They usually mean "I'm the exception, so I don't have to follow the rules". Politicians seem to use it a lot in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
We waste man hours making you think that you're using a "Superior product", and boy do we hate it.
Damn right. Over the past year I've tried to move towards telling corporate clients that "Unfortunately, getting that to work on your corporate standard of IE will take a week; the demo I showed you was on Firefox, only took half a day". OK, maybe more tactfully than that, but the message has to be got through somehow...
Microsoft says that it will only support standards if their customers ask for it, and by "customers" they mean corporations, not the poor sods who are forced to buy Windows with their PC. If I can get at least some of my corporate clients making enough noise to their IT departments, maybe some of it will eventually filter through to Redmond.
If anybody's wondering where I get the stuff about MS helping corporate clients, have a look at the IE Blog, answering the question "What have you guys been doing since IE6":
Many of the people who had worked closely with our corporate customers focused primarily on servicing. For example, large organizations en route to phasing out legacy systems (e.g. accounting, transaction processing, factory floor manufacturing) ask Microsoft for specialized, "one-off" changes in IE to get that legacy system to work with Windows.
If General Motors demanded that IE give them the same level of standards compliance as Firefox provides, IE would be fixed in a matter of weeks.
you say "background: color" rather than "background-color"
Well, I think on/. you could cut him some slack on a typo, given that you missed capitalisation of your third sentence;-)
To answer your questions:
IE doesn't support:hover on anything other than links (defined as <a> elements with a non-empty href attribute);
#eee is a perfectly acceptable colour specification in CSS, being automatically expanded to #eeeeee. See the CSS 1 standard, paragraph 4, sentence 2 (stuff in fixed-width not counting as a paragraph).
I'll accept that very light grey isn't a well-thought out colour if the page has a #fff background...
Channel five's site is always that slow. Don't know if it's anything to do with them using ASP.NET, but it's not uncommon for a page to take over a minute to load - and that's on the "accessibility" text-only version (which for some reason has loads of graphics on it).
Re:Code can't be too big, just badly designed
on
Too Darned Big to Test?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For those who didn't RTFA, the parent post is talking complete nonsense when claiming that "it is basically saying that exaustive (?sp) testing can't be done on a large codebase, and random testing is all you can use".
Headings from the article include:
Good unit testing (including good input selection)
Good design (including dependency analysis)
Good static checking (including model property checking)
Concurrency testing
Use code coverage to help select and prioritize tests
Use customer usage data
Choose configuration interactions with all-pairs
All in all, it's a good article, and may go some way to explaining why MS's XML component actually works (I write code to it all day, every day).
The idea is to create a virtual being that can... let the plumber into the house while its owner enjoys a pleasant afternoon in the sun.
Now, am I really going to trust a Microsoft security system to ascertain that it really is the plumber, rather than some smackhead from down the street?
No, the UK allows nude shots of 16 year olds - that's how the tabloids (Sun, Star et al.) get away with Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17.
A few years ago, Private Eye (UK news/satire magazine) pointed out that the Daily Star had run a boob shot of a model who it claimed was 16 on the day of publication. Ergo, she must have been 15 or under at the time the photograph, and the photo was illegal. I didn't hear of the police doing anything about it, but you can't believe anything you read in the Star anyway; she was probably about 34...
Cut the shit asshole. Google has single handededly ignored sites' content in favour of the amount of links to it, and their value according to Google's secret algorithm, thus initiating a whole new wave of link farms and redirects upon an unsuspecting public.
I was going to mod this down, but there doesn't seem to be a "-1 Ignorant Buffoon"...
Well, I've been 5849 for years now. Anyway, it wouldn't exactly be disastrous if my/. password was compromised - it's not like you could get into my bank with it or anything... oh shit.
I would also expect that as part of the pre-planning for the show that PAFs would be required to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Not so, at least in the UK. My brother was on the show here last year, and I was a PAF. He entered the competition on Friday, got his second question by phone on the Saturday, was confirmed as appearing (by phone) on the following Wednesday lunchtime, and the show was recorded Friday evening. I was phoned by him early Friday afternoon to be told the rules (no asking anybody else, no googling, basically what you'd expect); then the studio phoned me at 19:55 to tell me he'd got into the hot seat and confirm that he'd told me the rules. At no point did I ever have to sign anything, and although he was supposed to keep things quiet to avoid advance press coverage, no duty of confidentiality was ever imposed on me. There simply isn't time; he had less than 48 hours from being told he was on the show to phone round all 5 PAFs, confirming we were free, before giving our numbers to the production staff 5 hours before recording started.
FWIW, my brother was on the UK Millionaire last year, winning GBP250,000. Don't know how it works in the States, but the cheque he was given by the host (Chris Tarrant) in the studio was the real thing; he just had to wait for the broadcast date to cash it, as that was the date on the cheque.
The only reason he had to wait a couple of weeks was that they were recording a few weeks ahead, as Tarrant was going on holiday for a month. But as I say, YMMV over in the US.
FUD. Microsoft left one working group, which deals with Web Services; that is what your second link refers to. Microsoft are still members of the W3C's CSS Working Group (and quite a few others). And as far as prior art goes, the method described in the patent is basically the same as the way Microsoft Word applies styles, which potentially dates back to 1983.
...the mandate to shut down websites promoted through spam, even if junk mail messages are sent through a third-party or over a different network
In other words, no matter how the spam for getcheapviagra.co.uk is distributed, getcheapviagra.co.uk is going to be denied hosting by LINX members. Ergo, they can't sell anything.
Obviously they can host their site offshore, hence the additional comment in TFA that "...the success of this new initiative depends on LINX pressuring ISPs overseas into adopting more rigorous practices". It may only be a first step, but every little helps...
