Well, if you want an analogy to help you understand, it's like saying "Instead of making our range of cars, trucks, busses, lorries, tanks and bikes amphibious in whatever way we can hack into them, let's just build a boat they will all fit into, along with anything else we or others might make in future along the same lines".
I don't see how this translates to CSS syntax.
HTML is one example of an SGML (and now XML) document type which you might want to style. A stylesheet language must be generalised, ergo you can *not* just base it on HTML and let all the other document types do their own thing. Better to make one centralised standard which encompasses them all.
My point is that there is no reason to use two *different* conventions. Is there a flaw somewhere in HTML or XML that made them go another route? Positional parameters perhaps?
The fact that XML didn't exist when CSS level 1 was recommended kinda made it unsuitable, yes:)
HTML is not a standalone language; HTML is an SGML doctype. The only sane way to do what you suggest at the time would be therefore to make a new SGML doctype for CSS.
I imagine this was concidered, but given how complex SGML is and how simple CSS is, it's quite easy to see why it wasn't actually done, especially concidering the quality of the browsers at the time. I'll bet the thought of retargeting speghettified tag-soup parsers to a stylesheet language which really didn't need anything close to a DOM wasn't terribly attractive.
Anyway, it was a good decision, XML or no, XML rapidly turns into a mess of tags which would make the/. garbage filter have a heart attack when you're encoding small chunks of data in it. Imagine, instead of:
CSS was designed to be simple and easy for a human to read and write.
Gee, thats what they said about HTML also.
I don't recall any such claims. It's certainly not true for markup-heavy tasks such as the specification of a stylesheet, as XSL plainly shows.
The HTML specification would be bloated significantly
That is like saying, "English is too bloated already. Therefore we will write half the document in English and the other half in Spanish."
Well, if you want an analogy to help you understand, it's like saying "Instead of making our range of cars, trucks, busses, lorries, tanks and bikes amphibious in whatever way we can hack into them, let's just build a boat they will all fit into, along with anything else we or others might make in future along the same lines".
If you think it's syntax is what makes CSS "complex", you can't have used it much:)
What I don't get is why style-sheet commands are not HMTL-based? Why have Yet-Another-Language?
CSS was designed to be simple and easy for a human to read and write.
The entire point of CSS was to remove presentational attributed from HTML; moving them to somewhere else in it would be counter-productive. The HTML specification would be bloated significantly, not to mention how messy it would almost certainly be.
CSS is also designed to style arbitary XML documents, not just HTML, so it would have to be generalised; so HTML becomes XML, and before you know it, you've got XSL:FO.
They could have integrated style-sheet syntax into HTML, couldn't they?
I always fantasize about hacking a Debian SysV init into OpenBSD, then reality re-schedules my free time.
You're obviously very ill. I prescribe large quantities of NetBSD's (and now FreeBSD-CURRENT's) rc_NG, maybe with a dose of slaming your head against a brick wall until the desire to use SysV init goes away:)
There simply aren't enough horny men on any given planet, that's why there are generally no more than 12 hookers in any given solar system.
It's actually made quite clear that she isn't a simple "hooker", not least because she's clearly more educated and refined than just about anyone else we've seen in the series.
More importantly, she seems highly picky as to who she services, and given where she is, probably doesn't have much of a client base who can both afford her and meet her own standards, so moving about a lot would make sense.
Plus I'd imagine she's chosen to skulk about in the backwaters to expand her experience of the world, given it's also fairly clear that "companions" tend to stick to more core systems.
At the time I was using a little 486 with Slackware and a pair of NE2000 NIC's as a gateway (which up to that point had been running dialup).
I had SLIP connecting it to my Amiga, Ethernet to my Dual Celeron, two monitors, three keyboards, two mice, and a worrying amount of cable.
The engineer took one look at it, put on a slightly exasperated expression, plugged/drilled/screwed everything in, and said "I'm sure you know what to do" before leaving.
I plugged in the CM to the other NIC, started dhcpcd, tweaked my firewall to point to the new interface, and that was that.
i remember someone insightfully stating from the firefly poll that firefly is science-fantasy, not science fiction, in science fantasy the technology is there, its a given, with no explanation and no technobabble, the exact oposite fo star trek
To be perfectly honest, I'd say this counts for pretty much all screen based sci-fi these days.
Star Trek may link impressive sounding words together into mostly meaningless phrases to describe technology and things in it's universe, but that does not make it any more plausable or less of a fantasy. It's warp drives, power generation and matter to energy conversion stuff is still effectively magic, and it's universe is no more plausable than the world of LOTR.
