Re:Maybe if teachers worked with technology instea
on
Professors vs. WiFi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Maybe if teachers worked with technology instead of bashing the technology and blaming it for them being terrible and boring with their lectures they'd be fine.
Okay, but you have to realise that wifi doesn't really add many possibilities to a lecture beyond what is capable with projectors and simple discussion. For instance:
The teacher could even bring his own laptop, add their AIM screen names to his AIM account, and talk to students via AIM.
As opposed to simply talking to them?
This is college not highschool, a teacher cannot try to blame the students for lack of attention
Agreed 100%. It's the student's responsibility to learn using the available resources - if they dick around instead of paying attention, then they won't get very far.
Then we have lectures where teachers read off a peice of paper going down a list of things they must talk about, perhaps some boring as hell subject like computer programmer, and the teacher is from india and cannot speak english properly, some people just should not lecture!!!
Been there, done that...
In this situation you'd be better off getting your information from the internet than listening to the lecturer guide you step by step on how to write hello world.
In this situation, you'd be better off pointing it out to their superiors. If the lecturer is redundant, then it's a waste of money to employ them. If there is anything to be gained from having a lecturer, then their students are being cheated.
I don't see how "lecture notes available through the internet" translates to "wifi in lecture halls is useful" though. If the lectures aren't useful to you, skip them and download the notes from wherever you like.
Actually, I can hear the power involved; this is also the first PC I've had which, when the CPU is fully loaded, I can actually hear the power draw slowing down the fans. This still astounds me.
No, it sounds like you have thermal monitoring switched on in the bios like me - when your cpu isn't being used to 100% of its capacity, it isn't as hot - so your bios notices this and slows the fans down so they aren't as loud.
Slower fans are quieter. I believe some overclockers/silent pc fanatics install larger case fans purely so they can get the same airflow at less speed.
The word markup doesn't mean layout. It can sometimes, but it certainly doesn't in a web development context (or do you think that the 'Markup' in XML is talking about layout as well?)
In computerised document preparation, a method of
adding information to the text indicating the logical
components of a document, or instructions for layout of the text on the page or other information which can be interpreted by some automatic system.
I'll bet you'll find that [absolutely-sized text] will display similarly on all browsers on all platforms.
I'll take that bet. Ever heard of user stylesheets? Minimum font size settings in browsers? Fixed-pitch-font-only displays? Browsers that resize pt and px? Ever read the CSS spec, where it clearly states that px is designed to be rescaled?
Bottom line - the only sensible font size for normal body text is the one that your visitor has already selected.
What's wrong with tables, other than they let you lay things out exactly how they are supposed to look
No they don't. You seem to think that html is a layout language, it isn't. It encodes meaning, nt presentation. Tables are fine for a table of data - but abusing them to get a specific look is only going to frustrate people who care about the semantic information (non-graphical browsers, search engines, summary tools, etc).
A pox on layers and DHTML instead.
If you're still referring to them as "layers", then it's time to take another look at them. DHTML is a useful tool - what should be avoided is DHTML that doesn't degrade gracefully. It isn't an all-or-nothing technology.
To shorten your addresses and make your URLs more durable to change, point your links to www.foobar.com, NOT to www.foobar.com/default.htm (or index.jsp, or whatever).
This will also increase the chances of a cache hit, speeding up access to your site, reducing server load and bandwidth bills.
Don't invoke sessions unless absolutely needed.
Ditto. Nasty URLs can usually be made at least a little nicer with judicious use of mod_rewrite (so instead of something like http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234&pid=5 678 turns into http://slashdot.org/stories/1234/comments/5678 (also a help for search engines, as well as humans)
The fact is, browsers are *still* not all behaving the same way
...and they never will. It's always been the same. Lynx will never lay out your pages the way you want. PDAs will never lay out your pages the way you want. Ditto for set-top boxes. Ditto for aural browsers. Ditto for the next big thing that just hasn't arrived yet. Throw user stylesheets into the mix, and the trend is away from homogenous display.
Stylesheets are nice for simple text styling, but can't even be depended on for font sizes!
That was a design goal - stylesheets are suggestions, nothing more.
[ {font-size: medium; } is different in different browsers ]
What on earth makes you think that it should be the same? 'medium' means the font size your visitors have got configured. That means it will differ from user to user, even if they use the same browser. It also means that it's the most appropriate choice for body text.
Our technique for getting around the 100% of 800 = 805 problem is to set the table to 95% instead of 100%
There is no 100% of 800 = 805 problem when using table layouts. I'm referring to the broken IE box model. You know, CSS layout?
how about this... DONT MAKE IT FOR SPECIFIC PIXEL SIZES???
