IE will use the W3C box model if you include an appropriate DOCTYPE in your page (as per the standards) thereby triggering "strict" rendering mode. The box model is only broken if you use"quirks" mode rendering.
This has been the case since IE5.5.
It's also how Firefox, Opera and Safari - and probably every other CSS-supporting browser of any note - cope with all the malformed HTML/CSS out there.
Ah, but then the grumbling would still occupy space in the page, leaving white space to clue people in that the grumbling existed. By using display: none; the page is laid out as if the grumbling was removed from the document entirely, and nobody knows it's there unless they view the source, or use Lynx or Netscape 3 or something.
Quite possibly. Unfortunately my clients tend to be primarily concerned about IE 6 Win, which means I've let myelf get a bit rusty with the nicer stuff that only works in proper browsers. Time for a holiday doing nothing but reading W3C specs... or maybe not:-)
It was about having a layout with three or more columns that share the same height.
The point of the answer is that you can achieve this using display: table; and display: table-cell; without having to have irrelevant tabular markup in your document.
Usually by jolting a loose connection back into place. I was recently staying at a (very) cheap hotel and the crappy 14 inch TV in my room would lose its picture after about 20 minutes. Clouting it two or three times would usually fix it. I assume that, as it heated up, one of the boards inside was becoming slightly unseated in its socket, and jolting it was enough to shake it into a position where it made proper contact again.
You need to be a New Scientist subscriber to read the full text, but it begins:
Now that Milton Wainwright and his colleagues have confirmed that the Indian "red rain" cells contain DNA, it seems most likely that they are algae, and as he suggests in his letter, are not in the least mysterious...
and goes on to say
Researchers in Kerala suggest that the red rain could be cells of a red-pigmented green alga, Trentepohlia, but there are other likely candidates. The green algal genus Haematococcus is a member of the motile order Volvocales which forms spores and resting-stage "palmella" structures, both enclosed by thick cell walls, and very similar to the pictures that you published. The cells are strongly red-coloured by the carotenoid pigment astaxanthin, formerly called haematochrome.
The CNN story is about a paper published in April; it's now June. They also claim that the cells contain no DNA, even though the New Scientist letter states that they do. Looks like a slow news day at the CNN science desk.
Yes, you have to choose to view the video, but how in the world can you choose to not download it in the first place?
Maybe there's no truth in this, but people have told me that web pages can contain these things called "links" using which you can, for example, allow people to choose whether or not to download and view large files. I'm not sure if Google's engineers are aware of this technology, but if so they may well make use of it. Perhaps they can tie it in with their plan (described in TFA) to "...display graphics promoting video ads".
Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.
This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.
As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.
...you're going to sit there and whinge like a schoolgirl about "having to learn a new language"? Chrissakes. Just spend 2 or 3 hours learning it...
Learning a programming language is not the same thing as learning a template system's syntax. It's not even the same as learning the programming language's syntax. 30 years experience of programming has taught me that you should expect to spend at least 2 or 3 months working with a programming language before you can safely consider yourself to have a basic level of competence with it. Make it a year before you can consider yourself to be thoroughly competent. And I'm talking full-time work on real-world problems here, not playing on evenings and weekends.
There's a lot of people out there who claim to be able to learn a programming language in a day or two. I've interviewed them, and seen code they've written in languages in which they fondly believe themselves to be competent. They are wrong, and so is their code. I've never hired, and will never hire, one of these people, and I've never met an experienced programmer worth hiring who would disagree with what I say above.
I followed your link and I get the impression that you missed the obvious fact that the sentence you quote was a joke. Perhaps you need to lighten up a little. This post (but no others) licensed under the GPL, if that makes you feel any better.
No, the ZX80 and ZX81 were both Sinclair Research in-house achievements, born and bred in Cambridge, England (as were all Sinclair products). Timex licensed the rights from Sinclair to manufacture and market the machines in the United States under the Timex Sinclair name.
Can this be true - you can program in a high-level language like C# for the browser?
Well, you can (with ASP.NET), but it's an awfully long-winded method for generating bloated HTML pages which don't work without JavaScript. Try Front Page, or save a Word doc as HTML; either is a much quicker way of generating shoddy code;-)
Font size is the easiest thing there is for the end user to adjust to their preference if the page is designed correctly.
I think the point being made by the post to which you are replying was that because the font size is specified in pixels, the text can't be resized by anybody using Internet Explorer for Windows, up to and including version 6. As you say, the page needs to be designed correctly, and specifying font sizes in pixels is wrong for as long as the dominant browser has this misfeature.