There's not necessarily anything wrong with this, of course. I would really like to see some hard SF on screen though, and not one that's been mangled by a clueless production team to make it more like Star Trek:)
And I gotta ask; did writing up a php page really save you any time?
Since it was mostly a copy and paste job into a script I already had, yes, it did:)
The original script didn't take long either; 20 minutes or so. I'm not going to quibble over that; it was fun:)
I removed the extra options because of a bug in it I was too lazy to track down, btw. If it skews the results, too bad; I didn't notice any change in my answers.
Source. Should be pretty easy to see what to change to adopt to other tests, although it might be better to write a more general framework if you're thinking of doing much;)
(I scored 27, btw. I don't think it's the most accurate test in the world though:)
If you slowly remove one neuron after the other, your mind slowly loses it's ability to think, but you're still alive.
Uhm, no, that's why each nanobot replaces the neuron and behaves like it; sending and receiving signals as the original would. Ergo it's functionality is replaced and no loss of cognitive function ensures. That's the entire point. It's not life support but rather a fully functional replacement for the original.
This of course assumes that there's neither anything magical about our original neurons, and that individual ones can be emulated with sufficient precision. I rather suspect (and strongly hope that) the answers are "probably not" and "probably" respectively.
Say you have a class of nanobot which can absorb and replace the function of a single neuron.
You inject yourself with a load of them, and it starts absorbing neurons and taking their place. Eventually, your entire mind ends up running on these replacements, each of which behaves just like the organic neuron it replaced. You've been concious all the way through.
Now, assume each of these is able to communicate it's inputs to a machine on the outside which is able to simulate neurons en masse. They start to disable themselves and telling those around them to get their signal from this machine instead of them.
Eventually, you end up with a load of simulated neurons which are running on this machine, linked to the nerves through whatever method they use to communicate and a bunch of these neuronbots.
The simulated one is functionally identical to the original organic brain, except now it's got the potential to be pysically a lot more robust. Continuity was never lost, and all that was destroyed was a few neurons at a time, who's function was replaced.
Use the extra leeway to add a few fans; don't forget, if everything's running close to their design limits now, it'll probably get hairy if you have a hot summer.
Plus it's really a good idea to keep components like HD's fairly cool. Let them fry and you risk reducing the service life of the drive and increasing the chances of data loss. You at least want reliable storage, right?
Also, you should be careful with that huge-ass Zalman cooler. They're very heavy, and will happily tear off the socket if you happen to move the machine anywhere. The full Cu version is about 200g heavier than AMD's maximum recommended weight.
Can't you configure applications to run both in chroot and jail to more fully contain them?
Sure, if your chroot has jail set up inside it. It's unnecessary, though; jail already implies chroot, and if you can break out of the jail, the original chroot won't help much:)
if these two specifications are NOT compatible, then it would make sense that they would name the new one XML2.0 no?
Not really. The change isn't exactly huge; it makes XML a bit more consistant with regard to UTF, but I don't see it breaking anything other than for those who both:
Failed to specify a prologue (and hence charset, meaning they accepted the default utf-8), and;
Actually used #x85 or #x2028 to encode anything useful other than newline.
TBH if you were that lax in specifying your XML version and characterset, and then made use of non-printable characters that actually had known uses in the default charset, you deserve everything you get.
If you're using the XML prologue like you're supposed to, your XML 1.0 documents will have:
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
At the top. The parsers will then parse using the XML 1.0 specification and you won't notice a thing.
If you don't use it, tough luck, you should have followed the original recommendation more closely. Lucky for you it's not exactly difficult to automatically process XML documents and add the prologe later.
Blegh, will people please stop using "chroot jail" when they really just mean "chroot"?
This is jail - a syscall which puts a process inside it's own process list, user list, IP and root directory, while limiting various syscalls which might make it possible (or at least easy) to escape the jail.
This is chroot - a syscall which puts a process inside it's own root directory. As you said, this is almost completely unrelated to system-call security.
chroot is not jail, jail is not (merely) chroot. Calling chroot "chroot jail" actually makes it *less* clear what you're talking about.
I use a card cooler; 2 80mm fans side by side. On top of the PSU and CPU and HD's, they don't add that much to the noise.
HD coolers tend to use much smaller fans, which tend to be louder in pushing a similar amount of air around.
In some cases you can mount the HD's right in front of the intake fan(s). I quite like that idea.
Alternatively, you could mount them in a standard 5.25" -> 3.5" bracket and use the extra space to add a few heatsinks to the drive. A large slow fan and/or convection should take care of the rest.
