Yeah, but as I said before, I really don't see why the distinction needs to be made between ALT and TITLE. I believe the standard is wrong, and IE's behaviour is right. I believe it *encourages* use of ALT tags, and that 99.9% of the time, it's desirable to have the values of each tag the same.
Nope. I couldn't disagree more. I think that, if anything, it *encourages* website designers to put ALT tags in because they can actually see the effect of them in their regular browsers without disabling images. I don't really see why it should cause website designers to make ALT tags 'extremely unhelpful'. Expecting them to write a paragraph for every image is stupid, and unreasonable.
Heh, this one always gets raised. I know full well that it's not meant to happen in the standards. People don't always code websites correctly to standards - I WANT the ALT text to popup, for me personally. Frankly, it seems more sensible to have the same popup text as ALT text. Half the work, and why should the two be any different? I really don't see many cases where they should be.
Besides, if Firefox adhered this religiously to other HTML standards, most websites wouldn't render properly on it.
Sort Bookmarks, Popup ALT Attribute, Copy Image, User Agent Switcher, DownloadWith. Nope, they're not all on update.mozilla.org - it doesn't list ones that aren't still maintained (often).
How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically? The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images? The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard? The ability to switch user-agent on the fly? The ability to download with software other than the browser?
There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?
Heh heh. My advice to all 18s would be not to bother with the so-called 'Prove It' card. Much ado about nothing. You go to the trouble of getting a passport photo, paying for the card and waiting for *ages* to get the thing in the post. Then, the one time I actually needed to use it, I was told 'we don't accept Prove It cards. Only passports or drivers' licences.'
Looks like that didn't work either. The page is here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?pr oduct=- All-&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets =REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&datasets=RESO LVED%3A&datasets=VERIFIED%3A
Fuck you Bugzilla. Anyone know a way of getting a link from/. to Bugzilla without pasting the actual URL?
If you DO file a bug report, it will probably never get fixed. Take a look here. See those orange, red and purple lines? They're the bugs that haven't been fixed yet, and they're increasing in number all the time. I make the count around 165,000 at the moment.
Unfortunately, sometimes you can't just 'go somewhere else'. Whilst I'll agree it's rare, there are some services, for example like the WebAccess mail that my Uni uses, that you MUST use IE for, and I do. It renders ok in Firefox but for some weird reason, logs itself out whenever you visit a new page.
Hey, a phone communicates with towers via wireless, right? So, the most logical way for it to communicate with a computer would also be... wireless. My phone (Sony Ericsson T610) has Bluetooth support, so all it takes is a Bluetooth USB dongle and I can easily access the pictures via OBEX file transfer.
I'm amazed they still make expensive phones without Bluetooth support.
I was about to say the same thing. The Aussies have such a great voting system - yet they re-elected a moronic conservative who acts like Bush's pet puppy. Maybe it doesn't matter what voting system you use - the general public are never gonna be intelligent enough to elect the 'best person'...
Not everbody is happy about this, though. The Apache people are protesting the use of the site for the telescope. Hmm. With the increased number of websites showing this thing's pictures, you'd think they'd be happy there'll be more use of their web server!;-)
I said you wouldn't be able to give me a good reason, and I was right.
I pay for the school system and I don't have kids - or intend to - but I don't make a song and dance about it. I pay for people with children to receive tax benefits but I don't whine.
The education of our children is far more important than television, in my opinion. As is the elimination of poverty. In addition, these payments are made through *general taxation*. Think about it - the infrastructure for taxation and enforcement already exists. Why do we need a seperate, reallyrathersinister body (TV Licencing), enforcing this seperate tax/licence when general taxation would remove millions of pounds in the cost of running TV Licencing, as well as ensure that *everybody* paid for this national service (not just those with TVs) and that the payment would be fairer (rich pay more, poor pay less)? Hmm?
Eat the cost and recognise the benefits to society.
I don't and probably will never recognise a major enough benefit to society to justify this tax/licence. It's simply a difference of opinion, and I strongly believe it should be scrapped.
Or why don't you and your 2999 fellow petition signatories get on the streets and march?
The people opposing the war in Iraq thought they could influence government policy by taking to the streets in their millions. They were wrong. Maybe we're intelligent enough to realise that a few thousand of us marching will do bugger all to change this, and lobbying efforts are a better use of our time and resources.
He started with 'Indeed', agreeing with the parent post, which wholeheartedly supported the concept of the licence fee. And I don't flame, I just feel strongly about this issue and it pisses me off when people use their personal gain from something to justify its existance.
In addition to the variety of free channels (and radio stations) funded by this licence, it also funds FreeView, which is free to view digital TV.
