The brain doesn't get "banged around inside the skull". Also, the bones don't break supporting the flesh- the water, which is incompressible, supports it.
Unfortunately, the topic is HTML, not XML or XHTML, which are both totally irrelevant to the discussion. Additionally, what you or I say doesn't matter - the spec and the W3C, which maintains it, are the final arbiters of what is HTML, and they say that XHTML != HTML.
What next - argue that SMGL is a subset of HTML? Forget it.
XHTML(TM) 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0
Extensible HTML is NOT HTML 4 any more than SGML in HTML. XHTML is a superset of HTML. For example, "All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs."
If the notary had stuck to that, there'd be no problem. The banks who lent the mortgage depended on the notary's statements, so they didn't have to do their own evaluation. So now the notary is facing civil action from the guy whose identity was stolen, from the bank, and from the people who bought the house, all of whom have valid claims. No wonder he (finally) shut up. I would have too:-)
The space elevator won't work, not with technology foreseable in the next 50 years. The cannon will work with todays' tech, and the tech for filling the lungs with supersaturated liquids is decades old.
Its also the only way we'll ever get to explore most of the solar system - since most of the solar systems' mass is locked up in planets that have more surface gravity than earth.
Here's what the fucktard said in black and white (yes, its Tuesday):
"Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags."
Not "close all the tags the standard allows for". All tags, in direct violation of the standard.
Whens the last time you saw an image tag pair with enclosed content? A Break tag pair? Paragraph pairs aren't even needed since logically, the end of one paragraph starts another.
If someone can't read HTML, they shouldn't be writing HTML.
The article is about HTML standards. The standard is clear. Closing tags are optional in some cases, forbidden in others. We have enough problems with certain companies breaking standards - we don't need to advocate it here. Sloppy coding is the result of stupidities like breaking standards because you want the code to "look xml-y".
Anyone who can't read HTML 4.0 shouldn't be writing HTML 4.0. Its as simple as that. Don't claim to want to follow the standard, but want to break it because you can't be bothered to learn it.
"One would assume, seeing as it's 2006 and all, that he intends to rebuild the site as a modern standards compliant site. Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags."
HTML 4.01 IS the current HTML (as opposed to XHTML) standard. And some of those bullshit "best practices", like "closing all tags", are forbidden by that very standard. Its not like its hard to read. I linked to the specific page on the W3C site.
So stop being a Microsoft Weenie (yes - you're easily identified by your willingness to break standards, just as FrontPage breaks those same standards by doing "best practice" shit like closing tags that don't need them).
Do you close your image tags? Then you're not in compliance with the published standard. So please spare the bullshit about "modern standards compliant site. Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags.". You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows.
In case you missed it, the article's title asked what was in your HTML toolobx, not you XML toolbox, or XHML toolbox.
"As far as I know, they're both the same company and they both don't care about doing honest business at all."
Ebay bought paypal years ago, so you are right. Regulators in quite a few states are very unhappy with paypal and ebay, and have, under the threat of regulating their operations if they don't cooperate, entered into "voluntary consent agreements". You might want to check with your local attorney general's office - they probably have someone who is working the ebay/paypal file.
"What they meant" is only relevant if you're a psychic. I can only go by what is written down. A judge would also tend to rule that a specific writing is more relevant than some vague "what we really meant." Ask SCO, who's latest "what we really mean" got bumped by the judge.
No its not. The valid doctypes listed by W3C include the one I link to. What you link to is NOT an HTML specification, or did you take the short bus to school?
This specification defines the Second Edition of XHTML 1.0, a reformulation of HTML 4 as an XML 1.0 application, and three DTDs corresponding to the ones defined by HTML 4.
HTML is not XML. Closing tags are optional for some elements, and forbidden for several others. and putting a slash at the end of a tag that doesn't have a closing tag, so it looks "xml-y" is an affectation and a waste of bytes.
Not true. Remove the air from the lungs and replace it with a liquid saturated with 02, and the human body can withstand incredible stress.
"therefore the only time in which it would be a danger to planes is in the last few hours when the cable is actually in atmosphere prior to being attached to the base station"
There is no way in hell it will be "attached to the base station." Both ends need to be free to move.
Also, 5 km separation is nothing. At 600 mph, that's covered in 20 seconds. Even a patriot missile can't react that fast (and if it could, it is MUCH more likely to damage the cable. Remember, those suckers had almost a 100% MISS rate in the first gulf war).
Do you have any idea the logistics of a large construction project? You can't just ship everything by boat, and there will be quite a lot more than a "few" flights required.
Better to concentrate on a catapult/rail gun - at least its theoretically possible with todays tech.
If you didn't read the article, you could have at least read the summary. Ontario, CANADA. Not New York State. Wrong City. Wrong State. Wrong country. I'll give you points for the right continent, though.
