You've got it backwards. By default IE8 renders in IE7 quirks mode, not in any standards mode. If the tag isn't there, you get IE7 quirks. If it is there and it says IE6/IE7, you get quirks. Only if the tag is present and says IE8 do you get standards mode.
Technically they are not adding a non-standard tag. They are reusing the meta tag. If you take their example and dump it into an XHTML 1.0 strict document it will still pass validation and will still be standards compliant. But yes, this whole thing is such a giant cockup it makes me almost want to go over to the IE building and slap these people.
Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?
So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them? Your argument is stupid and you know it, so why bother posting it?
Initially I was going to say what the hell, but now that I think about it, the weird office icon in the top left doesn't exactly make it intuitively obvious it is a menu. It does look like some kind of pointless decoration.
Well, the Resident Evil movies, though shining jewels they are certainly not, were not suicide inducing like Uwe Boll's ventures. Silent Hill wasn't terrible either.
Computer Science isn't a science in the same way Mathematics isn't a science seeing as, you know, Computer Science is merely a subset of Mathematics...
Existed as in in the spec and in every interpreter. Those are core language features that have existed since the absolute beginning; you can't very well leave them out like you can, say, generators, since those are a Mozilla add-on in 1.6. Not to mention that no one has left them out at any point anyway.
I think you're confusing DOM level 0 stuff with Javascript anyway. Your mention of browsers pretty much seals it.
You know, everyone is always bad-mouthing Javascript, but there are only two other languages that even work similarly to it: SELF, which is a PITA to use, and io, which is a great language (and conforms better to the prototype paradigm invented by SELF). Javascript is a good bridge language between prototypes and classical OOP (as used in C++/Java/etc) that people can grasp a bit easier. Javascript also supports a number of features not supported by the big name languages, such as closures, first class functions, prototypes (obviously), and expando properties. Prototypes and expando properties add some interesting meta-programming aspects (though kind of b0rked due to the poor implementation of prototypes in Javascript).
Please, bad mouth the interpreters, which have mostly been junk (especially Microsoft's, which is abysmal), but not the language itself.
I think this is more of a case of farming out production of software to someone who actually knows the platform. Microsoft developing for Linux would be hilarious, better to let someone who knows what they are doing develop a compatible product.
Lots of talk of simulation. In other words, everything in this "relationship" is illusion, nothing is real. That's not "love", that's "simulated love". It looks and acts like it, but it's not it.
You missed the real point. The real point is that you have no idea that the other person in a relationship is actually reciprocating or giving the illusion of; in essence simulating. Because that is true, it is then actually irrelevant if the robot can only merely "simulate" as long as it is convincing enough.
Solipsism is a hilarious concept, but completely out of the realm of being disprovable. Prove that other person exists. Prove that other person loves you and just doesn't fake it convincingly.
To be fair to IE, CSS selectors are fucking retarded, and the W3C working group who came up with them ought to be taken out back and shot. XPath is perfectly workable and far more advanced and functional than the crap the CSS working group came up with.
I'd say look at Archos, but no one ever does when I say it. So I guess I just did again, and I guess once again no one will bother. Nevermind the fact that Archos devices hands down support the widest range of file formats and subscription services, operate as removable drives, and generally just rock in all ways possible.
As had been referenced a nauseatingly large number of times prior to your post, they merely need to use a free CLR memory profiler provided by Microsoft and they would have found their bug. The tools were already there, they just didn't use them. Hence, as your post is annoyingly anti-MS rhetoric with no value, it is marked a troll.
Dude, wait what? You realize that JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is nothing more than Javascript object and array literal syntax? JSON is Javascript. You can't get any more native than that. Douglas Crockford would probably be pissed you didn't know this.
The only real gripe you can possibly have is that eval()'ing JSON in Javascript is inherently unsafe, as is any use of eval(), but if that's your gripe, you need to be a bit less disingenuous (or at least get your facts straight). Write your own JSON parser in Javascript if you don't want to take the lazy man's out and use eval(), it'll take you all of 15 minutes.
