And perhaps you use tables for layout and the evil font tag! To learn to create *good* websites, you don't start with a tool that gives you a bunch of misconceptions that you may never recover from. You start with the simplest starting point that is in the direction of goodness.
One can create great websites with a tiny sub-set of (X)HTML. Is it really too difficult to learn 10 elements? I could teach this to any kid in less than an hour. If you want to get stylish, you can learn a bit of CSS. With this solid foundation, all future progress will be forward and not backward!
You may have good habits now, but if so, the only way you got there is by unlearning bad habits and misconceptions that you gained using the likes of FrontPage (and learning from its output).
Yeah, most native English speakers can understand people who only speak pidgin English just fine, so I don't think we should expect kids to speak (remotely) correct English. It's much easier to teach them pidgin English.
Now, it's my understanding that you can recover anything written to a harddrive, even if you have overwritten it several times.
If a certain sequence of bits on the disk was originally 1011010010001011101001, and it got overwritten with 0110101101010010101111, how -- barring psychics, voodoo, and fairy dust -- can the original be recovered? Simpler case: a certain bit used to be 1, it was overwritten a few times. How do I know what it was (let's say non-journaled filesystem) before being overwritten?
Maybe you meant 'partially overwritten but with a reasonable number of bits still the same'?
Re:when I was young. . .
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
No. The reason that XSLT is an XML vocabulary is so that it can be generated using the very same tools that you use for generating any other XML -- namely, a parser and a stylesheet processor.
I routinely use XSLT to generate XML, XHTML, XSLT, Schematron, and an XML-based pipelining language, among other things -- all at runtime. It is extremely well suited for these tasks, and if the angle-bracket-averse folks had their way, I would have to use a different type of parser and transformation engine for parsing, transforming, and creating most of these languages -- including XSLT. If you're only using XSLT occasionally, or only for straight XML->XML/XHTML transformations, then I can understand initial frustration, but when you have used XSLT in more than a couple of different domains, you'll see the advantage of an XML-based serialization, for XSLT itself and also for others such as XSD or RelaxNG (try generating and manipulating DTDs at runtime if you want to see what I mean).
If you want the best of both worlds, then something like RelaxNG's RNC is a wet dream -- two serializations, one XML, one non-XML. You deal with the compact syntax, and it gets transformed into the XML syntax for the machine.
Re:5 years in the business... WHERE???
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
XSLT is that XML-based programming language, and yes, it's great for generating XML or XSLT or any other language that has an XML serialization.
People complain about XSLT for the same reason that procedural programmers complain "Lisp sucks" or "OOP sucks" or whatever: laziness and aversion to novelty. XSLT is a great declarative (functional {if you're willing to go through contortions}) language that (in combination with XPath, and other X-technologies) is extremely well suited for manipulating XML. That's it! But isn't that enough?
Very interesting article, and a great site. Thanks! I take back my smart-ass words. I just tend to be a descriptivist, and try to find 'errors' with people who sound too prescriptivist. I realized, though, after posting the message that you're not necessarily prescriptive. Correcting people who misuse 'whom' and 'whomever' is something I also enjoy, because they invariably the ones in whose minds a little knowledge is dangerous. What I object to is the opposite case: people who in everyday conversation tell others that it is never correct to say who when it's the object of a preposition, or end a sentence with a preposition, or whatever. That is way too prescriptive for my taste, and too far detached from the living source of lanuage -- the way people actually speak and write (I'm thinking novelists, not academics).
Anyway, if such other sentence adverbs as strictly, thankfully, and actually are okay -- and they certainly are; I just hadn't thought of them -- then I hereby declare that hopefully is okay too, and will stop restraining myself when I sense it on my tongue.
p.s. Don't change the world-view too much! Trolls have 'serious' accounts, too;-) Ho hum, back to work...
I believe that the simile is actually more literal. The metaphor is ostensibly literal, but we interpret it figuratively because we know that it isn't *really* meant to be taken literally. The simile, on the other hand, is to be taken absolutely literally, since it merely expresses similarity (rather than the figurative identity of the metaphor).
