I've worked 80 hour weeks during a crunch time or two. Quality definitely slipped a little, and we now manage projects better so it doesn't happen again...
But this is EA. I've never noticed any particular stability in their stuff. But it's just games, so it doesn't matter how stable it is as long as it gets out on time... right?
I don't find it especially sad, because I know it doesn't really belong on the list. The job that does? Nurse's aide. There's no job so bad that the person's subordinate doesn't have it worse. There, you not only have to deal with incompetent doctors, but also incompetent and lazy nurses as your superior instead of your coworker.
Actually, all I see in the article are abuses of the system.
The only one I might grant you as a good thing is tracking students. Not that it isn't an invasion of the privacy of students, because it is, but because as a society we've decided that that information MUST be available on-demand to parents, and if we've decided an invasion of privacy is important the least we can do is do it efficiently.
And wouldn't you be glad if that was in 9 years instead of 6 months?
You can rehabilitate someone who committed a crime of passion, but I don't think the current system is going to have any success at all with a cold, calculating scammer. These people are socially flawed, and that's really all there is to it. The most you might do is make them afraid to get caught next time, but if they took advantage of people for a quick buck once they'll do it again.
Yes, you can get a lighter sentence for killing someone. However, let's not forget that there are millions of counts of spamming, and at least 10,000 people per month were getting scammed for $400,000.
In the US and Canada, we have thing thing were doing something a couple times is actually worse than doing it once, and gets a heavier sentence. Doing it 10,000 times is even worse. Imagine that! If you do something less important than murder more times, you can get a larger sentence.
As for fitting into the community and giving back to it, these people have already shown themselves to be sociopathic. This isn't even justifable as a "crime of passion," something done in the heat of the moment. These people set out to scam money from millions of people. Exactly how much do you expect of them?
Blame application developers who think they don't need to follow conventions. By convention, with scrolling text documents:
Command+left is supposed to move to the start of a line. Command+right is supposed to move to the end of a line. Command+up is supposed to move to the start of the document. Command+down is supposed to move to the end of the document.
Option+left is supposed to move to the start of a word, or back one word if you're already at the start. Option+right is supposed to move forward one word. Option+up is supposed to move you to the start of the screen, or up one screen if you're already at the start. Option+down is supposed to move you to the bottom of the screen, or down one screen if you're already at the bottom.
Add shift to any of these to cause the selection to be extended.
Home is supposed to scroll to the top, but not move the insertion point. End is supposed to scroll to the bottom, but not move the insertion point. Page up and page down are supposed to scroll one page up and down, respsectively, but not move the insertion point. Recently, I've noticed a trend to act like Windows shortcuts if a modifier is down, which seems like a good idea as long as the modifier isn't the shift key, but that doesn't seem consistent yet.
Control+arrow keys aren't standard, but the best use I've seen for control+left and control+right is sub-word navigation. The best use I've seen for control+up and control+down is to scroll the document without moving the insertion point.
Apple's recap of this is not quite as complete, but more generalized. It's available on Apple's developer site. Not everyone follows it. It's worth noting that not everyone follows the Windows conventions on Windows, either. Control+Tab for tab navigation, for instance, is not automatic on Windows. It has to be added to applications.
I never said anything about crashing the application -- to generalize perhaps just a bit, no application should ever crash based on input data. Refuse to process the data, certainly, but that refusal should be deliberate and not due to code that assumes some condition without checking and crashes.
XHTML is supposed to be refused if malformed; HTML prior to 4.0 is supposed to be best-guessed. I'm not sure what the behaviour of 4.0 Transitional and 4.0 Strict is supposed to be, but I'm sure it's documented as part of the spec.
Think about it for a moment. The only boost to Mozilla and others will be users who:
Are still using Windows 2000 or earlier.
Are willing to try new things -- but not including Windows XP
Have not already switched to an alternative
Now, I'm not saying it's zero because clearly it won't be. But it's equally clear to me that those first three are at least somewhat contradictory, so it certainly won't be a huge boost.
I tried Fire, I tried Proteus, and I tried Adium. For multi-protocol, I use Adium.
But on a day-to-day basis for 99%+ of my chats, I use iChat. I like the simplicity, the stability, and the way the menu works. Make no mistake, it's a one trick pony... but it does that trick very well... much better, I think, than Adiun.
I am starting to think that both skins and customization are highly overrated. What's needed is a single good skin. The ability to custmoize is nice, but far less important than having a good skin already there.
