1) Why do you get a "credit" for children ? I mean, children COST the system money, why do they deservie refunds/deductions for something that adds a burden to the system ? I don't have children (neither I nor my wife wants them) so I'm penalized for not sprogging ?
Because many people (like me) believe that children should be well-fed, educated, and generally given the best opportunities possible. Taking care of children is a responsibility shared by all grown men and women in this country and not just dumped on parents. There is plenty we can do for the children in our country, and plenty that we should do. It is reasonable for the goverment to provide a tax credit to lower-income families in an attempt to see to it that the children get fed and educated.
I have children, and I have been typically lower-income for some time, and that tax credit has made the difference between feeding them and not (at least legally; they *will* be fed).
Good spatial organization is an important part of presenting scientific and/or research data accurately and aesthetically.
This is what HTML was ORIGINALLY designed for.
Would you really trust the published results of years of research to, say, a non-portable CSS/HTML document, and hope for the best when your peers around the world try to print it?
Cosidering that html is the widest used cross-platform document format, I wonder if your dictionary contains the same definition of "non-portable" that mine does.
So you can't have a moral objection to giving your email addy to websites you frequent.
It's about trust, actually. Morality has nothing to do with it. I don't trust NYT not to sell my email address or anything like that. I *do* trust slashdot not, but if I ever catch them doing it, well, I just won't tell them it's changed recently.:)
There are quite a few sites that I frequent that I don't trust with personal information. Visiting a site frequently != trust.
The problem then devolves back to the human security problem I initially raised. I have never claimed that the list could not be distributed in a secure fashion, my claims have always been that the production of the list will be error-prone and subvertible.
Indeed, anytime you bring a human into the mix you will have a process that is error-prone and subvertible.:)
I say that as far as securing the creation and transmission of data it will be possible to do so in a reliable fashion. I'm not saying that it won't be perfect nor am I saying that there won't be any potential exploits, just that 99.999999999% of the time you would be able to rely on the data. (I don't actually check my kernels, for the record) But that one 0.0000000000000000001% when the data is wrong and 300 people or more die is going to be more trouble than anything, really. If a human built it, a human can break it. The root of the problem is still a human problem, and no matter how much you or I try to make technology fix it, it won't happen. I suppose we are actually in agreement after all, eh?:)
CRCs, etc do not ensure the quality/validity of the data that is input into the system. They only ensure that it was unchanged in transit. You still need someone to input and verify the data prior to CRC. That is the single person you need access to. Even a minor change of 1/1000 of a degree in the input data will allow you to move the area by 70cm. If you have several thousand of these numbers, how are you going to validate each and every one for accuracy down to even the nearest second?
Great, you responded to most of my post. But you left something out, the digital signature. Ever check your kernel to see who signed it? THAT is how you verify that the data is authentic. First you check the digital signature to see if the right person sent it. THEN you check the CRC to verify that the data was unchanged in transit.
It's not a perfect solution to the problem, here, but it is viable at least. We use it for heavy-duty computing security, without which people's lives may well be at stake. Why not here?
Don't get me wrong, I think that soft-walls are a bad way to approach the problem. I posted elsewhere in this article that the problem is a human problem and deserves a human solution; technological solutions will be inadequate.
Oh yeah... well... that's actually a decent answer. Pity you screwed it up by looking like a troll:)
I was in this whole LIES LIES mode and every post I made last night had at least one sentence that said LIES LIES LIES.:) Heh. I don't mind being modded troll, though, when I'm actually trolling.:)
That would only make sense if Linux itself is being undermined by something or someone... which is... what exactly?
How about this stupid argument about whether or not the operating system should be called Linux or GNU/Linux? How about all the shit SCO is talking about Linus personally stealing code from UnixWare while he was working for IBM? It's obviously all LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES.
This line of propaganda was expected. This is the entire goal, to break the collective thoughts of disparate programmers around the world. They want to *blame* Linux, to belittle Linux, so that the megacorps can control.
AND IF ALL YOU ASSHOLES WEREN'T SO GODAWFULLY CALLING THE OS LINUX THEN MAYBE GNU COULD TAKE SOME OF THIS BURDEN AS WELL.
Instead, since you have all insisted that Linus take COMPLETE credit for the so-called "Linux Operating System", NOWHERE do you see GNU getting discredited as a result of SCO. SCO's shit isn't hitting GNU and the FSF, it's only landing on the penguin's plate.
I hope you're all happy.
One more thing, LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and MORE LIES
Ok, I think I'm done ranting and raving like al unatice, but I'm not promising anything.:)
Stupid AC Troll. Reread your post. First you quote the FSF as saying thsi:
""So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work
we have done, and the software we have developed--such as the GNU/Linux
operating system. "
Then you try to summarize it for those of us that can actually read and say this:
RMS and FSF claim they developed the Linux OS.