That had better not be aimed at me. The problems with the IE box model are there whether you use pixels or percentages, or anything else. I was merely commenting on the cause of the strange obsession with sites that are slightly too wide than what's probably intended.
if you specify a width... then you are a no talent HACK as a web-writer.
How about you go and get a little experience before going off on one? It's perfectly possible to produce fluid designs whilst specifying widths - you do know that you don't have to specify them in pixels, don't you?
Yeah, well as I recall, Nielsen was hired not too long ago in an advisory capacity by Macromedia. Apparently the latest version is far more accessible & usable.
Did anybody else automatically try to scroll right when they got to #3? Also, the bit:
For some reason, many websites seem to be optimized for 805-pixel-wide browser windows
Anybody else wanna bet that the sites in question are actually designed for 800 pixels wide, but it's Internet Explorer screwing up the box model?
Yes, their latest beta (needed for the latest mozilla, iirc) fixes this.
Re:I knew the following before taking any CS cours
on
The Vanishing HailStorm
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Decentralization of critical data is key to security,
How? Do you really think that many people use a different username and password for every login they have? The current situation is that your details are spread across a number of hosts, most of which have unknown security. Crack one, and it opens up access to the rest.
Here, for the average user, security is as strong as the weakest link - the most insecure website. Using the same username/password combination for your accounts, and giving that information out wherever you get a new account means that you are implicitly trusting each account granter with all your details. afaik, passport gives you the ability to authenticate somebody without people having to trust you with their password. Yes, you're still trusting microsoft, but it's better to trust a single organisation than many.
I can't believe that people are even using Microsoft's Passport. I guess by making it a necessity in order to use certain MSN Web services like Hotmail, this was the only way they figured they could attract customers.
Don't be silly. Why should they have multiple authentication mechanisms across a number of sites, rather than a single authentication mechanism shared across them all? They are eating their own dog-food, that's all.
If you don't like it, don't buy, it's really that simple.
How could he know that he doesn't accept the license terms until he sees them?
Here, the "return it" refers to the software product. Why should Microsoft be able to prevent the sale of the computer (or put another way: why should Microsoft be able to dictate the terms of the sale of the hardware - what authority gives them the right to say to the vendor "you must refund the whole package, not just our part")?
Microsoft shouldn't be able to dictate the terms of the sale. That's why their EULA is not binding on the person who sold you the software. As for the authority to tell the vendor what the vendor can and cannot accept, if Microsoft actually does that (and I doubt they do), the authority is a contractual agreement.
So in other words, he should be able to get a refund on just the software?
Perhaps he assumed there was a EULA that was acceptable.
Perhaps so, but I doubt it.
Why? You are automatically assuming he's a troublemaker, and like I said, it makes you sound pretty prejudiced.
That makes you sound pretty prejudiced - assume he's a dick because he wants his money back for something that he bought in good faith?
I doubt he bought it in good faith.
Why?
In any other industry, dictating terms after the sale would be considered amazingly poor business, doubly so if you refused to take back the goods.
The only one trying to dictate terms after the sale is the purchaser.
That's blatantly false. Microsoft is dictating terms after the sale with the EULA.
The seller sold a computer system with a CD, nothing more.
I think you'll find that everywhere advertises it as Windows, not "A CD that contains Windows, which you may license if you accept the terms inside the box that you only get after you pay us".
But none of that is applicable for most users, because most users don't need to agree to the EULA in the first place.
If that's true, then why does it exist in the first place?
That's just it - he may have accepted the purchase, but he didn't accept the EULA for Windows.
So he doesn't get any of the rights granted by the EULA. Big deal.
Well that's great, but Microsoft (and many others) argue that you need to agree to the EULA to use the software. It's even law in some places. So if he doesn't get a refund, he's paid the "Microsoft tax": he's paid for Windows, even though he won't use it and doesn't want it, purely because they have a monopoly.
That same document states that if he doesn't agree to them, he can get his money back.
Sure, he can return his entire purchase for a complete refund.
Why should this be the only option available to him? He's bought a package, and found one very specific part of it to be unsatisfactory. Let's have a look at one of these clauses:
By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; you may, however, return it to your place of purchase for a full refund.
Here, the "return it" refers to the software product. Why should Microsoft be able to prevent the sale of the computer (or put another way: why should Microsoft be able to dictate the terms of the sale of the hardware - what authority gives them the right to say to the vendor "you must refund the whole package, not just our part")?
The obvious way of fixing this is to present the EULA before purchase.
No, the obvious way of fixing this is to not buy products you don't want then whine about not being able to return part of them for a partial refund. If he honestly didn't know there was going to be an EULA then he can return the entire product for a complete refund.
