Books for you: Three Minute Therapy and Learned Optimism. The latter argues that you still might need meds for being bipolar, though. But otherwise, they might really help.
I'm in Germany and bought my "T-Mobile G1" unlocked - which appears to be the default here. I use it via Vodafone. My Android updates come from T-Mobile, though - if I'm on WLAN.
I'm lactose intolerant, too, but I don't like drinking milk. Suppose you get a problem from the salami pizza, then try the veggy pizza without problems. It can't be lactose then, because both pizzas had cheese, right? It was the salami then, right? Yes - because in many cases, for reasons beyond me, they put lactose into salami - while most types of yellow cheese contain barely any lactose. They put lactose in everything else though, where you don't expect it, so diagnosing LI is really not that easy.
BTW: Digestive Advantage really helps, I ordered it to Germany because it's not really known or easily available here.
I think the idea of a spontaneous generation of our universe is hard enough to believe. Adding a mystical creator to the mix just shifts the doubt to the creation of the creator - i.e. if there is a God, who created him/her? It doesn't make the whole thing any easier to belief, so why bother?
I'm still wondering whether it's not possible to trick AdBlock. This idea came to me while working on a website. Their was a sample ad image where the ads in the final page should be, which I only noticed when viewing the page in IE to test. There simply was some "ad" string in the path, therefore it was not displayed - why not do that for all other images as well? You might be able to screw up the layout so badly that user's have to turn off Adblock in order to be able to use the page at all.
"Nevertheless, while the standard makes more sense as it is, I more often want to set the width including padding and border, like my GP."
So the standard makes sense, but most of the time you use it the other way? Okay.
I can see why you are confused by this.:)
I guess why I have the feeling that the standard makes sense this way is because after inner width, there comes nothing, but after outer width, there still comes the margin. So they chose the tightest end, if you set the inner width to 300px you're going to have 300px inside, period. If you set the outer width to 300px then there might still be a margin that might get rendered God knows how. It's really just a feeling. And yet, of course most of the time I want to set the outer width, because I am the designer. The content guy on the other hand could make more sense out of 300px inside width than of 286px or something.
Nevertheless, the best point for your argument is probably that with IE's box model, "width:100%" works, with the W3C's box model, it's practically unusable once there is a border or padding. Or is there something like "100%-14px"?
There are many, many ways of doing CSS using templates.
Why would anyone not want to apply the same styling rules to every paragraph in a document? CSS reduces duplication of formatting code (a nice side-effect of seperating content and presentation), but does not offer many ways to reduce duplication in the rules needed to do so. In most designs you will define a set of colors, border widths, etc. and apply them to more than one element, so it would be quite straightforward for a styling standard to define them centrally and make them reusable later in the same file and, thus, easier to change. It's the same thing on a different level. If you have a template system, you don't *really* need CSS in the first place, just define a variable with a bunch of font attributes and the like and insert them into every <p> you're outputting.
If you know better then you are already using Firefox. However if you don't know better, you are about to get Safari free with your iPod.
That might also be a good thing for Firefox. That way, some users switch their browsers for the first time in their life which makes the next time less hard. So they use Safari for a while, talk about their browser choice (which they normally wouldn't do) and get to hear that there's an even better browser: Firefox. Might lead to another switch, this time to Firefox.
I downloaded it twice, the first time because I was excited to be able to test my websites with Safari without spending money on overpriced Apple hardware, and the second time because Heise announced an update, which unfortunately didn't suck much less. Mozilla in its pre-1.0 days displayed websites more reliably than this so-called "beta". Most importantly, it displayed all the text, even if maybe at different places than intendent, even for non-English users.
There are times when you want to have exactly 300px on the inside and there are times when you want to have exactly 300px on the outside (e.g. if you are on the inside of that first box!). IE sucks for breaking the standard, but the standard sucks as well, for not providing enough choices. Nevertheless, while the standard makes more sense as it is, I more often want to set the width including padding and border, like my GP.
Other things I miss are relative widths related to elements that are not obviously related (i.e. not a child or a parent or direct sibling), like "as wide as the box with the ID xyz", while of course the width of that box xyz is dynamic.
Designing with CSS is much more cruel than in the good ol' days when we could use tables. Then again, that's also the fault of IE for not supporting table-layout. Damn you, richest company in the world! DAMN YOU!
Gnome's Clearlooks is very slick and pretty. I liked it best from all the alternatives that are installed by default (Ubuntu Hoary) and I am happy to see it become the default for Gnome 2.12. Though I had to recompile it to not use animated progress bars - they made x.org use 10-15% of my CPU instead of 1-4% (using a good ol' Athlon 700).
Once compiled, a JSP may actually respond faster than PHP without a compiler cache. A delay should only occur when the file is accessed for the first time. Which is usually done by the developer, though that surely makes me favour PHP over JSP. Having to wait a couple of seconds everytime you make a change sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
No, wait.
I haven't laughed this hard lately, thank you very much. :)
Care to share the name of that condition?
Books for you: Three Minute Therapy and Learned Optimism. The latter argues that you still might need meds for being bipolar, though. But otherwise, they might really help.
I'm in Germany and bought my "T-Mobile G1" unlocked - which appears to be the default here. I use it via Vodafone. My Android updates come from T-Mobile, though - if I'm on WLAN.