Integrity? Are we talking about the same @stake here? The ones with a long-standing habit of informing developers of security issues by going to the media and hoping that the developers happen to read one of the articles? That @stake?
The first is "Is Firefox bugged?" and the answer was "Well, it was, but it was fixed." It depended on network timing, I think, because it was intermittent. There's also another aspect to this, which is that the bug was in bug quirk compatibility mode... so if Slashdot's HTML wasn't old crap, it would never have occured at all. But it was still a bug.
The second argument is "Is Slashdot generating valid HTML code?" The answer is "No." Jamie argues that it is valid, just HTML 3.2 instead of 4.0. However, anyone running the validator can prove this wrong easily -- it's not valid HTML 3.2, either. This isn't really that big a deal, since being technically correct was much less important in HTML 3.2, but it is always annoying to have someone bald face lie to you.
It may have been that slashdot was the only site to demonstrate the bug (I think it was in 0.7, but I could be wrong), but I doubt it. It was indeed a Firefox bug, and not just a bug in the Slashdot HTML. But that does not mean the Slashdot HTML is valid.
The reason for the difference between my scan (180) and other others here (189) is that I took a copy of the current page, added the meta content line (which needs to be added if you're scanning from a local hard drive instead of over http) and uploaded the site to the w3c validator.
If anyone is interested in reproducing this, you need to add this element to the head:
Either 5 people modded it up without any verification in the ten minutes it took people to post proof that it was wrong, or some other factor is at work!
Which plugins do you think should be integrated? I'm opposed to integrating them, really -- leave the bloody thing along, it's going to end up bloated enough as is -- but I wouldn't mind checking them out.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked 80 hour weeks during a crunch time or two. Quality definitely slipped a little, and we now manage projects better so it doesn't happen again...
But this is EA. I've never noticed any particular stability in their stuff. But it's just games, so it doesn't matter how stable it is as long as it gets out on time... right?
I don't find it especially sad, because I know it doesn't really belong on the list. The job that does? Nurse's aide. There's no job so bad that the person's subordinate doesn't have it worse. There, you not only have to deal with incompetent doctors, but also incompetent and lazy nurses as your superior instead of your coworker.
Actually, all I see in the article are abuses of the system.
The only one I might grant you as a good thing is tracking students. Not that it isn't an invasion of the privacy of students, because it is, but because as a society we've decided that that information MUST be available on-demand to parents, and if we've decided an invasion of privacy is important the least we can do is do it efficiently.
And wouldn't you be glad if that was in 9 years instead of 6 months?
You can rehabilitate someone who committed a crime of passion, but I don't think the current system is going to have any success at all with a cold, calculating scammer. These people are socially flawed, and that's really all there is to it. The most you might do is make them afraid to get caught next time, but if they took advantage of people for a quick buck once they'll do it again.
Yes, you can get a lighter sentence for killing someone. However, let's not forget that there are millions of counts of spamming, and at least 10,000 people per month were getting scammed for $400,000.
In the US and Canada, we have thing thing were doing something a couple times is actually worse than doing it once, and gets a heavier sentence. Doing it 10,000 times is even worse. Imagine that! If you do something less important than murder more times, you can get a larger sentence.
As for fitting into the community and giving back to it, these people have already shown themselves to be sociopathic. This isn't even justifable as a "crime of passion," something done in the heat of the moment. These people set out to scam money from millions of people. Exactly how much do you expect of them?
hey will not be rehabilitated, they will be angry, pissed off, without a future. They won't fit into society and be good citicens
I think you forgot he was caught spamming. It's not like he fit into society or had a future to begin with.
Google is not developing Google Desktop Search for Mac. That was is misquote and has been straightened out since.
Blame application developers who think they don't need to follow conventions. By convention, with scrolling text documents:
Command+left is supposed to move to the start of a line. Command+right is supposed to move to the end of a line. Command+up is supposed to move to the start of the document. Command+down is supposed to move to the end of the document.
Option+left is supposed to move to the start of a word, or back one word if you're already at the start. Option+right is supposed to move forward one word. Option+up is supposed to move you to the start of the screen, or up one screen if you're already at the start. Option+down is supposed to move you to the bottom of the screen, or down one screen if you're already at the bottom.
Add shift to any of these to cause the selection to be extended.
Home is supposed to scroll to the top, but not move the insertion point. End is supposed to scroll to the bottom, but not move the insertion point. Page up and page down are supposed to scroll one page up and down, respsectively, but not move the insertion point. Recently, I've noticed a trend to act like Windows shortcuts if a modifier is down, which seems like a good idea as long as the modifier isn't the shift key, but that doesn't seem consistent yet.