The "known to me personally" is not a simple "pro forma" statement. For example, up here certain people are authorized to act as commissioners of oaths because they are governed by the code of professions. They can certify statements made for name changes, passport applications, etc. However, they can't say they know the person just based on a simple check of a drivers' license - they have to actually have had a prior relationship with the person. Otherwise, they're looking at a potential 2 year jail sentence for uttering forged documents (the written statement that they knew the person is the forgery).
This is in addition to any penalties that might be imposed by the professional order, and any civil procedings to recoup losses.
So, no, "known to me personally" does not mean "I checked their ID". If its the bank manager doing the certification, it means "This is one of our customers and we have their information on file." If its a doctor or pharmacist, it means "This is one of our customers and we have their medical information on file." If its my engineer friend, it means "I've known this person for years, and can say they are who they say they are" - he wouldn't do it for a stranger, or just based on an ID check, as that doesn't meet the standard of "known to me."
The notary out-and-out lied. He just wanted to collect his fee.
So he's (the notary) guilty of uttering forged documents himself - a felony in Canada with a 2 year jail term.
His refusal now to comment further, given that he's already claimed publicly that he knew the vendor, speaks volumes.
Remember, this is not a case of Joe Blow - the notary has a professional duty, which was breeched in this instance. Who knows how many other deals he's screwed up on?
So yes, given that he has in the past commented publicly on the case, and his comments contradict the current evidence, his sudden unwillingness to shed any more light on this is significant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sitting next to a totally secure computer.
Its not plugged in, access to it is blocked by a big St. Bernard, there's no info on the hard drive, the video card and nic have been cannibalized.
So yet, its possible to have total security. Just not practical.
They can buy a laptop for that price, and get both the convenience, AND the "built-in monitor".
The whole PS3 concept is DOA - the WII is where the hype, and the price point advantage, are.
September 4th? Thats 2 days ago. That's definitely old news. We're on Internet 2.0 time! Get with the program (Program 2.0, that is :-)
Except that they'll probably want to look at the articles in context, and also more than just the one article. Microfiche wins.
The brain doesn't get "banged around inside the skull". Also, the bones don't break supporting the flesh- the water, which is incompressible, supports it.
Unfortunately, the topic is HTML, not XML or XHTML, which are both totally irrelevant to the discussion. Additionally, what you or I say doesn't matter - the spec and the W3C, which maintains it, are the final arbiters of what is HTML, and they say that XHTML != HTML.
What next - argue that SMGL is a subset of HTML? Forget it.
Here's the link for XHTML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
And here's how its described:
Extensible HTML is NOT HTML 4 any more than SGML in HTML. XHTML is a superset of HTML. For example, "All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs."
If the notary had stuck to that, there'd be no problem. The banks who lent the mortgage depended on the notary's statements, so they didn't have to do their own evaluation. So now the notary is facing civil action from the guy whose identity was stolen, from the bank, and from the people who bought the house, all of whom have valid claims. No wonder he (finally) shut up. I would have too :-)
The space elevator won't work, not with technology foreseable in the next 50 years. The cannon will work with todays' tech, and the tech for filling the lungs with supersaturated liquids is decades old.
Its also the only way we'll ever get to explore most of the solar system - since most of the solar systems' mass is locked up in planets that have more surface gravity than earth.
Here's what the fucktard said in black and white (yes, its Tuesday):
"Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags."
Not "close all the tags the standard allows for". All tags, in direct violation of the standard.
Whens the last time you saw an image tag pair with enclosed content? A Break tag pair? Paragraph pairs aren't even needed since logically, the end of one paragraph starts another.
If someone can't read HTML, they shouldn't be writing HTML.
The article is about HTML standards. The standard is clear. Closing tags are optional in some cases, forbidden in others. We have enough problems with certain companies breaking standards - we don't need to advocate it here. Sloppy coding is the result of stupidities like breaking standards because you want the code to "look xml-y".
Anyone who can't read HTML 4.0 shouldn't be writing HTML 4.0. Its as simple as that. Don't claim to want to follow the standard, but want to break it because you can't be bothered to learn it.
This has got to qualify as the WTF of the Day:
"One would assume, seeing as it's 2006 and all, that he intends to rebuild the site as a modern standards compliant site. Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags."
HTML 4.01 IS the current HTML (as opposed to XHTML) standard. And some of those bullshit "best practices", like "closing all tags", are forbidden by that very standard. Its not like its hard to read. I linked to the specific page on the W3C site.
So stop being a Microsoft Weenie (yes - you're easily identified by your willingness to break standards, just as FrontPage breaks those same standards by doing "best practice" shit like closing tags that don't need them).