I had cooling issues with my drives and would not be surprised to find it was a contribution to the failures. Anyone with military or indudustrial experience in the Reliability field will tell you there's a direct correlation between heat and failure rates. Just a few degrees of temperature rise can double the component failure rate.
IBM released a document a while ago showing a significant correleation with failure rate and operating temperature of some of their SCSI drives.
Personally I plan on actively cooling all my drives now. They are a rather important component, after all..
Amazon Sales Rank: 423
This item will be published in January 2003
SO, do they just make the sales ranks up or what?
They count preorders.
Re:block images from this server
on
Phoenix 0.3 Is Out
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I managed to replace the slashdot advertisements inside a story with blank space, but removing the top-banner page will also remove all your other slashdot graphics. Maybe phoenix can include a feature that blocks images from a URL containing the text "adlog.pl" ?
In your user CSS file:
a img[width="468"][height="60"] {
display: none; }
Repeat for all common advert sizes you see.
Alternatively, use mine. Goes for Opera users too, although it will still load the banners; it just won't display them.
Slashdot Mirror
HTML is one example of an SGML (and now XML) document type which you might want to style. A stylesheet language must be generalised, ergo you can *not* just base it on HTML and let all the other document types do their own thing. Better to make one centralised standard which encompasses them all.
The fact that XML didn't exist when CSS level 1 was recommended kinda made it unsuitable, yes
HTML is not a standalone language; HTML is an SGML doctype. The only sane way to do what you suggest at the time would be therefore to make a new SGML doctype for CSS.
I imagine this was concidered, but given how complex SGML is and how simple CSS is, it's quite easy to see why it wasn't actually done, especially concidering the quality of the browsers at the time. I'll bet the thought of retargeting speghettified tag-soup parsers to a stylesheet language which really didn't need anything close to a DOM wasn't terribly attractive.
Anyway, it was a good decision, XML or no, XML rapidly turns into a mess of tags which would make the
I don't recall any such claims. It's certainly not true for markup-heavy tasks such as the specification of a stylesheet, as XSL plainly shows.
Well, if you want an analogy to help you understand, it's like saying "Instead of making our range of cars, trucks, busses, lorries, tanks and bikes amphibious in whatever way we can hack into them, let's just build a boat they will all fit into, along with anything else we or others might make in future along the same lines".
If you think it's syntax is what makes CSS "complex", you can't have used it much
CSS was designed to be simple and easy for a human to read and write.
The entire point of CSS was to remove presentational attributed from HTML; moving them to somewhere else in it would be counter-productive. The HTML specification would be bloated significantly, not to mention how messy it would almost certainly be.
CSS is also designed to style arbitary XML documents, not just HTML, so it would have to be generalised; so HTML becomes XML, and before you know it, you've got XSL:FO.
They did:Not much better than <font>, though.
Did you ommit exim because you:
You're obviously very ill. I prescribe large quantities of NetBSD's (and now FreeBSD-CURRENT's) rc_NG, maybe with a dose of slaming your head against a brick wall until the desire to use SysV init goes away
It's actually made quite clear that she isn't a simple "hooker", not least because she's clearly more educated and refined than just about anyone else we've seen in the series.
More importantly, she seems highly picky as to who she services, and given where she is, probably doesn't have much of a client base who can both afford her and meet her own standards, so moving about a lot would make sense.
Plus I'd imagine she's chosen to skulk about in the backwaters to expand her experience of the world, given it's also fairly clear that "companions" tend to stick to more core systems.
At the time I was using a little 486 with Slackware and a pair of NE2000 NIC's as a gateway (which up to that point had been running dialup).
I had SLIP connecting it to my Amiga, Ethernet to my Dual Celeron, two monitors, three keyboards, two mice, and a worrying amount of cable.
The engineer took one look at it, put on a slightly exasperated expression, plugged/drilled/screwed everything in, and said "I'm sure you know what to do" before leaving.
I plugged in the CM to the other NIC, started dhcpcd, tweaked my firewall to point to the new interface, and that was that.
To be perfectly honest, I'd say this counts for pretty much all screen based sci-fi these days.
Star Trek may link impressive sounding words together into mostly meaningless phrases to describe technology and things in it's universe, but that does not make it any more plausable or less of a fantasy. It's warp drives, power generation and matter to energy conversion stuff is still effectively magic, and it's universe is no more plausable than the world of LOTR.
There's not necessarily anything wrong with this, of course. I would really like to see some hard SF on screen though, and not one that's been mangled by a clueless production team to make it more like Star Trek
Since it was mostly a copy and paste job into a script I already had, yes, it did
The original script didn't take long either; 20 minutes or so. I'm not going to quibble over that; it was fun
I removed the extra options because of a bug in it I was too lazy to track down, btw. If it skews the results, too bad; I didn't notice any change in my answers.