IE7 goes some way to curing this but of course MS, rather than just fixing the original problem, had to go for a totally over-engineered zooming mechanism which is now showing assorted issues in Beta testing. Maybe one of these days they'll learn that sometimes you don't need to make it better, you just need to make it work.
Actually, Web 2.0 is typically characterised by big fonts. I don't see anything 2.0 about either of the designs that haven't been Slashdotted (Michael Johnson and Peter Lada); after all, Slashdot's home page is just a static page with textual content, which is about as 1.0 as it gets, and is all that's necessary.
I've never understood designers' obsession with small fonts. They don't seem to realise that, while they work with a professional quality 21" monitor, hooked up to a Mac with anti-aliased fonts, the vast majority of people (normal people, not nerds like us) don't have such good equipment or such young eyes. Maybe when they're older, with bad eyesight and a crap display bought out of their pension, they'll finally abandon the arrogance that leads to pages whose font size can't be adjusted or which break if you bump the browser up to 32px fonts (which is still too small for some partially-sighted people of my acquaintance).
Neither of the two designs I could reach cope with a change in font size; areas of the page overlap if you increase the font size on Firefox or Safari, and the font sizes are set in pixels (at least some of them), meaning that for IE6 users the text can't be resized at all. Granted, this is an IE6 failing, but it's one that web professionals need to avoid.
With basic accessibility issues like this having been ignored, I don't think either of these designs is ready for prime time. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines were first published in May 1999, seven years ago, yet in my work as a web developer I regularly encounter web designers who don't know the first thing about them - or decide they're not important if it threatens them with changing their beloved "vision". Learn your craft first, people; then you can call yourself a professional.
I too started out (at school) on a PDP-8/e with paper tape and teletypes and you are correct - it and the PDP-11 were minicomputers. Witness the fact that rather than containing a microprocessor they had multiple-board processors: "The first 6 cards is the CPU". (Don't blame me for the grammar, folks; I'm quoting.)
DEC did produce a PDP-11-on-a-chip called the T-11. For a while in the mid-80s I had a system based on it, which a friend who had a combination of too much scrap hardware and too much free time put together for me, together with a VT-05 terminal. Eventually he replaced it with his PDP 11/34, once he'd found himself a VAX...
who can forget the precursor to the BBC micro, the Timex Sinclair Z80?
No, the Sinclair ZX80 was the precursor to the ZX81 and ultimately the Sinclair Spectrum. The BBC Microcomputer was built by Acorn Computer, who were rivals of Sinclair Research in the competition for the BBC contract, and won because of clearly superior engineering. This rivalry became something of a personality clash between the founders of the two Cambridge-based companies: I remember reading reports of an altercation in a Cambridge pub or restaurant on New Years Eve 1982 or 83 when Sir Clive Sinclair ran into Acorn's Chris Curry and Hermann Hauser and reportedly got a little hot under the collar (although all parties refused to comment on the incident). The precursor to the Beeb was the Acorn Atom, which itself grew out of Acorn's early work on fruit machine controller boards.
Worthy of note is that Acorn went on to produce the ARM processor to power the third generation of BBC Micros, which is now used in many portable devices including the iPod. So the BBC Micro can be seen as the precursor of Apple's music player - if you stretch the facts a bit.
Actually, when CDs first appeared in the 80s they were a fair bit more expensive than LPs, and only moved back to more normal levels as production capacity was ramped up. The cost of the medium was never a major part of the overall cost of producing either an LP or a CD; the real question is why CDs are two to three times the price that an LP was in the mid-80s, given that the price of cocaine (which is where the majority of the recording industry's costs lie) has remained virtually static.
Off topic, but true story: at the Stonehenge Free Festival in 1984 a friend of mine, feeling thirsty, approached an ice cream van which had cans of soft drinks on display. He asked "How much is the Coke?" to which the vendor replied "£50 a gram".
Not saying I wouldn't have missed it, but as I recall, I could choose between "normal" (way to small) and "large" (still too small, and breaks a lot of stuff both in windows itself and applications).
There's a third option for "Custom size..." on the "Advanced" dialog of the "Settings" tab which gives you a ruler you can adjust so that 1 inch really is 1 inch. On the few occasions I've bothered to use it I've never found a Windows system that was actually displaying 1 inch at the same size as 1 inch on a real ruler held up to the screen, but that's probably just to do with the monitors I was using. On the other hand I didn't see any breakage in Windows, but I found that once the custom size was set correctly it was best to adjust the individual font size settings for all the different Windows elements (menu item, icon text, etc.) in the "Advanced appearance" dialog.