List of tags that the standard forbids having a closing tag: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/elements.htm l
Do you close your image tags? Then you're not in compliance with the published standard. So please spare the bullshit about "modern standards compliant site. Even if he chose html 4.01 instead of xhtml it's still best practice to close all your tags.". You don't know what you're talking about, and it shows.
In case you missed it, the article's title asked what was in your HTML toolobx, not you XML toolbox, or XHML toolbox.
"As far as I know, they're both the same company and they both don't care about doing honest business at all."
Ebay bought paypal years ago, so you are right. Regulators in quite a few states are very unhappy with paypal and ebay, and have, under the threat of regulating their operations if they don't cooperate, entered into "voluntary consent agreements". You might want to check with your local attorney general's office - they probably have someone who is working the ebay/paypal file.
Hope this helps.
"What they meant" is only relevant if you're a psychic. I can only go by what is written down. A judge would also tend to rule that a specific writing is more relevant than some vague "what we really meant." Ask SCO, who's latest "what we really mean" got bumped by the judge.
All the more reason why all computers, etc., should then be banned by fee-Bay. They all allow for the playing of imported software.
If feeBay wants to be consistent (ha - fat chance), they would have to ban a lot more stuff:
"Game enhancers (which enable the play of import software and/or back up versions of software).'"
They'd have to ban the sale of all new and used laptops, desktops, and game consoles - people use these all the time to play backups.
BTW, "the play of import software" - so imported software is a no-no, but domestic software is okay?
So no, XHTML != HTML.
First, before bitching about something, you should take a moment to learn about it.
"It has all the usual problems: paragraph tags with no ending tag"
There's no end tag required for paragraphs, as per the official spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/elements.htm l
HTML is not XML. Closing tags are optional for some elements, and forbidden for several others. and putting a slash at the end of a tag that doesn't have a closing tag, so it looks "xml-y" is an affectation and a waste of bytes.
How do I know? Because, unlike some other posters, I didn't just read the article - I read the story, and a few other links.
The notary was sloppy. His sloppiness allowed the scam to happen. He can't claim he was also "victimized" - his loss of reputation is his own fault.
Not true. Remove the air from the lungs and replace it with a liquid saturated with 02, and the human body can withstand incredible stress.
"therefore the only time in which it would be a danger to planes is in the last few hours when the cable is actually in atmosphere prior to being attached to the base station"
There is no way in hell it will be "attached to the base station." Both ends need to be free to move.
Also, 5 km separation is nothing. At 600 mph, that's covered in 20 seconds. Even a patriot missile can't react that fast (and if it could, it is MUCH more likely to damage the cable. Remember, those suckers had almost a 100% MISS rate in the first gulf war).
Do you have any idea the logistics of a large construction project? You can't just ship everything by boat, and there will be quite a lot more than a "few" flights required.
Better to concentrate on a catapult/rail gun - at least its theoretically possible with todays tech.
If you didn't read the article, you could have at least read the summary. Ontario, CANADA. Not New York State. Wrong City. Wrong State. Wrong country. I'll give you points for the right continent, though.
The "known to me personally" is not a simple "pro forma" statement. For example, up here certain people are authorized to act as commissioners of oaths because they are governed by the code of professions. They can certify statements made for name changes, passport applications, etc. However, they can't say they know the person just based on a simple check of a drivers' license - they have to actually have had a prior relationship with the person. Otherwise, they're looking at a potential 2 year jail sentence for uttering forged documents (the written statement that they knew the person is the forgery).
This is in addition to any penalties that might be imposed by the professional order, and any civil procedings to recoup losses.
So, no, "known to me personally" does not mean "I checked their ID". If its the bank manager doing the certification, it means "This is one of our customers and we have their information on file." If its a doctor or pharmacist, it means "This is one of our customers and we have their medical information on file." If its my engineer friend, it means "I've known this person for years, and can say they are who they say they are" - he wouldn't do it for a stranger, or just based on an ID check, as that doesn't meet the standard of "known to me."
The notary out-and-out lied. He just wanted to collect his fee.
"The simple answer to this, is to place it someplace where lots of planes do not fly. A Pacific ocean atoll comes to mind."
So how do you get crew, workers, and passengers in and out? Submarine? Cruise ship?
so how about we all get together and google-bomb the image thing so that pictures of the goat-man pop up for searches of Darl McBride?
He claimed he knew the owner/vendor.
That's an outright lie.
So he's (the notary) guilty of uttering forged documents himself - a felony in Canada with a 2 year jail term.
His refusal now to comment further, given that he's already claimed publicly that he knew the vendor, speaks volumes.
Remember, this is not a case of Joe Blow - the notary has a professional duty, which was breeched in this instance. Who knows how many other deals he's screwed up on?
So yes, given that he has in the past commented publicly on the case, and his comments contradict the current evidence, his sudden unwillingness to shed any more light on this is significant.