Perhaps he assumed there was a EULA that was acceptable. In any case, whenever I've ordered anything with faulty parts, I haven't had trouble getting a refund on individual parts (although I've never bought a complete system, so that might make a difference).
But I doubt that's the case. More likely he's just being a dick because he doesn't like Microsoft.
That makes you sound pretty prejudiced - assume he's a dick because he wants his money back for something that he bought in good faith? In any other industry, dictating terms after the sale would be considered amazingly poor business, doubly so if you refused to take back the goods.
Re:You accepted the purchase of XP
on
Windows Refund Day II
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The problem that I see for you is that you accepted the purchase of XP when you purchased the laptop. You knew what you were getting, and you elected to pay for it. If you felt that the configuration did not match your needs, then why did you make the purchase?
That's just it - he may have accepted the purchase, but he didn't accept the EULA for Windows. After he bought it, he would have got home, opened it up, and been presented with additional terms & conditions, that he never agreed to beforehand, or even saw. That same document states that if he doesn't agree to them, he can get his money back.
The obvious way of fixing this is to present the EULA before purchase.
If you don't know the type of the variables you are dealing with _anyway_ then you have big problems that aren't going to be solved with a few reminder characters.
If you can tell what browser the user is using at runtime, via GET headers, why not send them code specific for that browser?
Because you can't tell what browser the user is using. The user-agent string is supplied by the user-agent, which can send whatever it likes. For instance, opera and konqueror can send ie user-agent strings to get into sites designed by morons. I believe opera defaults to identifying itself as ie.
example.net is guaranteed not to exist - that's why he used that domain in his example. And yes, I know you were joking, but a lot of people don't know this.
Ever thought that a) may be related to b)? The IT department are the ones who will get the bollocking if they decide to upgrade everyone, and things stop working. After all if it ain't broke...
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, but you have to realise that wifi doesn't really add many possibilities to a lecture beyond what is capable with projectors and simple discussion. For instance:
As opposed to simply talking to them?
Agreed 100%. It's the student's responsibility to learn using the available resources - if they dick around instead of paying attention, then they won't get very far.
Been there, done that...
In this situation, you'd be better off pointing it out to their superiors. If the lecturer is redundant, then it's a waste of money to employ them. If there is anything to be gained from having a lecturer, then their students are being cheated.
I don't see how "lecture notes available through the internet" translates to "wifi in lecture halls is useful" though. If the lectures aren't useful to you, skip them and download the notes from wherever you like.
Thanks, I had real trouble finding it for a minute there.
No, it sounds like you have thermal monitoring switched on in the bios like me - when your cpu isn't being used to 100% of its capacity, it isn't as hot - so your bios notices this and slows the fans down so they aren't as loud.
Slower fans are quieter. I believe some overclockers/silent pc fanatics install larger case fans purely so they can get the same airflow at less speed.
I'm having no trouble whatsoever. Where on earth does that say that markup means presentation, and only presentation?
I have no problems reading; perhaps you have trouble comprehending. Again:
What you seem to be reading is:
The word markup doesn't mean layout. It can sometimes, but it certainly doesn't in a web development context (or do you think that the 'Markup' in XML is talking about layout as well?)
-- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=markup
I'll take that bet. Ever heard of user stylesheets? Minimum font size settings in browsers? Fixed-pitch-font-only displays? Browsers that resize pt and px? Ever read the CSS spec, where it clearly states that px is designed to be rescaled?
Bottom line - the only sensible font size for normal body text is the one that your visitor has already selected.
No they don't. You seem to think that html is a layout language, it isn't. It encodes meaning, nt presentation. Tables are fine for a table of data - but abusing them to get a specific look is only going to frustrate people who care about the semantic information (non-graphical browsers, search engines, summary tools, etc).
If you're still referring to them as "layers", then it's time to take another look at them. DHTML is a useful tool - what should be avoided is DHTML that doesn't degrade gracefully. It isn't an all-or-nothing technology.
This will also increase the chances of a cache hit, speeding up access to your site, reducing server load and bandwidth bills.
Ditto. Nasty URLs can usually be made at least a little nicer with judicious use of mod_rewrite (so instead of something like http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234&pid=5 678 turns into http://slashdot.org/stories/1234/comments/5678 (also a help for search engines, as well as humans)
...and they never will. It's always been the same. Lynx will never lay out your pages the way you want. PDAs will never lay out your pages the way you want. Ditto for set-top boxes. Ditto for aural browsers. Ditto for the next big thing that just hasn't arrived yet. Throw user stylesheets into the mix, and the trend is away from homogenous display.
That was a design goal - stylesheets are suggestions, nothing more.