Source. Should be pretty easy to see what to change to adopt to other tests, although it might be better to write a more general framework if you're thinking of doing much ;)
:)
(I scored 27, btw. I don't think it's the most accurate test in the world though
No, I meant whinge, as in "to whine". You're the second one to ask this, do Americans not have this word or something?
Uhm, no, that's why each nanobot replaces the neuron and behaves like it; sending and receiving signals as the original would. Ergo it's functionality is replaced and no loss of cognitive function ensures. That's the entire point. It's not life support but rather a fully functional replacement for the original.
This of course assumes that there's neither anything magical about our original neurons, and that individual ones can be emulated with sufficient precision. I rather suspect (and strongly hope that) the answers are "probably not" and "probably" respectively.
Say you have a class of nanobot which can absorb and replace the function of a single neuron.
You inject yourself with a load of them, and it starts absorbing neurons and taking their place. Eventually, your entire mind ends up running on these replacements, each of which behaves just like the organic neuron it replaced. You've been concious all the way through.
Now, assume each of these is able to communicate it's inputs to a machine on the outside which is able to simulate neurons en masse. They start to disable themselves and telling those around them to get their signal from this machine instead of them.
Eventually, you end up with a load of simulated neurons which are running on this machine, linked to the nerves through whatever method they use to communicate and a bunch of these neuronbots.
The simulated one is functionally identical to the original organic brain, except now it's got the potential to be pysically a lot more robust. Continuity was never lost, and all that was destroyed was a few neurons at a time, who's function was replaced.
The Barracuda V is actually somewhat quieter than the Barracuda IV they used.
Use the extra leeway to add a few fans; don't forget, if everything's running close to their design limits now, it'll probably get hairy if you have a hot summer.
Plus it's really a good idea to keep components like HD's fairly cool. Let them fry and you risk reducing the service life of the drive and increasing the chances of data loss. You at least want reliable storage, right?
Also, you should be careful with that huge-ass Zalman cooler. They're very heavy, and will happily tear off the socket if you happen to move the machine anywhere. The full Cu version is about 200g heavier than AMD's maximum recommended weight.
The first thing I thought when I saw that was "There's no way I'm doing that manually".
;)
So, er, I didn't
That's based on the same code I used for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, btw.
Sure, if your chroot has jail set up inside it. It's unnecessary, though; jail already implies chroot, and if you can break out of the jail, the original chroot won't help much
The BSD network stack virtualization experiment may also be of interest, btw. It goes even further than jail
Not really. The change isn't exactly huge; it makes XML a bit more consistant with regard to UTF, but I don't see it breaking anything other than for those who both:
TBH if you were that lax in specifying your XML version and characterset, and then made use of non-printable characters that actually had known uses in the default charset, you deserve everything you get.
If you don't use it, tough luck, you should have followed the original recommendation more closely. Lucky for you it's not exactly difficult to automatically process XML documents and add the prologe later.
Blegh, will people please stop using "chroot jail" when they really just mean "chroot"?
This is jail - a syscall which puts a process inside it's own process list, user list, IP and root directory, while limiting various syscalls which might make it possible (or at least easy) to escape the jail.
This is chroot - a syscall which puts a process inside it's own root directory. As you said, this is almost completely unrelated to system-call security.
chroot is not jail, jail is not (merely) chroot. Calling chroot "chroot jail" actually makes it *less* clear what you're talking about.
I use a card cooler; 2 80mm fans side by side. On top of the PSU and CPU and HD's, they don't add that much to the noise.
HD coolers tend to use much smaller fans, which tend to be louder in pushing a similar amount of air around.
In some cases you can mount the HD's right in front of the intake fan(s). I quite like that idea.
Alternatively, you could mount them in a standard 5.25" -> 3.5" bracket and use the extra space to add a few heatsinks to the drive. A large slow fan and/or convection should take care of the rest.
IBM released a document a while ago showing a significant correleation with failure rate and operating temperature of some of their SCSI drives.
Personally I plan on actively cooling all my drives now. They are a rather important component, after all..
IBM just announced the 180GXP with fluid bearings, working tagged queueing, optional 8MB buffer, etc.
.. Opera's nice new redesigned website, using XHTML and CSS. No more tables.
:)
Now, let's see Mozilla.org do the same please
They count preorders.
In your user CSS file:Repeat for all common advert sizes you see.
Alternatively, use mine. Goes for Opera users too, although it will still load the banners; it just won't display them.