You could just add a simple line to the userContent.css file for your Firefox profile.
Or equivalent user-style for other browsers, just take out the -moz- style for those.
/* -moz-document to limit the style only to slashdot.org */ @-moz-document domain(slashdot.org){
Regardless whether or not you like cleartype or not. IE7 should obey the system settings for that setting. I have turned off cleartype in XP, the text is to blurry for my taste, so it was quite annoying that IE7 did come with cleartype turned on by default and ignoring my system wide settings. How to turn off cleartype wasn't very intuitive either. Who would know that that setting is listed below multimedia?
...The guys on SomethingAwful [somethingawful.com] or Worth 1000 [worth1000.com] all do a much better job, and that's just for the glory of the contest. They're not trying to pass their stuff off as "news." Even the guys at Fark [fark.com] aren't this bad (not even Heamer:-) No, this photoshop was of "The Daily Show" quality -- comically bad.
CSS3 is still a working draft, there is no point in implementing everything, as it might come changes or that behavoirs for properties change. Currently Gecko supports several CSS3 properties, especially they have implemented support for several css3 selectors.
As CSS3 is still under development mozilla use vendor-specific extentions to those properties. This is not a bad thing, it is also the correct way to implement things according to w3.
You can see it is a reminder that you use those propties of your own choice and that they might change over time as they are implemented for testing purposes.
Take the opacity property as an example, it was first implemented in Gecko as -moz-opacity, which took values from 0 to 100, later it changed to take values from 0.0 to 1 according to the specs. Now you can use opacity without the -moz- extention as it probably wouldn't change in the draft for css3. So I see nothing wrong in using such extentions for testing purposes, it is much better than what Microsoft does it just adds its own css-properties without any use of vendor extentions.
You cry for better support for standards yet you want them to implement the non-standard "document.all"
? You have to make up your mind;) If you don't like it take it up with w3 not mozilla.
One can discuss whether or not IEs supports this feature or that it is just a bug, as it allows you to assign width and height to any inline element . In my experience the rendering of inline-block hasn't been consistent between the different browsers, this might have changed since I last tested.
Technically CSS2.1 is still a working draft, it was pulled back to working draf on June 13, 2005 after it was had been Candidate Recommendation since February 25, 2004. You can read more about this in Anne van Kesteren's blog
Since the implementation of display:inline-block is so inconsistent in the different browsers I personally wouldn't use it.
How ever you can use display:-moz-inline-box; in Firefox if you really want to use it. There are always some trade-offs if one wants to be cutting edge. Though it is no excuse that it haven't been implemented in Gecko yet.
For that matter, why aren't we (as a community) grilling Firefox for their lack of standards compatibility? What would it take for them to 'get the picture'
Note you have placed the !important rule outside the semicolon, it have to within to have an effect.
The gp also wanted a red label, so maybe background is better than just colour, and for good measure why not throw in a blink.
It does not look good on this pc, currently sitting infront of a Window pc.
Though it looked somewhat better with Helvetica instead of the Tahoma which is default on the design.
I agreed, it is overall very clean and of the three finalist this was the one I prefered.
Although I don't like the arrow on hover-state in the main menu, it doesn't add a function.
Anyway it isn't a very big issue and I could always fix it, it wouldn't be the first time I've done adjustments to slashdot's look.;)
Agreed it is hard to read, but i think its more because of the text-size. The text is way too small. Keep the body font-size at 1em and let the user get his/hers prefered font-size.
Yeah, but Manet was influenced by the younger Monet and then began to paint in a more impressionist style. And Manet was only eight years older than Manet. Even so one could say Monet had "prior-art" for the impressionist style;)
Watching Solaris and Stalker gave me the impression that they were about 50% longer than they needed to be in order to provide Soviet workers with something to do.
To bad they wasn't paid more for the long-lasting production.
"Nobody would go to work with Tarkovsky by accident," Vladimir Sharun remembers. "Everybody knew what kind of Personality he was. On the one hand they were afraid of his exacting demands. On the other, Tarkovsky productions were known to have taken a long time on occasion and during the Soviet times the crew were not paid for the idle periods.. And the most important of Tarkovsky's "faults" was that this great artist tried to do everything himself. After all he was even the set designer for Stalker. In all shots every blade of grass would be positioned by his own hand.
Loom, Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle... That liberated the player to walk up to dangerous pirates and insult them to their faces and know that however embarrassing the consequences, it would never be fatal to the game.
Slashdot Mirror
I got news for you, Kvasir gets their results from Google.
http://www.kvasir.no/help/kvasirguide.shtml(in Norwegian).
Their First Aid products uses the cross, you can find it on their Band-Aid site.