I really opbject to your use of the word 'free'. You are paying a licence fee to fund these channels. They are NOT FREE. 'Freeview' is the most inappropriate name for a service I've ever heard. 'Payview' would be far more appropriate.
Once again, you are PAYING to view the BBC, simply via an unusual mechanism. It is NOT FREE.
If you paid for lunch through the government taking its value out of your salary along with tax, and you didn't pay for the food at the time you ate it, would you say you were getting a free lunch? Because that's an appropriate analogy to calling the BBC services 'free'.
Have you noticed how we Brits defend the BBC? We generally don't mind paying the license fee
You misrepresenting literally millions of Brits, including me. I despise the licence fee. Here's a website with plenty more Brits that hate the licence fee, and proof of TV Licensing's frankly disgusting scare tactic propoganda. So please, for the last and final time, STOP MISREPRESENTING other people's views.
I don't watch much TV but when I do it's usually BBC.
That's OK; you pay for the BBC. When I watch, it's usually not the BBC. Nor do I mind adverts in between shows. Why should I pay for the BBC? Give me a GOOD reason. I bet you can't.
I have BBC radio 4 on most of the time I am in my flat because they have some truly excellent programmes.
Me too. I agree that Radio 4 has some good programmes that I like. It could easily survive WITHOUT the licence fee! Either through subscription, or even if the licence fee were part of general taxation (making it much fairer, paid by truly everybody, and drastically lowering the costs of enforcing the TV tax), but still Radio 4 would survive just fine.
Excuse me? I don't have a young daughter, or indeed any children. I'm an adult, and NEVER EVER watch Cbeebies. I virtually never watch the BBC, at all. Yet I'm expected to pay for your young daughter to watch Cbeebies just as much as you are, as opposed to you paying for it as your daughter is the one viewing it.
PLEASE explain to me how this is remotely fair. People like yours' opinion really irritates me.
Heh heh. The first time I drank Evian, I remember thinking 'WTF? This is exactly the same as tap water!'. I live in the UK. If Evian doesn't taste the same as your tap water, your water regulator sucks and you ought to be up in arms about the shit quality of your tap water.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but as I said before, I really don't see why the distinction needs to be made between ALT and TITLE. I believe the standard is wrong, and IE's behaviour is right. I believe it *encourages* use of ALT tags, and that 99.9% of the time, it's desirable to have the values of each tag the same.
Explain to me how the standards are more sensible than using ALT for popup text, and not more irritating.
Nope. I couldn't disagree more. I think that, if anything, it *encourages* website designers to put ALT tags in because they can actually see the effect of them in their regular browsers without disabling images. I don't really see why it should cause website designers to make ALT tags 'extremely unhelpful'. Expecting them to write a paragraph for every image is stupid, and unreasonable.
Heh, this one always gets raised. I know full well that it's not meant to happen in the standards. People don't always code websites correctly to standards - I WANT the ALT text to popup, for me personally. Frankly, it seems more sensible to have the same popup text as ALT text. Half the work, and why should the two be any different? I really don't see many cases where they should be.
Besides, if Firefox adhered this religiously to other HTML standards, most websites wouldn't render properly on it.
Sort Bookmarks, Popup ALT Attribute, Copy Image, User Agent Switcher, DownloadWith. Nope, they're not all on update.mozilla.org - it doesn't list ones that aren't still maintained (often).
How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically? The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images? The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard? The ability to switch user-agent on the fly? The ability to download with software other than the browser?
There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?
Heh heh. My advice to all 18s would be not to bother with the so-called 'Prove It' card. Much ado about nothing. You go to the trouble of getting a passport photo, paying for the card and waiting for *ages* to get the thing in the post. Then, the one time I actually needed to use it, I was told 'we don't accept Prove It cards. Only passports or drivers' licences.'
That doesn't excuse the licence fee.
Looks like that didn't work either. The page is here:r oduct=- All-&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets =REOPENED%3A&datasets=UNCONFIRMED%3A&datasets=RESO LVED%3A&datasets=VERIFIED%3A
/. to Bugzilla without pasting the actual URL?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/reports.cgi?p
Fuck you Bugzilla. Anyone know a way of getting a link from
Ugh. Sorry, ignore that link, I forgot that links to Bugzilla are disabled. Try this.
If you DO file a bug report, it will probably never get fixed. Take a look here. See those orange, red and purple lines? They're the bugs that haven't been fixed yet, and they're increasing in number all the time. I make the count around 165,000 at the moment.
Unfortunately, sometimes you can't just 'go somewhere else'. Whilst I'll agree it's rare, there are some services, for example like the WebAccess mail that my Uni uses, that you MUST use IE for, and I do. It renders ok in Firefox but for some weird reason, logs itself out whenever you visit a new page.
PHP doesn't make you specify blocks using tabs?