Would you be willing to tell more about that emotional pain? What happened?
I'm lactose intolerant, too, but I don't like drinking milk. Suppose you get a problem from the salami pizza, then try the veggy pizza without problems. It can't be lactose then, because both pizzas had cheese, right? It was the salami then, right? Yes - because in many cases, for reasons beyond me, they put lactose into salami - while most types of yellow cheese contain barely any lactose. They put lactose in everything else though, where you don't expect it, so diagnosing LI is really not that easy.
BTW: Digestive Advantage really helps, I ordered it to Germany because it's not really known or easily available here.
And with Google owning YouTube, they might just have a platform to promote its usage. Interesting thought, indeed.
I'd like to see a bot that tries to recognize the 3D shapes and crashes (or loops infinitely) if you feed it an impossible triangle. :)
I think the idea of a spontaneous generation of our universe is hard enough to believe. Adding a mystical creator to the mix just shifts the doubt to the creation of the creator - i.e. if there is a God, who created him/her? It doesn't make the whole thing any easier to belief, so why bother?
Panzer = tank
Panzerung = armor
I'm still wondering whether it's not possible to trick AdBlock. This idea came to me while working on a website. Their was a sample ad image where the ads in the final page should be, which I only noticed when viewing the page in IE to test. There simply was some "ad" string in the path, therefore it was not displayed - why not do that for all other images as well? You might be able to screw up the layout so badly that user's have to turn off Adblock in order to be able to use the page at all.
I can see why you are confused by this. :)
I guess why I have the feeling that the standard makes sense this way is because after inner width, there comes nothing, but after outer width, there still comes the margin. So they chose the tightest end, if you set the inner width to 300px you're going to have 300px inside, period. If you set the outer width to 300px then there might still be a margin that might get rendered God knows how. It's really just a feeling. And yet, of course most of the time I want to set the outer width, because I am the designer. The content guy on the other hand could make more sense out of 300px inside width than of 286px or something.
Nevertheless, the best point for your argument is probably that with IE's box model, "width:100%" works, with the W3C's box model, it's practically unusable once there is a border or padding. Or is there something like "100%-14px"?
Why would anyone not want to apply the same styling rules to every paragraph in a document? CSS reduces duplication of formatting code (a nice side-effect of seperating content and presentation), but does not offer many ways to reduce duplication in the rules needed to do so. In most designs you will define a set of colors, border widths, etc. and apply them to more than one element, so it would be quite straightforward for a styling standard to define them centrally and make them reusable later in the same file and, thus, easier to change. It's the same thing on a different level. If you have a template system, you don't *really* need CSS in the first place, just define a variable with a bunch of font attributes and the like and insert them into every <p> you're outputting.
That might also be a good thing for Firefox. That way, some users switch their browsers for the first time in their life which makes the next time less hard. So they use Safari for a while, talk about their browser choice (which they normally wouldn't do) and get to hear that there's an even better browser: Firefox. Might lead to another switch, this time to Firefox.
According to Heise this happens on non-English versions on Windows (like mine - he's right).
You misspelled "bugs".
I downloaded it twice, the first time because I was excited to be able to test my websites with Safari without spending money on overpriced Apple hardware, and the second time because Heise announced an update, which unfortunately didn't suck much less. Mozilla in its pre-1.0 days displayed websites more reliably than this so-called "beta". Most importantly, it displayed all the text, even if maybe at different places than intendent, even for non-English users.
You guys are both right.
There are times when you want to have exactly 300px on the inside and there are times when you want to have exactly 300px on the outside (e.g. if you are on the inside of that first box!). IE sucks for breaking the standard, but the standard sucks as well, for not providing enough choices.
Nevertheless, while the standard makes more sense as it is, I more often want to set the width including padding and border, like my GP.
Other things I miss are relative widths related to elements that are not obviously related (i.e. not a child or a parent or direct sibling), like "as wide as the box with the ID xyz", while of course the width of that box xyz is dynamic.
And something like:
$color1 = #990000;
$color2 = #FFFFFF;
something { color: $color1; }
something_else { background-color: $color1; $color: $color2; }
Designing with CSS is much more cruel than in the good ol' days when we could use tables. Then again, that's also the fault of IE for not supporting table-layout. Damn you, richest company in the world! DAMN YOU!
Gnome's Clearlooks is very slick and pretty. I liked it best from all the alternatives that are installed by default (Ubuntu Hoary) and I am happy to see it become the default for Gnome 2.12. Though I had to recompile it to not use animated progress bars - they made x.org use 10-15% of my CPU instead of 1-4% (using a good ol' Athlon 700).
> So a dimenson where geeks bathe regularly and can make eye contact with a woman
> when talking to her, then?
I...
[X] bathe regularly
[X] can make eye contact with a woman when talking to her
[ ] do have a girlfriend
So please, what did you leave out?
Personally, I'd like to see it looking like a rocket launcher. Of course this wouldn't help him.
Once compiled, a JSP may actually respond faster than PHP without a compiler cache. A delay should only occur when the file is accessed for the first time. Which is usually done by the developer, though that surely makes me favour PHP over JSP. Having to wait a couple of seconds everytime you make a change sucks.