It works in Safari because Apple have been readying Safari to work with HTML5 for some time.
The problem is that the demos mostly aren't using any HTML5 at all. It's all CSS3 stuff invented by Apple and stuff like that. Firefox actually has better actual HTML5 support than Safari.
What have other browser vendors being doing to get their browsers ready? Nothing? Or more slowly? Well, who's to blame if it can't be viewed in other browsers? Not Apple, is it?
The problem is that Apple are misrepresenting HTML5. They are making it look like HTML5 lacks important capabilities (why else would they hardly use any HTML5?), and like it doesn't work across browsers (why else would they block other browsers)? It all plays into the hands of Adobe and Flash.
I don't know... Those guys at the store that smiling at me and being friendly and nice are probably just doing it because they are trained to do so. But I still feel more welcome. At least they are making an effort to come across as friendly and service-minded. If I come across someone who doesn't make that effort, I feel less welcome. Of course, I always try to be as polite as possible myself. It doesn't hurt one bit to use words like "thank you", "please", "my apologies", and so on.
Random links? I posted a link to the definition of science, and the wikipedia definition for ID. I'd hardly call that 'random'.
They are random because they do nothing to support your assertion. If I tell you that "flat earth" is science, and link to the definition of science and the Wikipedia on flat earth beliefs, that doesn't make it science.
I'd then encourage you to read the ID article and weigh honestly whether or not it meets the definition.
It clearly does not. ID is denial. It's "you are wrong, we are right, but we can't explain how or why." It has no explanatory models, no research, no nothing. Even the ID leadership admit this. They insist that it is science, though, despite not meeting even the lowest criteria for being even remotely similar to science.
Even a conservative creationist judge appointed by George W. Bush on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum had to rule that ID was religion and therefore had no place in science class.
ID is relabeled creationism, as the Pandas book and its "cdesign proponentist". Actually, this is just one small piece of evidence showing the true face of ID, but it is perhaps the most amusing.
Many people believe in man made global warming... many people believe in Obama... many people believe in government to solve everything.... but that does not make it true? right?
Correct. What makes things like Evolution and Global Warming correct is that they are scientific theories backed by massive amounts of data (facts).
The point is that ID has as much rights to be there as evolution theory - any serious biologist will tell you that there so many holes in the Darwin theory and so many assumptions - that it's really very hard to call it a science at all.
They will tell you no such thing. Evolution has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny, and has become one of the strongest and most solid scientific theories there is. Quoting a liar like Meyer does not change that.
Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.
It's too bad that ID has got nothing to do with those. If you want to teach actual design theories, why mention ID at all? It brings nothing whatsoever to the table. It's pure religion.
Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories.
No, Darwin formulated a theory to explain observations he made. He did not attempt to falsify religion as such, he merely did science.
On a more atricle-related topic, I think schools should teach both ID and Evolution, and talk about the strong points of both, and the weak points of both, and lets the students make an educated decision, rather than indoctrinating them with one.
The problem here is that ID is not science. It doesn't have anything, except "Evolution is false, so there."
Do you also want kids to be taught alchemy, flat earth and wizardry to avoid indoctrinating them with actual science?
You post two random links and conclude that "ID is certainly a science". How exactly is ID a science? Please be specific. But you can't explain that, can you?
Abiogenesis has got nothing to do with Evolution. And "macroevolution" is as "proven" as any other scientific theory. In fact, scientific theories are not and never will be facts. Facts are the observations that are used to support (or invalidate) scientific theories.
I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam.
I beg to differ. While a lot of people certainly believe that life was created by God, the concept of "Intelligent Design" is that Creationism was too obviously religious, so they rebranded it and tried to make it sound all scientific.
So ID is indeed a scam. It's a movement created specifically to sneak religion into science class. To replace science with religion. Read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute.
If it hurts to drink soda, then something is wrong with you. In other words, your nonsense about how things suck can safely be ignored by people with normal mouths. Stop trying to pretend that everyone else is as fucked up as you are;)
Re:Not impressed, but here's my take
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
If all the passengers died on impact, where were the bodies?
Re:Great Until the Last 10 Minutes
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Kate, Sawyer, Ben, Hurley, etc. all did live their lives. We just didn't see it. And then they died and came to Purgatory where they met the other guys again.
Funny how a character story doesn't really tell the characters' story. What happened to Hugo, Ben, Kate, Sawyer, etc.? Oh, it doesn't matter does it? In fact, none of the island crap matters because they were all going to die anyway and live happily ever after in the afterlife.
And basically, dying had no consequences because everyone died and were happy i the afterlife!
I'm not sure they actually did. Got an actual quote?
