I won't deny that that's possible, but in all my reading I don't recall ever seeing it until about two years ago - here online.
Besides, the plural usage just doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Companies are just like collective nouns - man members, but still referred to with in the singular because they are a whole group.
Aaargh! "Apple does buy". A corporation is a single entity and therefore needs a singular verbs. I want to kill whomever started this retarted trend of making companies and organizations plural!
You're not exactly being helpful here. The poster is already intent on being as compatible as possible, and therefore needs to know what browsers support which features.
Plus, people seem to forget the fact that the top 10% of taxpayers still pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes. Believe it or not, it is possible for the "rich" to get a bigger tax cut than the "poor," and still end up paying a larger percentage of the overall tax burden. That "the rich get richer" claim just doesn't hold water.
Besides, the other option (the rich subsidize the poor until everyone's equal) is outright socialism - and we know that doesn't work in the real world.
there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.
Linux has been around for ten years now (and OSS even longer than that). It started out without focusing on making money and it will continue to exist as long as there are hackers with free time to code. Development might slow, but Linux isn't going to just vanish.
I've seen an entire lab of computers with the Windows 2000 login box burned into the monitor of every single one. This may be something of an extreme case, since the displays were left on 24x7, even on nights and weekends and they were relatively cheap monitors to begin with, but burn-in is certainly still a reality.
The bottom line is that it probably doesn't matter if you leave the same thing up for a little while, but the screen should definitely be blanked/turned off the it isn't going to be used for any significant period of time - say, a half hour or more. Besides eliminating the problem of burn-in, simply turning the display off when it isn't in use will save a significant amount of energy.
Being skeptical is often a good thing. I didn't know exactly what it was the first time that I encountered it, but it was obvious that there was probably a difference between "3 Megapixels" and "3 Megapixels Effective" so I made the effort to find out just what it was.
Anyone with a clue knows that means the camera is interpolating the captured pixels up to a higher resolution from a lower-res CCD. Those people who don't bother to learn a little about what they're buying deserve what they get.
Which is used wrongly by about 90% of those who use them.
The fact that people misuse stylesheets does not mean that they are the wrong thing to use. They can be implemented correctly and they are the correct solution to use.
Except you can't change font size on fonts which has been set to absolute font size in stylesheets. And since most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition but define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, you (i) have a problem! You can't adjust the font size in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages.
Now that you mention it specifically, I know what you mean. My sight is far from perfect and I frequently find myself increasing the font size of web pages. However, Internet Explorer only has five size levels: +2, +1, Normal, -1, and -2 - and I find that even the largest setting isn't that much larger than the default, especially when dealing with text that is initially very small. I don't see how a web designer could get around this by using font tags vs. CSS.
What I do is use Mozilla. It allows an apparently unlimited level of font size adjustment, from microscopic all the way up to massive and it seems to always work, regardless of how the sizes were initially specified. If you don't have any choice but to use Internet Explorer, you have the option to ignore specified font sizes and to specify your own stylesheet.
While I don't believe in intentionally making an effort to screw users with certain browsers, I think that the standards that exist are usable and some of the browsers out there prove that it is possible to implement the standards effectively. If some browsers don't comply, they are the problem. The solution is to fix the defective browsers, not to revert to using obsolete standards.
As an aside, do you have some examples of sites that don't work well in IE because of their use of CSS?
This is just one of those IE-isms that Mozilla just copied.
Not exactly. Netscape has had this sort of feature (type in a single-segment name and it'll automatically put 'www' before it and '.com' after it, for example) since I first used Netscape Communicator 2.0 in 1996.
Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Are you insane? There are so many things wrong with that statement:
1. Obsolete: Style sheets and CSS are the current standard. The alternative (font tags and the like) is deprecated (not to mention generally a lot more work to deal with).
2. False: Internet Explorer does a generally serviceable job of rendering CSS. And while IE might have some quirks, Netscape 4.x is an actual example of a browser that can't deal with style sheets well.
3. You seem to be forgetting that this is/. - not exactly the best place to go to drum up sympathy for Microsoft products.
Cheap, often-replaced units wouldn't be quite so bad if you could at least be able to count on the same models being available for a few years. As it stands now, the market moves so quickly that the model you bought last year is almost certainly discontinued - so not only do you have to have to spend money buying a replacement, you have to spend precious time how the new one works and what its features are.
This isn't to say innovation is bad, but it would be a lot nicer if it were possible to get replacements that were more direct drop-ins.
It would be fairly trivial for QB to get around port 25 blocking, by using an alternate port and/or encapsulating the data between QB and the Intuit server.
A ratio of X to Y means X/Y, not Y/X. These are clearly different things when X and Y are not equal. There simply isn't room for interpretation here. You can flip the fraction mentally if you want but then you're dealing with a different number.
While it may be possible to deduce what you're really getting at when you say something ambiguous, why not just say the right thing in the first place and remove all possibility of confusion.
I would concur with that. Win2K, such as it may be, at least gives you relatively straight control of system configuration. XP, by comparison, gives you an even more dumbed-down administration interface comprised mainly of wizards for pre-selected tasks. Even when you know exactly what you need to do, it can be a pain to find what you need if you don't know exactly what MS decided to call it.
It's too bad there's not an administration interface theming system like the one for widgets - there could be selectable settings of, say, "Newbie", "Intermediate", and "Advanced".
Slashdot Mirror
I won't deny that that's possible, but in all my reading I don't recall ever seeing it until about two years ago - here online.
Besides, the plural usage just doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Companies are just like collective nouns - man members, but still referred to with in the singular because they are a whole group.
Apple do buy
Aaargh! "Apple does buy". A corporation is a single entity and therefore needs a singular verbs. I want to kill whomever started this retarted trend of making companies and organizations plural!