Hey, a phone communicates with towers via wireless, right? So, the most logical way for it to communicate with a computer would also be... wireless. My phone (Sony Ericsson T610) has Bluetooth support, so all it takes is a Bluetooth USB dongle and I can easily access the pictures via OBEX file transfer.
I'm amazed they still make expensive phones without Bluetooth support.
I was about to say the same thing. The Aussies have such a great voting system - yet they re-elected a moronic conservative who acts like Bush's pet puppy. Maybe it doesn't matter what voting system you use - the general public are never gonna be intelligent enough to elect the 'best person'...
Not everbody is happy about this, though. The Apache people are protesting the use of the site for the telescope. ;-)
Hmm. With the increased number of websites showing this thing's pictures, you'd think they'd be happy there'll be more use of their web server!
A message on the site now says the site is expected to be back at 8:10 PM PDT, not long from now.
Damn. And I was hoping from the article title that it'd stay down forever!
I said you wouldn't be able to give me a good reason, and I was right.
I pay for the school system and I don't have kids - or intend to - but I don't make a song and dance about it. I pay for people with children to receive tax benefits but I don't whine.
The education of our children is far more important than television, in my opinion. As is the elimination of poverty. In addition, these payments are made through *general taxation*. Think about it - the infrastructure for taxation and enforcement already exists. Why do we need a seperate, really rather sinister body (TV Licencing), enforcing this seperate tax/licence when general taxation would remove millions of pounds in the cost of running TV Licencing, as well as ensure that *everybody* paid for this national service (not just those with TVs) and that the payment would be fairer (rich pay more, poor pay less)? Hmm?
Eat the cost and recognise the benefits to society.
I don't and probably will never recognise a major enough benefit to society to justify this tax/licence. It's simply a difference of opinion, and I strongly believe it should be scrapped.
Or why don't you and your 2999 fellow petition signatories get on the streets and march?
The people opposing the war in Iraq thought they could influence government policy by taking to the streets in their millions. They were wrong. Maybe we're intelligent enough to realise that a few thousand of us marching will do bugger all to change this, and lobbying efforts are a better use of our time and resources.
He started with 'Indeed', agreeing with the parent post, which wholeheartedly supported the concept of the licence fee. And I don't flame, I just feel strongly about this issue and it pisses me off when people use their personal gain from something to justify its existance.
In addition to the variety of free channels (and radio stations) funded by this licence, it also funds FreeView, which is free to view digital TV.
I really opbject to your use of the word 'free'. You are paying a licence fee to fund these channels. They are NOT FREE. 'Freeview' is the most inappropriate name for a service I've ever heard. 'Payview' would be far more appropriate.
Once again, you are PAYING to view the BBC, simply via an unusual mechanism. It is NOT FREE.
If you paid for lunch through the government taking its value out of your salary along with tax, and you didn't pay for the food at the time you ate it, would you say you were getting a free lunch? Because that's an appropriate analogy to calling the BBC services 'free'.
So, when digital TV becomes really popular (the govt want to eliminate analogue by around 2010), the vans will be utterly useless? Good.
Have you noticed how we Brits defend the BBC? We generally don't mind paying the license fee
You misrepresenting literally millions of Brits, including me. I despise the licence fee. Here's a website with plenty more Brits that hate the licence fee, and proof of TV Licensing's frankly disgusting scare tactic propoganda. So please, for the last and final time, STOP MISREPRESENTING other people's views.
I don't watch much TV but when I do it's usually BBC.
That's OK; you pay for the BBC. When I watch, it's usually not the BBC. Nor do I mind adverts in between shows. Why should I pay for the BBC? Give me a GOOD reason. I bet you can't.
I have BBC radio 4 on most of the time I am in my flat because they have some truly excellent programmes.
Me too. I agree that Radio 4 has some good programmes that I like. It could easily survive WITHOUT the licence fee! Either through subscription, or even if the licence fee were part of general taxation (making it much fairer, paid by truly everybody, and drastically lowering the costs of enforcing the TV tax), but still Radio 4 would survive just fine.
Excuse me? I don't have a young daughter, or indeed any children. I'm an adult, and NEVER EVER watch Cbeebies. I virtually never watch the BBC, at all. Yet I'm expected to pay for your young daughter to watch Cbeebies just as much as you are, as opposed to you paying for it as your daughter is the one viewing it.
PLEASE explain to me how this is remotely fair. People like yours' opinion really irritates me.
Heh heh. The first time I drank Evian, I remember thinking 'WTF? This is exactly the same as tap water!'. I live in the UK. If Evian doesn't taste the same as your tap water, your water regulator sucks and you ought to be up in arms about the shit quality of your tap water.
Only buy a Liteon if you don't mind your DVD drive sounding like a vacuum cleaner.