's 4NT. It's far more useful to me than any unix command-line ever has. But it takes a few years to grow into it.
Combined with cygwin I can do most things that unix users can do, but every unix user I have ever met cannot do all of the things that I do.
I never get to do these.
You're living in a manufactured reality. One that gives pharmaceutical companies much more money than they need, in exchange for wasted lives and millions in prison. It sounds worth it to you. Wake the fuck up.
PLEASE!
0) Have a box with GOOD tv out (ATI cards).
1) Get an IRMan IR receiver if your computer does not already have one.
2) Get Girder
3) Download windows media player girder hooks
4) Using ANY remote, beam the codes you want in for each function (play, stop, etc)
5) VideoLAN/VLC player plays ALL formats with built in codecs. Although it does not have girder hooks, you can stop with spacebar, and it is easy to set girder up to send a space bar with a specific IR code. (So I can pause/unpause, which is all I really need a remote for. I don't want to CHOOSE the video with a remote control, that is better done via command-line tab-completion.. wanna watch simpsons? s)
Some people don't want to do this, or never ever will. I am one of them. If my grandparents want to see pictures, they will HAVE to be digital.
It's certainly not a dead market, nor should it be.
They do. It's called "LifeLine" for the PS2, and it's completely voice controlled. "Shoot. Shoot high. Run. Turn around." It's surprisingly hard. You play with the same PS2 headset used for Karaoke Revolution and Manhunt.
Seriously. I'm interested.
That's quibbling.
I doubt he is going to use it for commercial purposes.
He probably just wants to look at porn.
making my window borders thicker (so they are easy to grab, I have trouble with precise mouse selections sometimes) should not affect CSS-P placement of content inside the browser. www.whatever.com shouldn't look different just because I have fisher-price borders.
Thank you for your sanity. A standard is an interesting idea. It IS an unrealistic expectation but one I have nonetheless. And yes, HTML is too vague at places. And so is CSS-P. (Still irked that making my window have thicker (4px thicker) borders affected layout (making some things 4px off), but only in Netscape not IE, if memory serves.)
Well, with blogging, we have tons of pages that are being updated every day by people who have no knowledge of coding. "Average is retarded", remember.
You're making an argument for lower functionality. I believe functionality should always be as high as possible. Why should a user care how hard it was to program his browser? He just wants it to work. There is nothing wrong with that.
Your indication of willingness to exclude those who can't code perfectly is unnecessary technical snobbery.
And my experiences are all from my own 2 eyes. I do a lot of weird things that put me in weird situations so I expect skepticism from the elitist crowd.
My example I tend to use is a table where row 3 out of 5 has a (/TR) tag missing. Woop de doo. I can render it in my brain, but it would break Netscape. Wouldn't it make more sense that if, when the browser hits a (TR), it assumes an implied (/TR) from the row before, rather than giving up?
Browsers should let you browse. Not give up at the first sign of non-compliancy to punish those forsakers who did not use the King's English.
(Never heard of DWIM. Do what I mean?)
I've been thinking about the slashdot rendering... I set my window borders to be 5 pixels thick instead of the default 1... and some programs don't properly compensate -- some CSS-P computations are performed on the edge of the window and THIS IS WRONG because window border thicknesses are configurable and should not affect anything inside the browser.
One example: The world is imperfect. It's conceivable that someone might forget to close a table cell with a TD or close a table row with a TR.
In all my experiences, when this happened, Netscape stops rendering at the point that this happens. IE stops rendering the table at the point that this happens, and dumps out the remaining cells to the page. Ugly, but the information intended to go to the user actually does.
And no, I'm not making any Firefox comparisons because I have little experience with it. But I like what I see, and it already "feels" as good as netscape. But it didn't render slashdot quite right for me, surprisingly.
I call bullshit. Not just on that statement but everything you've said. You are a disservice to those who have actually been raped.
Firefox will hopefully win in the long run, but clinging to "standards" too tightly means mis-rendering non-standard pages. It's an imperfect world and I think IE handles imperfect pages better.
That's all very useful information, and I'd like to use this.. but.. how.. Links...???
Is there a way to get the author to add that to his article? Maybe if i wear thick enough tinfoil i can convince myself he omitted it to protect apple from prosecution.. nahhh.
Nobody mentions the Star Wars game on the Apple 2?
I agree. He's a fuck.