Or you can stick to features that work in all browsers. Just because all browsers don't support all of HTML5 doesn't mean you should avoid HTML5 completely. It's simply not black or white.
IE always seems to have more problems than other browsers. We've seen it recently with IE7's and IE8's low scores on Acid3, which Microsoft is finally fixing in IE9. Right now, the most current stable release of nearly every browser scores 90/100 or above on Acid3, but IE8 still scores 20/100, lagging far behind everyone else. Similarly, IE9 is lagging behind on HTML5 features compared to other browsers. So, yes, every browser has problems with HTML5, but we can expect IE to have more problems than other browsers do for years to come.
It's not black or white. CSS doesn't work everywhere, in the sense that if you write CSS the way web design books explain, much CSS won't work in IE6 and IE7. If you wait until all HTML5 features work on all browsers, you'll be waiting a very, very long time.
Acid tests are not useless, but they are certainly not the best measure for how standards compliant a browser is. The company who makes the browser can choose to implement the features on the Acid test and not the features that are not tested by the test.
In this case, IE9 gets 95/100 on Acid3. But Acid3 tests only standards what were written in 2004 and doesn't cover HTML5. So although IE9 gets a good score on Acid3, it says nothing about how well IE9 implements HTML5, which Acid3 doesn't test.
Acid tests are not useless, but you have to understand what they're testing before you can interpret the results of a test. If you see a high score on an Acid test and conclude the browser has good support for standards all around, you're misinterpreting the results.
The parallel to my post is that reminding the OP of the information he wants to be kept private points out the flaw in his argument that no information should be private.
Interesting. I just went to ask.com and typed in a term and it gave me a list of web pages as search results. Why do you say Ask doesn't do web searches any more?
How does smaller number of users leaving FF in favor of Chrome equate to Mozilla struggling? They seem to be doing great. If they started having unprofitable quarters, perhaps someone could say that Mozilla is struggling, but not because they've lost some amount of usage share. In fact, I think they have more users and are making more profit than ever. (The usage share can drop even as they gain more users because there are more people using the Internet every month.) They're hardly struggling.
Google backs Firefox because Firefox uses Google as the default search engine. If Google stops backing Firefox, Firefox may switch to another default search engine, and Google would lose money because its ads will get fewer hits.
Besides, if what Google wants is strong browsers for which to develop complex applications, the best way to achieve that is through competition between differing browsers. Chrome must improve because there are some things that Firefox does better, and Firefox must improve because there are some things Chrome does better. The end result is that everyone benefits. I don't think even Google believes that going all out on developing Chrome is the way to make Chrome best.
The company has been struggling? It seems to me they're doing very well. Perhaps they've lost 1-2% usage share over the past two years, but Chrome is mostly stealing share from IE, not Firefox. Firefox share is holding steady at between 20 to 30%.
What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts. Obama agreed to work with Republicans, but if they dig their feet in and say they refuse to cooperate, what can he do? At least when the house and senate had Democratic majorities he could simply ignore them, but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do either.
It's not as simple as that. The traffic is encrypted only during one part of the way from your computer to the server, so cookies can be sniffed anywhere from the wireless router to the server. But it is as simple as using HTTPS. Then all traffic is encrypted all the way from your computer to the server, and you also have the stronger guarantee that your computer is talking to the server you think it is, so you cookies cannot be sniffed by third parties. StartSSL offers free SSL certificates to allow any site to encrypt all of its traffic.
No, no one has has bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis. I'm so glad someone finally thought of it. Thanks so much for your valuable insight!
Glancing at the last paragraph of your post, the main reason warming is bad is that rising sea levels will put many cities underwater, and relocating the hundreds of millions of people that live there will cost trillions of dollars. This has been explained again and again, but it's awfully hard to hear when you've got your fingers in your ears shouting "Blah Blah Blah! I can't hear you!!!"
I guess it's like this when there's a truth that's too uncomfortable to bear. It's like discussing evolution with a fundamentalist. They'll twist everything around and around, even though evolution is incredibly simple and obvious once you understand it. The whole AGW "debate" has been muddied with misinformation from those who don't want to admit it's happening, so it all seems far more complicated than it really is.
The problem is that many coastal cities will have to adjust to being underwater. It will be an expensive adjustment to make. Perhaps we could spend some money now to prevent the problem so we don't have to spend lots of money later to deal with the problem.
When AGW deniers claim that it's hopeless to cut carbon dioxide emissions because it relies on every country doing so, I propose this idea. Of course, it's instantly shot down as also being obviously hopeless by those same deniers. It seems like it would work to me.
As far as growing forests to take up CO2 goes, that won't do much good. When the trees die and rot the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down and bury them so the carbon is sequestered. Still, it's an inefficient way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are artificial chemical processes that are about 1000 times more efficient than plants, although these have not been proven to scale up or be cost effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can stick to features that work in all browsers. Just because all browsers don't support all of HTML5 doesn't mean you should avoid HTML5 completely. It's simply not black or white.
IE always seems to have more problems than other browsers. We've seen it recently with IE7's and IE8's low scores on Acid3, which Microsoft is finally fixing in IE9. Right now, the most current stable release of nearly every browser scores 90/100 or above on Acid3, but IE8 still scores 20/100, lagging far behind everyone else. Similarly, IE9 is lagging behind on HTML5 features compared to other browsers. So, yes, every browser has problems with HTML5, but we can expect IE to have more problems than other browsers do for years to come.