Obviously, the quote you used is RMS and the FSF claiming they developed the GNU/Linux OS. They wouldn't say "the Linux Operating System", and the page you linked to explains why.
Bill Bates? I hope, I hope, that's a pun between 'Bill Gates' and the Czech word for idiot, 'blbec,' which is pronounced, with the Prague drawl, as 'Bill Bates.'
Sorry dude, but I checked, and it really does look like Bill Bates is going to inherent the Bates Motel. Then he's going to build newer and better windows for the thing. Then he's going to get big guns and stuff and start screaming about the penguins that are attacking his windows.
Then he's gonna cry "mommy mommy mommy" and wake up.:)
no just GNU would work to? Since Hurd is a part of the GNU Project. But then if you want to be fully correct GNU/Hurd would work.
The real problem is that there will be two kernels available for GNU, and you will have to be more explicit when you need people to know how compatible their shit is with yours.
All of this discussion would have been avoided if RMS hadn't egotistically decided not to use Linux as the GNU kernel. In fact, in Free as in Freedom, he almost sounds regretful that they didn't. It's not too late now. Drop the Hurd, adopt Linux, and then sue everyone who calls the OS Linux instead of GNU.:)
But it's way too late, and no matter who's right on the matter (I am, although my website doesn't say it), this is never going to be resolved. But consider this:
The reason we're to call the OS GNU/Linux is to educate people on GNU and give them a reason to ask "What is GNU?" so that they can learn all about Free Software. If you take away the opportunity for someone to learn, then you take away the choices inherent in the learning. However, this big ol' fight should do a good job educating people on the issue, no matter which side they line up on. RMS wins either way, so keep on fighting. Keep on keepin' on.
"Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux (an operating system kernel, which is the underlying interface to hardware devices and other system resources and not a complete package of applications/tools etc. that may or may not be GNU and copyrighted by the FSF)...."
Obviously a trollish statement. If you were a real person, and not a LIAR, you might have said:
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel
And that would be the end of it. -operating system +kernel
What's so hard to understand about that? Why do you think that saying "kernel" in this article means someone has to define the word "kernel", but saying "operating system" does not require definition?
So I guess my real question is: what is the name GNU/Linux trying to do? Prove to everyone who already knows it that the "linux" that most people run includes GNU tools?
Obviously the reporter that wrote the summary for the article does not know that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. My dad doesn't know that Linux is only a kernel, and not an operating system. Many people who are potential users do not know that Linux is just the kernel, and not a complete operating system. Would you have them believe all these LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES that Linux is a complete operating system created solely by Linus Torvalds?
Come up with a better name that doesn't give undue credit to Linus Torvalds, who jumped on the bandwagon 7 years after RMS started GNU. Linus Torvalds did not create an operating system, he gathered together the GNU tools and built a kernel. Then other people got interested, and he began taking credit for everyone else's work.
Credit is important, dude. I'm all for finding an easier name than GNU/Linux for the operating system, but if you're going to give credit to Linus Torvalds for his role, don't you think you should credit the roots too? Without GNU, Linux would never have existed. It's irrelevant whether or not you completely rebuild the GNU stuff just so you don't have to call your OS GNU/Linux, but you can't change history.
Linux is running all my drivers, talking to all my hardware, managing my memory and my processes. It is controlling my computer as an operational system. You can take GNU out of the equation with a bit of work and Linux will still go at it.
True.
I choose to use Linux. It just so happens GNU tools are included on the distros I use, but I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools, I'm choosing to use it for the kernel, its hardware support, and so forth. If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
True.
Allow me some leeway, here, though. HEre's more, not from your post:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system,
This is a lie. Linus Torvalds did not create the Linux Operating System, he created the Linux Kernel.
Whether or not you give a shit about GNU, and the fact that LInus would never have made Linux without GNU (as he has said many times, so you can google for it, you need the exercise), is completely irrelevant for the article. Furthermore, GNU is completely irrelevant for the article. The only correction needed is this:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux kernel,
As you can see, my edited version is much clearer, and in fact completely jives with your own goals.
RMS asks us to call the operating system GNU/Linux, but he never ever says that you can't refer to Linux without prepending GNU/. In fact, he specifically says that when you are referring to Linux the kernel, you should not prepend GNU/.
I think your post didn't make any sense, although I think I know what you were trying to say.
I'll say this about Christians questioning their bible, though. They're only allowed to come up with "The bible is true and good" or else they're evil satanists damned to hell for all eternity.