Slashdot Mirror
IE will use the W3C box model if you include an appropriate DOCTYPE in your page (as per the standards) thereby triggering "strict" rendering mode. The box model is only broken if you use"quirks" mode rendering.
This has been the case since IE5.5.
It's also how Firefox, Opera and Safari - and probably every other CSS-supporting browser of any note - cope with all the malformed HTML/CSS out there.
Ah, but then the grumbling would still occupy space in the page, leaving white space to clue people in that the grumbling existed. By using display: none; the page is laid out as if the grumbling was removed from the document entirely, and nobody knows it's there unless they view the source, or use Lynx or Netscape 3 or something.
I'm off to get myself a life now ;-)
Quite possibly. Unfortunately my clients tend to be primarily concerned about IE 6 Win, which means I've let myelf get a bit rusty with the nicer stuff that only works in proper browsers. Time for a holiday doing nothing but reading W3C specs... or maybe not :-)
The point of the answer is that you can achieve this using display: table; and display: table-cell; without having to have irrelevant tabular markup in your document.
Usually by jolting a loose connection back into place. I was recently staying at a (very) cheap hotel and the crappy 14 inch TV in my room would lose its picture after about 20 minutes. Clouting it two or three times would usually fix it. I assume that, as it heated up, one of the boards inside was becoming slightly unseated in its socket, and jolting it was enough to shake it into a position where it made proper contact again.
This letter (22 April 2006)?
You need to be a New Scientist subscriber to read the full text, but it begins:
and goes on to say
The CNN story is about a paper published in April; it's now June. They also claim that the cells contain no DNA, even though the New Scientist letter states that they do. Looks like a slow news day at the CNN science desk.
Maybe there's no truth in this, but people have told me that web pages can contain these things called "links" using which you can, for example, allow people to choose whether or not to download and view large files. I'm not sure if Google's engineers are aware of this technology, but if so they may well make use of it. Perhaps they can tie it in with their plan (described in TFA) to "...display graphics promoting video ads".
I'm 5849, you're 33222; looks like I was most remiss in not welcoming you back around 1998 :-)
Amazing... as I write there are 17 top-level posts of which 11 are saying something to the effect that "OMFG!!! Waste of bandwidth! All these sites are gonna be really slow!!! I'm editing my hosts file..." etc.
This means that fully 64.7% of Slashdot readers are so eager to rant on (not having read TFA) that they don't even mind making themselves look like utter fools, proudly displaying their complete ignorance of the matter under discussion, their inability to understand the facts before formulating an opinion, and their general desperate need for upwards moderation, which is the only kind of "social" approbation they can ever hope for.
As many have pointed out, including in this thread: you have to choose to see the video. Now can you all calm down and learn to think? There's an interesting discussion to be had about this, and the morons' chorus is drowning it out.
Learning a programming language is not the same thing as learning a template system's syntax. It's not even the same as learning the programming language's syntax. 30 years experience of programming has taught me that you should expect to spend at least 2 or 3 months working with a programming language before you can safely consider yourself to have a basic level of competence with it. Make it a year before you can consider yourself to be thoroughly competent. And I'm talking full-time work on real-world problems here, not playing on evenings and weekends.
There's a lot of people out there who claim to be able to learn a programming language in a day or two. I've interviewed them, and seen code they've written in languages in which they fondly believe themselves to be competent. They are wrong, and so is their code. I've never hired, and will never hire, one of these people, and I've never met an experienced programmer worth hiring who would disagree with what I say above.
(As always, YMMV...)
I followed your link and I get the impression that you missed the obvious fact that the sentence you quote was a joke. Perhaps you need to lighten up a little. This post (but no others) licensed under the GPL, if that makes you feel any better.
No, the ZX80 and ZX81 were both Sinclair Research in-house achievements, born and bred in Cambridge, England (as were all Sinclair products). Timex licensed the rights from Sinclair to manufacture and market the machines in the United States under the Timex Sinclair name.
Well, you can (with ASP.NET), but it's an awfully long-winded method for generating bloated HTML pages which don't work without JavaScript. Try Front Page, or save a Word doc as HTML; either is a much quicker way of generating shoddy code ;-)
I think the point being made by the post to which you are replying was that because the font size is specified in pixels, the text can't be resized by anybody using Internet Explorer for Windows, up to and including version 6. As you say, the page needs to be designed correctly, and specifying font sizes in pixels is wrong for as long as the dominant browser has this misfeature.
IE7 goes some way to curing this but of course MS, rather than just fixing the original problem, had to go for a totally over-engineered zooming mechanism which is now showing assorted issues in Beta testing. Maybe one of these days they'll learn that sometimes you don't need to make it better, you just need to make it work.