And if you aren't already dead, the woman will surely kill you for noticing the computer instead of paying attention to her!
You're not exactly being helpful here. The poster is already intent on being as compatible as possible, and therefore needs to know what browsers support which features.
Plus, people seem to forget the fact that the top 10% of taxpayers still pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes. Believe it or not, it is possible for the "rich" to get a bigger tax cut than the "poor," and still end up paying a larger percentage of the overall tax burden. That "the rich get richer" claim just doesn't hold water.
Besides, the other option (the rich subsidize the poor until everyone's equal) is outright socialism - and we know that doesn't work in the real world.
there is no way in hell that this has been a "great year" for Linux. If you can't make a buck, you can't eat, and sooner or later, you will stop breathing.
Linux has been around for ten years now (and OSS even longer than that). It started out without focusing on making money and it will continue to exist as long as there are hackers with free time to code. Development might slow, but Linux isn't going to just vanish.
I've seen an entire lab of computers with the Windows 2000 login box burned into the monitor of every single one. This may be something of an extreme case, since the displays were left on 24x7, even on nights and weekends and they were relatively cheap monitors to begin with, but burn-in is certainly still a reality.
The bottom line is that it probably doesn't matter if you leave the same thing up for a little while, but the screen should definitely be blanked/turned off the it isn't going to be used for any significant period of time - say, a half hour or more. Besides eliminating the problem of burn-in, simply turning the display off when it isn't in use will save a significant amount of energy.
Being skeptical is often a good thing. I didn't know exactly what it was the first time that I encountered it, but it was obvious that there was probably a difference between "3 Megapixels" and "3 Megapixels Effective" so I made the effort to find out just what it was.
Anyone with a clue knows that means the camera is interpolating the captured pixels up to a higher resolution from a lower-res CCD. Those people who don't bother to learn a little about what they're buying deserve what they get.
The real question you should be asking yourself is, of course, "Where are my backups?"
Which is used wrongly by about 90% of those who use them.
The fact that people misuse stylesheets does not mean that they are the wrong thing to use. They can be implemented correctly and they are the correct solution to use.
Except you can't change font size on fonts which has been set to absolute font size in stylesheets. And since most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition but define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, you (i) have a problem! You can't adjust the font size in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages.
Now that you mention it specifically, I know what you mean. My sight is far from perfect and I frequently find myself increasing the font size of web pages. However, Internet Explorer only has five size levels: +2, +1, Normal, -1, and -2 - and I find that even the largest setting isn't that much larger than the default, especially when dealing with text that is initially very small. I don't see how a web designer could get around this by using font tags vs. CSS.
What I do is use Mozilla. It allows an apparently unlimited level of font size adjustment, from microscopic all the way up to massive and it seems to always work, regardless of how the sizes were initially specified. If you don't have any choice but to use Internet Explorer, you have the option to ignore specified font sizes and to specify your own stylesheet.
While I don't believe in intentionally making an effort to screw users with certain browsers, I think that the standards that exist are usable and some of the browsers out there prove that it is possible to implement the standards effectively. If some browsers don't comply, they are the problem. The solution is to fix the defective browsers, not to revert to using obsolete standards.
As an aside, do you have some examples of sites that don't work well in IE because of their use of CSS?
This is just one of those IE-isms that Mozilla just copied.
Not exactly. Netscape has had this sort of feature (type in a single-segment name and it'll automatically put 'www' before it and '.com' after it, for example) since I first used Netscape Communicator 2.0 in 1996.
Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
Are you insane? There are so many things wrong with that statement:
/. - not exactly the best place to go to drum up sympathy for Microsoft products.
1. Obsolete: Style sheets and CSS are the current standard. The alternative (font tags and the like) is deprecated (not to mention generally a lot more work to deal with).
2. False: Internet Explorer does a generally serviceable job of rendering CSS. And while IE might have some quirks, Netscape 4.x is an actual example of a browser that can't deal with style sheets well.
3. You seem to be forgetting that this is
Cheap, often-replaced units wouldn't be quite so bad if you could at least be able to count on the same models being available for a few years. As it stands now, the market moves so quickly that the model you bought last year is almost certainly discontinued - so not only do you have to have to spend money buying a replacement, you have to spend precious time how the new one works and what its features are.
This isn't to say innovation is bad, but it would be a lot nicer if it were possible to get replacements that were more direct drop-ins.
It would be fairly trivial for QB to get around port 25 blocking, by using an alternate port and/or encapsulating the data between QB and the Intuit server.
Supposing that you're correct, what then would be the point of putting in "some" if it's supposed to be completely ignored?
"some 150 years" should be read as "approximately 150 years", not "exactly 150 years".
Would wireless networking users rather:
A. Secure their access points now
or
B. Be responsible when an unauthorized user uses their open access point for illegal activities
If not illegal, it's certainly irresponsible and not something a considerate network community member would do.
Turning energy into light isn't 100% efficient either..
A ratio of X to Y means X/Y, not Y/X. These are clearly different things when X and Y are not equal. There simply isn't room for interpretation here. You can flip the fraction mentally if you want but then you're dealing with a different number.
While it may be possible to deduce what you're really getting at when you say something ambiguous, why not just say the right thing in the first place and remove all possibility of confusion.
I would concur with that. Win2K, such as it may be, at least gives you relatively straight control of system configuration. XP, by comparison, gives you an even more dumbed-down administration interface comprised mainly of wizards for pre-selected tasks. Even when you know exactly what you need to do, it can be a pain to find what you need if you don't know exactly what MS decided to call it.
It's too bad there's not an administration interface theming system like the one for widgets - there could be selectable settings of, say, "Newbie", "Intermediate", and "Advanced".
Not in this context.
The 'nohlt' option.