Regardless whether or not you like cleartype or not. IE7 should obey the system settings for that setting. I have turned off cleartype in XP, the text is to blurry for my taste, so it was quite annoying that IE7 did come with cleartype turned on by default and ignoring my system wide settings. How to turn off cleartype wasn't very intuitive either. Who would know that that setting is listed below multimedia?
Agreed that shop was really bad. And sometimes even the photoshops at the sites you mention get mistaken as real news ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lukket-50s-comp uter-HOAX.jpg
They don't? http://www.w3.org/Amaya/
CSS3 is still a working draft, there is no point in implementing everything, as it might come changes or that behavoirs for properties change. Currently Gecko supports several CSS3 properties, especially they have implemented support for several css3 selectors.
As CSS3 is still under development mozilla use vendor-specific extentions to those properties. This is not a bad thing, it is also the correct way to implement things according to w3. You can see it is a reminder that you use those propties of your own choice and that they might change over time as they are implemented for testing purposes. Take the opacity property as an example, it was first implemented in Gecko as -moz-opacity, which took values from 0 to 100, later it changed to take values from 0.0 to 1 according to the specs. Now you can use opacity without the -moz- extention as it probably wouldn't change in the draft for css3. So I see nothing wrong in using such extentions for testing purposes, it is much better than what Microsoft does it just adds its own css-properties without any use of vendor extentions.
You cry for better support for standards yet you want them to implement the non-standard "document.all" ? You have to make up your mind ;) If you don't like it take it up with w3 not mozilla.
One can discuss whether or not IEs supports this feature or that it is just a bug, as it allows you to assign width and height to any inline element . In my experience the rendering of inline-block hasn't been consistent between the different browsers, this might have changed since I last tested.
Technically CSS2.1 is still a working draft, it was pulled back to working draf on June 13, 2005 after it was had been Candidate Recommendation since February 25, 2004. You can read more about this in Anne van Kesteren's blog
Since the implementation of display:inline-block is so inconsistent in the different browsers I personally wouldn't use it. How ever you can use display:-moz-inline-box; in Firefox if you really want to use it. There are always some trade-offs if one wants to be cutting edge. Though it is no excuse that it haven't been implemented in Gecko yet.
The image was uploaded by David Baron, one of Mozillas lead developer I think that is claim enough.
I think this answers your question: http://flickr.com/photos/dbaron/126886608/
Since you didn't bother ;)
Note you have placed the !important rule outside the semicolon, it have to within to have an effect. The gp also wanted a red label, so maybe background is better than just colour, and for good measure why not throw in a blink.
It does not look good on this pc, currently sitting infront of a Window pc. Though it looked somewhat better with Helvetica instead of the Tahoma which is default on the design.
I agreed, it is overall very clean and of the three finalist this was the one I prefered. Although I don't like the arrow on hover-state in the main menu, it doesn't add a function. Anyway it isn't a very big issue and I could always fix it, it wouldn't be the first time I've done adjustments to slashdot's look. ;)
Agreed it is hard to read, but i think its more because of the text-size. The text is way too small. Keep the body font-size at 1em and let the user get his/hers prefered font-size.
What about Braque? Picasso didn't invent the cubism alone
You can see how similar they were:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Cubism
Note to self, always check the links before submitting: Anyway here is the direct link to the image:http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/m anet.monet-studio.jpg
Yeah, but Manet was influenced by the younger Monet and then began to paint in a more impressionist style. And Manet was only eight years older than Manet. Even so one could say Monet had "prior-art" for the impressionist style ;)
Manet even painted Monet. http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/ from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/
Oh, come on. Duke Nukem Forever has been out for the Atari 2600 for ages. http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/dnf2600.html. Stop braging about the PC ;)
Sure they would.And then said that Red Hat beats both ms and suse ;)
Watching Solaris and Stalker gave me the impression that they were about 50% longer than they needed to be in order to provide Soviet workers with something to do.
To bad they wasn't paid more for the long-lasting production.That isn't completly true, you could die in Secrets of Monkey Island(tm).t ml
Here is a howto from eeggs.com and a screenshot from http://mywebpages.comcast.net/paulsuth/somipage.h
I hate to reply to myself, but this screen shot of flock 0.1 confirms that it is based on firefox. http://flickr.com/photos/87617152@N00/310576292 /
Taken from the flock blog http://www.decrem.com/bart/2005/08/done-flock-01-
Wired says it is based on firefox;http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128 2,68823,00.html?tw=rss.TOP
They did. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spiri t/20041104a.html.
i t/20041104a/04-RA-04-Lutefisk-A298R1_br.jpg
Here is a direct link to the image http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spir