The real kicker here is that JScript.NET is an implementation of an early ECMAScript4 draft. I've been wondering for the longest time why Microsoft just doesn't give a little love to JScript.NET, make sure all of the edge cases for backwards compatibility work with ECMAScript3 versions, update it to make sure it complies with the current ECMAScript4 draft, and just delegate to the.NET platform for scripting? At this point it's hard to avoid not having.NET on a Windows machine, so what the hell is the holdup? I mean, hell, if they did this they'd open up using C#, managed C++, VB.NET (eww...), and J# as scripting languages as well.
The real problem is that this patent is very simply the ultimate example of "*previously done task* on the web!" Everything about it is obvious to everyone. Let's use a bar (where you go to get drunk and fail to pick up chicks) as an example. Bar regular walks in, gets a beer. He hasn't paid yet, didn't provide any credentials, etc. Why did he get his beer? Well, isn't it obvious? He has a tab. All of his data is already known and stored (name, credit card, whatever).
I can see one obvious rebuttal to what I said above. Let's say he's not a bar regular. So he walks in, hands over his credit card, and starts a tab. This is in no way different than a new customer to Amazon starting up the process of "enrolling" in the 1-Click. There on out the guy can just grab a new beer without going through the process of providing payment details. There on out the customer can purchase something from Amazon without going through the process of provding payment details.
Anyone claiming the Amazon 1-Click patent is at all different other than the "...on the web!" part is being disengious. Amazon does not do anything different than what the bar is doing. They sell crap to someone. The fact that the medium is different is entirely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
He said 17 & 18. 17 & 18 == 16. Giggity.
You've got it backwards. By default IE8 renders in IE7 quirks mode, not in any standards mode. If the tag isn't there, you get IE7 quirks. If it is there and it says IE6/IE7, you get quirks. Only if the tag is present and says IE8 do you get standards mode.
Technically they are not adding a non-standard tag. They are reusing the meta tag. If you take their example and dump it into an XHTML 1.0 strict document it will still pass validation and will still be standards compliant. But yes, this whole thing is such a giant cockup it makes me almost want to go over to the IE building and slap these people.
If it dances like a Tauren I'll uphold it as my new god.
So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them? Your argument is stupid and you know it, so why bother posting it?
Initially I was going to say what the hell, but now that I think about it, the weird office icon in the top left doesn't exactly make it intuitively obvious it is a menu. It does look like some kind of pointless decoration.
And yet, somehow, Microsoft has a rather laid-back work environment...
Well, the Resident Evil movies, though shining jewels they are certainly not, were not suicide inducing like Uwe Boll's ventures. Silent Hill wasn't terrible either.
Computer Science isn't a science in the same way Mathematics isn't a science seeing as, you know, Computer Science is merely a subset of Mathematics...
Existed as in in the spec and in every interpreter. Those are core language features that have existed since the absolute beginning; you can't very well leave them out like you can, say, generators, since those are a Mozilla add-on in 1.6. Not to mention that no one has left them out at any point anyway.
I think you're confusing DOM level 0 stuff with Javascript anyway. Your mention of browsers pretty much seals it.
All of those language features have existed since the first version of Javascript.
You know, everyone is always bad-mouthing Javascript, but there are only two other languages that even work similarly to it: SELF, which is a PITA to use, and io, which is a great language (and conforms better to the prototype paradigm invented by SELF). Javascript is a good bridge language between prototypes and classical OOP (as used in C++/Java/etc) that people can grasp a bit easier. Javascript also supports a number of features not supported by the big name languages, such as closures, first class functions, prototypes (obviously), and expando properties. Prototypes and expando properties add some interesting meta-programming aspects (though kind of b0rked due to the poor implementation of prototypes in Javascript).
Please, bad mouth the interpreters, which have mostly been junk (especially Microsoft's, which is abysmal), but not the language itself.