But the request and its denial also consume bandwidth, which was the original problem.
OK, Jason Porritt has got a mirror up and guess what - you can't resize the text in IE 6. Come on people, this is basic stuff...
Actually, Web 2.0 is typically characterised by big fonts. I don't see anything 2.0 about either of the designs that haven't been Slashdotted (Michael Johnson and Peter Lada); after all, Slashdot's home page is just a static page with textual content, which is about as 1.0 as it gets, and is all that's necessary.
I've never understood designers' obsession with small fonts. They don't seem to realise that, while they work with a professional quality 21" monitor, hooked up to a Mac with anti-aliased fonts, the vast majority of people (normal people, not nerds like us) don't have such good equipment or such young eyes. Maybe when they're older, with bad eyesight and a crap display bought out of their pension, they'll finally abandon the arrogance that leads to pages whose font size can't be adjusted or which break if you bump the browser up to 32px fonts (which is still too small for some partially-sighted people of my acquaintance).
Neither of the two designs I could reach cope with a change in font size; areas of the page overlap if you increase the font size on Firefox or Safari, and the font sizes are set in pixels (at least some of them), meaning that for IE6 users the text can't be resized at all. Granted, this is an IE6 failing, but it's one that web professionals need to avoid.
With basic accessibility issues like this having been ignored, I don't think either of these designs is ready for prime time. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines were first published in May 1999, seven years ago, yet in my work as a web developer I regularly encounter web designers who don't know the first thing about them - or decide they're not important if it threatens them with changing their beloved "vision". Learn your craft first, people; then you can call yourself a professional.
I too started out (at school) on a PDP-8/e with paper tape and teletypes and you are correct - it and the PDP-11 were minicomputers. Witness the fact that rather than containing a microprocessor they had multiple-board processors: "The first 6 cards is the CPU". (Don't blame me for the grammar, folks; I'm quoting.)
DEC did produce a PDP-11-on-a-chip called the T-11. For a while in the mid-80s I had a system based on it, which a friend who had a combination of too much scrap hardware and too much free time put together for me, together with a VT-05 terminal. Eventually he replaced it with his PDP 11/34, once he'd found himself a VAX...
No, the Sinclair ZX80 was the precursor to the ZX81 and ultimately the Sinclair Spectrum. The BBC Microcomputer was built by Acorn Computer, who were rivals of Sinclair Research in the competition for the BBC contract, and won because of clearly superior engineering. This rivalry became something of a personality clash between the founders of the two Cambridge-based companies: I remember reading reports of an altercation in a Cambridge pub or restaurant on New Years Eve 1982 or 83 when Sir Clive Sinclair ran into Acorn's Chris Curry and Hermann Hauser and reportedly got a little hot under the collar (although all parties refused to comment on the incident). The precursor to the Beeb was the Acorn Atom, which itself grew out of Acorn's early work on fruit machine controller boards.
Worthy of note is that Acorn went on to produce the ARM processor to power the third generation of BBC Micros, which is now used in many portable devices including the iPod. So the BBC Micro can be seen as the precursor of Apple's music player - if you stretch the facts a bit.
No, you make a normal-sized CCD with an infinitely large pixel density.
The year is 1984. The year has always been 1984.
Actually, when CDs first appeared in the 80s they were a fair bit more expensive than LPs, and only moved back to more normal levels as production capacity was ramped up. The cost of the medium was never a major part of the overall cost of producing either an LP or a CD; the real question is why CDs are two to three times the price that an LP was in the mid-80s, given that the price of cocaine (which is where the majority of the recording industry's costs lie) has remained virtually static.
Off topic, but true story: at the Stonehenge Free Festival in 1984 a friend of mine, feeling thirsty, approached an ice cream van which had cans of soft drinks on display. He asked "How much is the Coke?" to which the vendor replied "£50 a gram".
And the mention of "artists such as Bon Jovi, REM and Robbie Williams" is surely an opening for some joke about criminal records...
There's a third option for "Custom size..." on the "Advanced" dialog of the "Settings" tab which gives you a ruler you can adjust so that 1 inch really is 1 inch. On the few occasions I've bothered to use it I've never found a Windows system that was actually displaying 1 inch at the same size as 1 inch on a real ruler held up to the screen, but that's probably just to do with the monitors I was using. On the other hand I didn't see any breakage in Windows, but I found that once the custom size was set correctly it was best to adjust the individual font size settings for all the different Windows elements (menu item, icon text, etc.) in the "Advanced appearance" dialog.