Control+arrow keys aren't standard, but the best use I've seen for control+left and control+right is sub-word navigation. The best use I've seen for control+up and control+down is to scroll the document without moving the insertion point.
Apple's recap of this is not quite as complete, but more generalized. It's available on Apple's developer site. Not everyone follows it. It's worth noting that not everyone follows the Windows conventions on Windows, either. Control+Tab for tab navigation, for instance, is not automatic on Windows. It has to be added to applications.
I never said anything about crashing the application -- to generalize perhaps just a bit, no application should ever crash based on input data. Refuse to process the data, certainly, but that refusal should be deliberate and not due to code that assumes some condition without checking and crashes.
XHTML is supposed to be refused if malformed; HTML prior to 4.0 is supposed to be best-guessed. I'm not sure what the behaviour of 4.0 Transitional and 4.0 Strict is supposed to be, but I'm sure it's documented as part of the spec.
I picked up a $60 multi-region DVD & VCD player the other day. I'm not sure about DivX in particular yet, because I don't have any DivX discs...
Think about it for a moment. The only boost to Mozilla and others will be users who:
Now, I'm not saying it's zero because clearly it won't be. But it's equally clear to me that those first three are at least somewhat contradictory, so it certainly won't be a huge boost.
Ah, yes, I can see your point about there being no account manager.
My mention of skins was because I simply hate Adium's buddy list. :)
I tried Fire, I tried Proteus, and I tried Adium. For multi-protocol, I use Adium.
But on a day-to-day basis for 99%+ of my chats, I use iChat. I like the simplicity, the stability, and the way the menu works. Make no mistake, it's a one trick pony... but it does that trick very well... much better, I think, than Adiun.
I am starting to think that both skins and customization are highly overrated. What's needed is a single good skin. The ability to custmoize is nice, but far less important than having a good skin already there.
Integrity? Are we talking about the same @stake here? The ones with a long-standing habit of informing developers of security issues by going to the media and hoping that the developers happen to read one of the articles? That @stake?
They'll fit in perfectly at Symantec.
Just looking at the URL, "amercock.html"... I don't think that's my style of pr0n...
Apparently amercocks are only 1-1.5" long. I saw much bigger overseas on my last vacation...
No. It was a bug in Fire Fox.
There's two separate arguments going on here.
The first is "Is Firefox bugged?" and the answer was "Well, it was, but it was fixed." It depended on network timing, I think, because it was intermittent. There's also another aspect to this, which is that the bug was in bug quirk compatibility mode... so if Slashdot's HTML wasn't old crap, it would never have occured at all. But it was still a bug.
The second argument is "Is Slashdot generating valid HTML code?" The answer is "No." Jamie argues that it is valid, just HTML 3.2 instead of 4.0. However, anyone running the validator can prove this wrong easily -- it's not valid HTML 3.2, either. This isn't really that big a deal, since being technically correct was much less important in HTML 3.2, but it is always annoying to have someone bald face lie to you.
It may have been that slashdot was the only site to demonstrate the bug (I think it was in 0.7, but I could be wrong), but I doubt it. It was indeed a Firefox bug, and not just a bug in the Slashdot HTML. But that does not mean the Slashdot HTML is valid.
I hope that helps. This is confusing. :)
Heh. The conspiracy theory is more entertaining, but I'm sure you're right. :)
The reason for the difference between my scan (180) and other others here (189) is that I took a copy of the current page, added the meta content line (which needs to be added if you're scanning from a local hard drive instead of over http) and uploaded the site to the w3c validator.
If anyone is interested in reproducing this, you need to add this element to the head:
(The charset was determined by right-clicking the web page (as rendered over http) and checking the properties.)
Either 5 people modded it up without any verification in the ten minutes it took people to post proof that it was wrong, or some other factor is at work!
There hasn't been a problem for a couple versions now, but the HTML Slashdot generates is still invalid. :)
Despite slashdot's attempts to block the w3c validator, it's still quite trivial to run it against the source code.
File: Slashdot News for nerds, stuff that matters.htm
Encoding: iso-8859-1
Doctype: HTML 3.2
Errors: 180
This page is not Valid HTML 3.2!
Which plugins do you think should be integrated? I'm opposed to integrating them, really -- leave the bloody thing along, it's going to end up bloated enough as is -- but I wouldn't mind checking them out.
No, I didn't. It would be even better if they updated for 2004, but just to 2001 would do... :)
An easier wish might be "Slashdot updates its HTML for 2001."