What on earth makes you think that it should be the same? 'medium' means the font size your visitors have got configured. That means it will differ from user to user, even if they use the same browser. It also means that it's the most appropriate choice for body text.
There is no 100% of 800 = 805 problem when using table layouts. I'm referring to the broken IE box model. You know, CSS layout?
That had better not be aimed at me. The problems with the IE box model are there whether you use pixels or percentages, or anything else. I was merely commenting on the cause of the strange obsession with sites that are slightly too wide than what's probably intended.
How about you go and get a little experience before going off on one? It's perfectly possible to produce fluid designs whilst specifying widths - you do know that you don't have to specify them in pixels, don't you?
Us enlightened ones did years back :)
Ick. You aren't still using tables for layout are you?
Yeah, well as I recall, Nielsen was hired not too long ago in an advisory capacity by Macromedia. Apparently the latest version is far more accessible & usable.
Did anybody else automatically try to scroll right when they got to #3? Also, the bit:
Anybody else wanna bet that the sites in question are actually designed for 800 pixels wide, but it's Internet Explorer screwing up the box model?
Yes, their latest beta (needed for the latest mozilla, iirc) fixes this.
How? Do you really think that many people use a different username and password for every login they have? The current situation is that your details are spread across a number of hosts, most of which have unknown security. Crack one, and it opens up access to the rest.
Here, for the average user, security is as strong as the weakest link - the most insecure website. Using the same username/password combination for your accounts, and giving that information out wherever you get a new account means that you are implicitly trusting each account granter with all your details. afaik, passport gives you the ability to authenticate somebody without people having to trust you with their password. Yes, you're still trusting microsoft, but it's better to trust a single organisation than many.
Don't be silly. Why should they have multiple authentication mechanisms across a number of sites, rather than a single authentication mechanism shared across them all? They are eating their own dog-food, that's all.
Ever heard of UCITA?
How could he know that he doesn't accept the license terms until he sees them?
So in other words, he should be able to get a refund on just the software?
Why? You are automatically assuming he's a troublemaker, and like I said, it makes you sound pretty prejudiced.
Why?
That's blatantly false. Microsoft is dictating terms after the sale with the EULA.
I think you'll find that everywhere advertises it as Windows, not "A CD that contains Windows, which you may license if you accept the terms inside the box that you only get after you pay us".
If that's true, then why does it exist in the first place?
Check whether or not your own hostname has changed. Perhaps an admin changed the dhcp settings on the server.
Or even this.
Well that's great, but Microsoft (and many others) argue that you need to agree to the EULA to use the software. It's even law in some places. So if he doesn't get a refund, he's paid the "Microsoft tax": he's paid for Windows, even though he won't use it and doesn't want it, purely because they have a monopoly.
Why should this be the only option available to him? He's bought a package, and found one very specific part of it to be unsatisfactory. Let's have a look at one of these clauses:
Here, the "return it" refers to the software product. Why should Microsoft be able to prevent the sale of the computer (or put another way: why should Microsoft be able to dictate the terms of the sale of the hardware - what authority gives them the right to say to the vendor "you must refund the whole package, not just our part")?
Perhaps he assumed there was a EULA that was acceptable. In any case, whenever I've ordered anything with faulty parts, I haven't had trouble getting a refund on individual parts (although I've never bought a complete system, so that might make a difference).
That makes you sound pretty prejudiced - assume he's a dick because he wants his money back for something that he bought in good faith? In any other industry, dictating terms after the sale would be considered amazingly poor business, doubly so if you refused to take back the goods.
That's just it - he may have accepted the purchase, but he didn't accept the EULA for Windows. After he bought it, he would have got home, opened it up, and been presented with additional terms & conditions, that he never agreed to beforehand, or even saw. That same document states that if he doesn't agree to them, he can get his money back.
The obvious way of fixing this is to present the EULA before purchase.
My basic feeling about HN is as follows:
If you don't know the type of the variables you are dealing with _anyway_ then you have big problems that aren't going to be solved with a few reminder characters.
It might be my imagination, but doesn't plan 9 support something like this?
If you can tell what browser the user is using at runtime, via GET headers, why not send them code specific for that browser?
Because you can't tell what browser the user is using. The user-agent string is supplied by the user-agent, which can send whatever it likes. For instance, opera and konqueror can send ie user-agent strings to get into sites designed by morons. I believe opera defaults to identifying itself as ie.
example.net is guaranteed not to exist - that's why he used that domain in his example. And yes, I know you were joking, but a lot of people don't know this.
Ever thought that a) may be related to b)? The IT department are the ones who will get the bollocking if they decide to upgrade everyone, and things stop working. After all if it ain't broke...