It's not black or white. CSS doesn't work everywhere, in the sense that if you write CSS the way web design books explain, much CSS won't work in IE6 and IE7. If you wait until all HTML5 features work on all browsers, you'll be waiting a very, very long time.
Acid tests are not useless, but they are certainly not the best measure for how standards compliant a browser is. The company who makes the browser can choose to implement the features on the Acid test and not the features that are not tested by the test.
In this case, IE9 gets 95/100 on Acid3. But Acid3 tests only standards what were written in 2004 and doesn't cover HTML5. So although IE9 gets a good score on Acid3, it says nothing about how well IE9 implements HTML5, which Acid3 doesn't test.
Acid tests are not useless, but you have to understand what they're testing before you can interpret the results of a test. If you see a high score on an Acid test and conclude the browser has good support for standards all around, you're misinterpreting the results.
The parallel to my post is that reminding the OP of the information he wants to be kept private points out the flaw in his argument that no information should be private.
They can get your password as you send it to the router, even though the password is encrypted.
So you'll have no problem posting all your passwords, social security number, bank account numbers, and so on publicly, then. Right?
Well, duh! They'll trace your IP and the consequences will never be the same!
Interesting. I just went to ask.com and typed in a term and it gave me a list of web pages as search results. Why do you say Ask doesn't do web searches any more?
Google is closest to a monopoly in terms of search engines, not browsers. Their competition in the search space is Bing (Microsoft), Yahoo, and Ask.
How does smaller number of users leaving FF in favor of Chrome equate to Mozilla struggling? They seem to be doing great. If they started having unprofitable quarters, perhaps someone could say that Mozilla is struggling, but not because they've lost some amount of usage share. In fact, I think they have more users and are making more profit than ever. (The usage share can drop even as they gain more users because there are more people using the Internet every month.) They're hardly struggling.
Google backs Firefox because Firefox uses Google as the default search engine. If Google stops backing Firefox, Firefox may switch to another default search engine, and Google would lose money because its ads will get fewer hits.
Besides, if what Google wants is strong browsers for which to develop complex applications, the best way to achieve that is through competition between differing browsers. Chrome must improve because there are some things that Firefox does better, and Firefox must improve because there are some things Chrome does better. The end result is that everyone benefits. I don't think even Google believes that going all out on developing Chrome is the way to make Chrome best.
The company has been struggling? It seems to me they're doing very well. Perhaps they've lost 1-2% usage share over the past two years, but Chrome is mostly stealing share from IE, not Firefox. Firefox share is holding steady at between 20 to 30%.
That's why I use GNU Savannah for all my services. Oh, wait...
What do you want Obama to do about it? It's up to the people to not vote for politicians that pull those stunts. Obama agreed to work with Republicans, but if they dig their feet in and say they refuse to cooperate, what can he do? At least when the house and senate had Democratic majorities he could simply ignore them, but apparently that wasn't the right thing to do either.
Get serious. There's a doubleplusgood reason we've always been at war with Eurasia.
It's not as simple as that. The traffic is encrypted only during one part of the way from your computer to the server, so cookies can be sniffed anywhere from the wireless router to the server. But it is as simple as using HTTPS. Then all traffic is encrypted all the way from your computer to the server, and you also have the stronger guarantee that your computer is talking to the server you think it is, so you cookies cannot be sniffed by third parties. StartSSL offers free SSL certificates to allow any site to encrypt all of its traffic.
No, no one has has bothered to do a cost-benefit analysis. I'm so glad someone finally thought of it. Thanks so much for your valuable insight!
Glancing at the last paragraph of your post, the main reason warming is bad is that rising sea levels will put many cities underwater, and relocating the hundreds of millions of people that live there will cost trillions of dollars. This has been explained again and again, but it's awfully hard to hear when you've got your fingers in your ears shouting "Blah Blah Blah! I can't hear you!!!"
I guess it's like this when there's a truth that's too uncomfortable to bear. It's like discussing evolution with a fundamentalist. They'll twist everything around and around, even though evolution is incredibly simple and obvious once you understand it. The whole AGW "debate" has been muddied with misinformation from those who don't want to admit it's happening, so it all seems far more complicated than it really is.
Yes, explaining the joke to someone when it doesn't make sense is all it takes. I wasn't offended. It just didn't make sense. Now it makes sense.
Oh, okay, it makes sense when you explain it that way.
Gee, I'm just explaining what seems to be incredibly obvious to me, and seems to get lost in all the denial about the issue.
Why would you be modded troll for posting the truth? You're being modded a troll for trolling, as I've explained.
The problem is that many coastal cities will have to adjust to being underwater. It will be an expensive adjustment to make. Perhaps we could spend some money now to prevent the problem so we don't have to spend lots of money later to deal with the problem.
When AGW deniers claim that it's hopeless to cut carbon dioxide emissions because it relies on every country doing so, I propose this idea. Of course, it's instantly shot down as also being obviously hopeless by those same deniers. It seems like it would work to me.
As far as growing forests to take up CO2 goes, that won't do much good. When the trees die and rot the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down and bury them so the carbon is sequestered. Still, it's an inefficient way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There are artificial chemical processes that are about 1000 times more efficient than plants, although these have not been proven to scale up or be cost effective.