I don't know what the law in the States is like, but in the UK, these people make out a good case for slot machines being rigged. In brief, they use an emulator which will run fruit machine code, allowing you to play until you get a gamble, lose, go back to the saved machine state before the gamble, choose the alternative option and... lose again!
Well I know someone who's getting a G5 with 30 inch cinema, and can also afford a 25 thousand dollar car. But he's spending the money on having a new kitchen fitted instead.
Slashdot Mirror
They usually mean "I'm the exception, so I don't have to follow the rules". Politicians seem to use it a lot in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Well, as long as you don't mind the other person also understanding that you are either a dunderhead or too lazy to communicate correctly...
Damn right. Over the past year I've tried to move towards telling corporate clients that "Unfortunately, getting that to work on your corporate standard of IE will take a week; the demo I showed you was on Firefox, only took half a day". OK, maybe more tactfully than that, but the message has to be got through somehow...
Microsoft says that it will only support standards if their customers ask for it, and by "customers" they mean corporations, not the poor sods who are forced to buy Windows with their PC. If I can get at least some of my corporate clients making enough noise to their IT departments, maybe some of it will eventually filter through to Redmond.
If anybody's wondering where I get the stuff about MS helping corporate clients, have a look at the IE Blog, answering the question "What have you guys been doing since IE6":
If General Motors demanded that IE give them the same level of standards compliance as Firefox provides, IE would be fixed in a matter of weeks.
Well, I think on /. you could cut him some slack on a typo, given that you missed capitalisation of your third sentence ;-)
To answer your questions:
I'll accept that very light grey isn't a well-thought out colour if the page has a #fff background...
Like Nazi Cheerleaders in Colour?
Channel five's site is always that slow. Don't know if it's anything to do with them using ASP.NET, but it's not uncommon for a page to take over a minute to load - and that's on the "accessibility" text-only version (which for some reason has loads of graphics on it).
For those who didn't RTFA, the parent post is talking complete nonsense when claiming that "it is basically saying that exaustive (?sp) testing can't be done on a large codebase, and random testing is all you can use".
Headings from the article include:
All in all, it's a good article, and may go some way to explaining why MS's XML component actually works (I write code to it all day, every day).
Now, am I really going to trust a Microsoft security system to ascertain that it really is the plumber, rather than some smackhead from down the street?
No, the UK allows nude shots of 16 year olds - that's how the tabloids (Sun, Star et al.) get away with Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17.
A few years ago, Private Eye (UK news/satire magazine) pointed out that the Daily Star had run a boob shot of a model who it claimed was 16 on the day of publication. Ergo, she must have been 15 or under at the time the photograph, and the photo was illegal. I didn't hear of the police doing anything about it, but you can't believe anything you read in the Star anyway; she was probably about 34...
I was going to mod this down, but there doesn't seem to be a "-1 Ignorant Buffoon"...
Well, I've been 5849 for years now. Anyway, it wouldn't exactly be disastrous if my /. password was compromised - it's not like you could get into my bank with it or anything... oh shit.
Not so, at least in the UK. My brother was on the show here last year, and I was a PAF. He entered the competition on Friday, got his second question by phone on the Saturday, was confirmed as appearing (by phone) on the following Wednesday lunchtime, and the show was recorded Friday evening. I was phoned by him early Friday afternoon to be told the rules (no asking anybody else, no googling, basically what you'd expect); then the studio phoned me at 19:55 to tell me he'd got into the hot seat and confirm that he'd told me the rules. At no point did I ever have to sign anything, and although he was supposed to keep things quiet to avoid advance press coverage, no duty of confidentiality was ever imposed on me. There simply isn't time; he had less than 48 hours from being told he was on the show to phone round all 5 PAFs, confirming we were free, before giving our numbers to the production staff 5 hours before recording started.
FWIW, my brother was on the UK Millionaire last year, winning GBP250,000. Don't know how it works in the States, but the cheque he was given by the host (Chris Tarrant) in the studio was the real thing; he just had to wait for the broadcast date to cash it, as that was the date on the cheque.
The only reason he had to wait a couple of weeks was that they were recording a few weeks ahead, as Tarrant was going on holiday for a month. But as I say, YMMV over in the US.
While you read Slashdot... nice one!
Strange idea of fun some people have...
FUD. Microsoft left one working group, which deals with Web Services; that is what your second link refers to. Microsoft are still members of the W3C's CSS Working Group (and quite a few others). And as far as prior art goes, the method described in the patent is basically the same as the way Microsoft Word applies styles, which potentially dates back to 1983.
That's no way to talk about President Bush... oh, hang on...
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12. 2
Unless the first bus is a 1 or 2, presumably...
RTFA:
In other words, no matter how the spam for getcheapviagra.co.uk is distributed, getcheapviagra.co.uk is going to be denied hosting by LINX members. Ergo, they can't sell anything.
Obviously they can host their site offshore, hence the additional comment in TFA that "...the success of this new initiative depends on LINX pressuring ISPs overseas into adopting more rigorous practices". It may only be a first step, but every little helps...
Never lived in the UK then? Maybe it's just in the US that the taxpayer pays for you to get a license...
I don't know what the law in the States is like, but in the UK, these people make out a good case for slot machines being rigged. In brief, they use an emulator which will run fruit machine code, allowing you to play until you get a gamble, lose, go back to the saved machine state before the gamble, choose the alternative option and... lose again!
When you get to my age, the present is a very alien place...
Well I know someone who's getting a G5 with 30 inch cinema, and can also afford a 25 thousand dollar car. But he's spending the money on having a new kitchen fitted instead.
I assume that the Googlebot can't be bothered to register ;-)