The difference, of course, is that without knowing Python or Perl, the Python script is perfectly understandable without comments, and the Perl script is, well, like all Perl scripts, unreadable.
Fakesters are not chasing away valid customers. Many, many valid customers *love* the fakesters, who add incredible creativity and flair to what is otherwise just another dating site. Everybody I know has at least one fakester friend (meaning they *chose* to have that fakester as their friend).
Don't forget, too, that all of those fakesters have real accounts too. Some of the most fascinating people (realsters) I've met on friendster, I have met by asking a fascinating fakester for his/her real identity -- none of them have refused. The fakesters are just creative extensions of the realster accounts -- sort of an extended 'about me'.
If you don't like that this will be Windows-only, go to http://www.serveusa.gov/public/aca.aspx and click on "Contact Us." If they get 10,000 emails from slashdotters, they might think twice, and it will take 3 minutes of your time.
The all-important question is: how does he pronounce 'nucular'? And can he tie his own shoes? If he knows how to read and write too, then that would be a big step up?
I am sorry sir, I have a patent on first posts, frosty pists, and all variations thereof. You will have to give me $1000 for the continuing privilege of using my method, and $5/fp thereafter.
Just because some people are sometimes sloppy with language, it doesn't mean that we should not try to be precise. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, and this is exactly what the RIAA wants.
The only reason that (illegally) 'copying' music has come to be called 'stealing' music is because of the RIAA's deliberate manipulations of language. Six years ago, everybody would have referred to it as copying, which it is, so it is not too much to ask people to use the correct verb.
If you want to reflect that it is illegal, call it "illegal copying" (since some copying is legal (for backup), while some copying is illegal).
It is not only nerds that care about language not being abused and sloppy thought.
Yeah, I believe Bill Gates when he says 'trust me, i never said it.' I mean, he is an honest non-megalomaniacal guy who's not given to distorting reality in whatever way is convenient at the moment.
Back to surfing the web with WinME, "the greatest user os ever built".
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
They have different connotations. 'nuff said? mmm,kay.
Re:Mensa is right based on Ockhams razor
on
Pure Math, Pure Joy
·
· Score: 1
No, in order to know if it's offensive or not, all that is required is that one be able to guess which is the intended answer. We all know that black features have never (in a 1960's world) been held up as the physical standard of beauty against which all others are measured, so we know that the 'correct' answer is the white girl, and we can justifiably take offense without committing the sin that you're ascribing to the parent.
'Sic' is used to show that what came before it is meant as it is. For example, if I were quoting a letter that our great President had written, and I wanted to make clear that Dubya is the one who is illiterate, not I, the person quoting the letter, then I might quote the letter as follows:
"Deer Momy, I luv u. Lov Dubuya [sic]."
The sic makes it clear that the original letter is riddled with spelling mistakes, and they are not errors introduced by the person quoting the letter. Basically, you can use sic anytime you would like to say "what I just wrote is as it should be, I didn't make a mistake."
Slashdot Mirror
One can create great websites with a tiny sub-set of (X)HTML. Is it really too difficult to learn 10 elements? I could teach this to any kid in less than an hour. If you want to get stylish, you can learn a bit of CSS. With this solid foundation, all future progress will be forward and not backward!
You may have good habits now, but if so, the only way you got there is by unlearning bad habits and misconceptions that you gained using the likes of FrontPage (and learning from its output).
Yeah, most native English speakers can understand people who only speak pidgin English just fine, so I don't think we should expect kids to speak (remotely) correct English. It's much easier to teach them pidgin English.
If a certain sequence of bits on the disk was originally 1011010010001011101001, and it got overwritten with 0110101101010010101111, how -- barring psychics, voodoo, and fairy dust -- can the original be recovered? Simpler case: a certain bit used to be 1, it was overwritten a few times. How do I know what it was (let's say non-journaled filesystem) before being overwritten?
Maybe you meant 'partially overwritten but with a reasonable number of bits still the same'?