Re:It's not all in the ending
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Spot on. The ending has ruined Lost for me. At least that's my initial reaction to it. Maybe I'll feel better about it once I think about it some more, and maybe the producers have something to say when they return from hiding.
I remember the producers of Lost saying at some point either during or at the end of the first season that the mysteries of the island would all end up being explainable scientifically.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the demos mostly aren't using any HTML5 at all. It's all CSS3 stuff invented by Apple and stuff like that. Firefox actually has better actual HTML5 support than Safari.
The problem is that Apple are misrepresenting HTML5. They are making it look like HTML5 lacks important capabilities (why else would they hardly use any HTML5?), and like it doesn't work across browsers (why else would they block other browsers)? It all plays into the hands of Adobe and Flash.
So everyone died, and the dead bodies buried themselves?
It still contradicts the "all about characters" claim.
Oh, I did hit a nerve. Poor child.
I don't know... Those guys at the store that smiling at me and being friendly and nice are probably just doing it because they are trained to do so. But I still feel more welcome. At least they are making an effort to come across as friendly and service-minded. If I come across someone who doesn't make that effort, I feel less welcome. Of course, I always try to be as polite as possible myself. It doesn't hurt one bit to use words like "thank you", "please", "my apologies", and so on.
That still doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain what actually happened.
They are random because they do nothing to support your assertion. If I tell you that "flat earth" is science, and link to the definition of science and the Wikipedia on flat earth beliefs, that doesn't make it science.
It clearly does not. ID is denial. It's "you are wrong, we are right, but we can't explain how or why." It has no explanatory models, no research, no nothing. Even the ID leadership admit this. They insist that it is science, though, despite not meeting even the lowest criteria for being even remotely similar to science.
Even a conservative creationist judge appointed by George W. Bush on recommendation from creationist senator Rick Santorum had to rule that ID was religion and therefore had no place in science class.
ID is relabeled creationism, as the Pandas book and its "cdesign proponentist". Actually, this is just one small piece of evidence showing the true face of ID, but it is perhaps the most amusing.
Correct. What makes things like Evolution and Global Warming correct is that they are scientific theories backed by massive amounts of data (facts).
They will tell you no such thing. Evolution has withstood 150 years of intense scrutiny, and has become one of the strongest and most solid scientific theories there is. Quoting a liar like Meyer does not change that.
It's too bad that ID has got nothing to do with those. If you want to teach actual design theories, why mention ID at all? It brings nothing whatsoever to the table. It's pure religion.
No, Darwin formulated a theory to explain observations he made. He did not attempt to falsify religion as such, he merely did science.
The problem here is that ID is not science. It doesn't have anything, except "Evolution is false, so there."
Do you also want kids to be taught alchemy, flat earth and wizardry to avoid indoctrinating them with actual science?
You post two random links and conclude that "ID is certainly a science". How exactly is ID a science? Please be specific. But you can't explain that, can you?
Abiogenesis has got nothing to do with Evolution. And "macroevolution" is as "proven" as any other scientific theory. In fact, scientific theories are not and never will be facts. Facts are the observations that are used to support (or invalidate) scientific theories.
I beg to differ. While a lot of people certainly believe that life was created by God, the concept of "Intelligent Design" is that Creationism was too obviously religious, so they rebranded it and tried to make it sound all scientific.
So ID is indeed a scam. It's a movement created specifically to sneak religion into science class. To replace science with religion. Read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute.
And you still don't represent everyone else. Try again.
I was about to say "surprisingly", but then realized that it isn't really that surprising after all: The Eee Pad seems to use Opera as its browser.
If it hurts to drink soda, then something is wrong with you. In other words, your nonsense about how things suck can safely be ignored by people with normal mouths. Stop trying to pretend that everyone else is as fucked up as you are ;)
Aww, hit a nerve did I?
If all the passengers died on impact, where were the bodies?
Kate, Sawyer, Ben, Hurley, etc. all did live their lives. We just didn't see it. And then they died and came to Purgatory where they met the other guys again.
No, it wasn't all a dream. It all happened, and the flash sideways was "purgatory" where all the characters ended up when they eventually died.
Hypocrisy rocks, dude!
And basically, dying had no consequences because everyone died and were happy i the afterlife!
I'm not sure they actually did. Got an actual quote?
Spot on. The ending has ruined Lost for me. At least that's my initial reaction to it. Maybe I'll feel better about it once I think about it some more, and maybe the producers have something to say when they return from hiding.
I remember the producers of Lost saying at some point either during or at the end of the first season that the mysteries of the island would all end up being explainable scientifically.