Welcome to expando properties (well, just called slots in SELF) and prototypes, circa early 80s.
Wait, Adobe owns the web currently?
Err...well, there's Moonlight, which is Silverlight...
I think this is more of a case of farming out production of software to someone who actually knows the platform. Microsoft developing for Linux would be hilarious, better to let someone who knows what they are doing develop a compatible product.
Lots of talk of simulation. In other words, everything in this "relationship" is illusion, nothing is real. That's not "love", that's "simulated love". It looks and acts like it, but it's not it.
You missed the real point. The real point is that you have no idea that the other person in a relationship is actually reciprocating or giving the illusion of; in essence simulating. Because that is true, it is then actually irrelevant if the robot can only merely "simulate" as long as it is convincing enough.
Solipsism is a hilarious concept, but completely out of the realm of being disprovable. Prove that other person exists. Prove that other person loves you and just doesn't fake it convincingly.
To be fair to IE, CSS selectors are fucking retarded, and the W3C working group who came up with them ought to be taken out back and shot. XPath is perfectly workable and far more advanced and functional than the crap the CSS working group came up with.
I'd say look at Archos, but no one ever does when I say it. So I guess I just did again, and I guess once again no one will bother. Nevermind the fact that Archos devices hands down support the widest range of file formats and subscription services, operate as removable drives, and generally just rock in all ways possible.
Microsoft doesn't even manufacture the Zune. If you don't like the hardware, bitch at Toshiba; it's just a rebranded Toshiba product.
Just use Silverlight or Flash.
As had been referenced a nauseatingly large number of times prior to your post, they merely need to use a free CLR memory profiler provided by Microsoft and they would have found their bug. The tools were already there, they just didn't use them. Hence, as your post is annoyingly anti-MS rhetoric with no value, it is marked a troll.
Tada!
* No native JSON and many more...
Dude, wait what? You realize that JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is nothing more than Javascript object and array literal syntax? JSON is Javascript. You can't get any more native than that. Douglas Crockford would probably be pissed you didn't know this.
The only real gripe you can possibly have is that eval()'ing JSON in Javascript is inherently unsafe, as is any use of eval(), but if that's your gripe, you need to be a bit less disingenuous (or at least get your facts straight). Write your own JSON parser in Javascript if you don't want to take the lazy man's out and use eval(), it'll take you all of 15 minutes.
The real kicker here is that JScript.NET is an implementation of an early ECMAScript4 draft. I've been wondering for the longest time why Microsoft just doesn't give a little love to JScript.NET, make sure all of the edge cases for backwards compatibility work with ECMAScript3 versions, update it to make sure it complies with the current ECMAScript4 draft, and just delegate to the .NET platform for scripting? At this point it's hard to avoid not having .NET on a Windows machine, so what the hell is the holdup? I mean, hell, if they did this they'd open up using C#, managed C++, VB.NET (eww...), and J# as scripting languages as well.
Haha, CAPTCHA is shames.
The real problem is that this patent is very simply the ultimate example of "*previously done task* on the web!" Everything about it is obvious to everyone. Let's use a bar (where you go to get drunk and fail to pick up chicks) as an example. Bar regular walks in, gets a beer. He hasn't paid yet, didn't provide any credentials, etc. Why did he get his beer? Well, isn't it obvious? He has a tab. All of his data is already known and stored (name, credit card, whatever).
I can see one obvious rebuttal to what I said above. Let's say he's not a bar regular. So he walks in, hands over his credit card, and starts a tab. This is in no way different than a new customer to Amazon starting up the process of "enrolling" in the 1-Click. There on out the guy can just grab a new beer without going through the process of providing payment details. There on out the customer can purchase something from Amazon without going through the process of provding payment details.
Anyone claiming the Amazon 1-Click patent is at all different other than the "...on the web!" part is being disengious. Amazon does not do anything different than what the bar is doing. They sell crap to someone. The fact that the medium is different is entirely irrelevant.