I routinely use XSLT to generate XML, XHTML, XSLT, Schematron, and an XML-based pipelining language, among other things -- all at runtime. It is extremely well suited for these tasks, and if the angle-bracket-averse folks had their way, I would have to use a different type of parser and transformation engine for parsing, transforming, and creating most of these languages -- including XSLT. If you're only using XSLT occasionally, or only for straight XML->XML/XHTML transformations, then I can understand initial frustration, but when you have used XSLT in more than a couple of different domains, you'll see the advantage of an XML-based serialization, for XSLT itself and also for others such as XSD or RelaxNG (try generating and manipulating DTDs at runtime if you want to see what I mean).
If you want the best of both worlds, then something like RelaxNG's RNC is a wet dream -- two serializations, one XML, one non-XML. You deal with the compact syntax, and it gets transformed into the XML syntax for the machine.
People complain about XSLT for the same reason that procedural programmers complain "Lisp sucks" or "OOP sucks" or whatever: laziness and aversion to novelty. XSLT is a great declarative (functional {if you're willing to go through contortions}) language that (in combination with XPath, and other X-technologies) is extremely well suited for manipulating XML. That's it! But isn't that enough?
Anyway, if such other sentence adverbs as strictly, thankfully, and actually are okay -- and they certainly are; I just hadn't thought of them -- then I hereby declare that hopefully is okay too, and will stop restraining myself when I sense it on my tongue.
p.s. Don't change the world-view too much! Trolls have 'serious' accounts, too ;-) Ho hum, back to work...
Also, since you seem to be a prescriptivist, I couldn't resist informing you of your incorrect use of 'hopefully.' See http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/page/page/22 5103.htm#3591 or http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/H0274100.html for more information.
The difference, of course, is that without knowing Python or Perl, the Python script is perfectly understandable without comments, and the Perl script is, well, like all Perl scripts, unreadable.
I have no trouble with this. Not as simple as short words, but still quite readable, assuming your vocabulary includes things like 'phenomenological'.
You can see the creator of the Fridrich method solve the cube here: http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/video.html
Don't forget, too, that all of those fakesters have real accounts too. Some of the most fascinating people (realsters) I've met on friendster, I have met by asking a fascinating fakester for his/her real identity -- none of them have refused. The fakesters are just creative extensions of the realster accounts -- sort of an extended 'about me'.
See the following bugzilla item for XForms support in Mozilla: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97806. There are also plugins available for some present browsers. See the implementations section of http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/ for more info.
If you only tested one alternative, guess what will go into production?
If you don't like that this will be Windows-only, go to http://www.serveusa.gov/public/aca.aspx and click on "Contact Us." If they get 10,000 emails from slashdotters, they might think twice, and it will take 3 minutes of your time.
You've never worked in tech support, have you?
The all-important question is: how does he pronounce 'nucular'? And can he tie his own shoes? If he knows how to read and write too, then that would be a big step up?
Regards,
L. Sinclair, esquire.
You may have done international business transactions on the Internet before '97, but were they computerised??
The only reason that (illegally) 'copying' music has come to be called 'stealing' music is because of the RIAA's deliberate manipulations of language. Six years ago, everybody would have referred to it as copying, which it is, so it is not too much to ask people to use the correct verb.
If you want to reflect that it is illegal, call it "illegal copying" (since some copying is legal (for backup), while some copying is illegal).
It is not only nerds that care about language not being abused and sloppy thought.
Back to surfing the web with WinME, "the greatest user os ever built".
They have different connotations. 'nuff said? mmm,kay.
No, in order to know if it's offensive or not, all that is required is that one be able to guess which is the intended answer. We all know that black features have never (in a 1960's world) been held up as the physical standard of beauty against which all others are measured, so we know that the 'correct' answer is the white girl, and we can justifiably take offense without committing the sin that you're ascribing to the parent.
Yes, that is one of my favorite Latin phrases..
Here's a helpful link for some other useful Latin words.
"Deer Momy, I luv u. Lov Dubuya [sic]."
The sic makes it clear that the original letter is riddled with spelling mistakes, and they are not errors introduced by the person quoting the letter. Basically, you can use sic anytime you would like to say "what I just wrote is as it should be, I didn't make a mistake."