At least, that's what they tell me whenever I question that book and come up with something other than "Yeah, yeah, god is great, yeah, yeah, god is good".
I was specifically commenting on the sentence "The federal government has no reciprocal power" or somesuch and pointing out that the federal government used force of arms in the Civil War to take away rights from the Confederate States. That is their reciprocal power, military strength.
In a way, they can. If the required number of states (2/3) ratified a constitutional amendment disolving the federal government, that would be the end of the federal government. The fed has no such reciprical power to disolve state governments.
And the Civil War applies to this how, exactly? By showing that the feds can use force of arms to prevent the states from exercising their rights? The feds may not be able to dissolve state governments, but they can deadlock them, "dead" being the operative word.
That HTML SPec page is pretty vague about the closing comment delimiter. Seems to say that the hyphens are part of the delimiter, but you're allowed to put whitespace between the hyphens and the closing >.
I've heard about Opera for Linux, but haven't actually seen it, so I'm not in a position to screw with it. But I will definitely keep this in mind when I'm making pages.:)
I forgot to mention that in spite of what I said, the page author really needs to go back and add a hyphen.:) It sucks, but all of us web developers really do have to cater to different browsers. I'm not exactly saying that we need to care about Opera, but Opera was on the rise last time I checked, so maybe we should care at least a little bit.
Actually, Opera is rendering the site properly. If you look at the source, you'll notice that in some Javascript at the top of the page, they don't properly close one of their HTML comments. Just like it should, Opera doesn't display anything else on the page, as it's all commented out.
I don't mean to be too anal, but I went and looked at the page again and identified the line you're talking about. Then I went and looked at the doctype for the page and checked the w3c page with the spec for HTML 4. Had to scroll down a ways to get to HTML 4 Transitional (the doctype for the document in question). I didn't find anything that gave a standard for forming a HTML comment. I did find this text:
Note. Some browsers close comments on the first ">" character, so to hide script content from such browsers, you can transpose operands for relational and shift operators (e.g., use "y y") or use scripting language-dependent escapes for ">".
The line in question on the document in question looks like this:
//->
Note the missing hyphen that is typically there in an HTML comment.
When I first learned html, I learned that all you needed to mark something as a comment was <! and the closing >. The hyphens are optional and make it easier to identify that something is a hyphen. Most syntax highlighting editors I've used look for the hyphens as well (Kwrite, Programmers Notepad on Windows). However, as far as I know, the hyphens are not actually required. A browser is supposed to ignore that which it doesn't understand. Furthermore, those comments are only stuck in the script tags for browsers that don't understand the script. Browsers that DO understand the script are supposed to ignore them and interpret the script.
With all that said, why should Opera choke on this? Why doesn't it just ignore it? I've not pointed several Mozillas and Konqueror 3.1 at that page and seen it all. Why isn't Opera with the program?
I modded you up. I had to esp since this was the first god damn thing that came to my mind.
Well, you sure in the fuck didn't do him any good by posting after modding him up, since posting in the same forum that you mod in cancels your mods. Sorry, try again.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Why do you get a "credit" for children ? I mean, children COST the system money, why do they deservie refunds/deductions for something that adds a burden to the system ? I don't have children (neither I nor my wife wants them) so I'm penalized for not sprogging ?
Because many people (like me) believe that children should be well-fed, educated, and generally given the best opportunities possible. Taking care of children is a responsibility shared by all grown men and women in this country and not just dumped on parents. There is plenty we can do for the children in our country, and plenty that we should do. It is reasonable for the goverment to provide a tax credit to lower-income families in an attempt to see to it that the children get fed and educated.
I have children, and I have been typically lower-income for some time, and that tax credit has made the difference between feeding them and not (at least legally; they *will* be fed).
Are you a troll, or what?
Good spatial organization is an important part of presenting scientific and/or research data accurately and aesthetically.
This is what HTML was ORIGINALLY designed for.
Would you really trust the published results of years of research to, say, a non-portable CSS/HTML document, and hope for the best when your peers around the world try to print it?
Cosidering that html is the widest used cross-platform document format, I wonder if your dictionary contains the same definition of "non-portable" that mine does.
So you can't have a moral objection to giving your email addy to websites you frequent.
It's about trust, actually. Morality has nothing to do with it. I don't trust NYT not to sell my email address or anything like that. I *do* trust slashdot not, but if I ever catch them doing it, well, I just won't tell them it's changed recently. :)
There are quite a few sites that I frequent that I don't trust with personal information. Visiting a site frequently != trust.
The problem then devolves back to the human security problem I initially raised. I have never claimed that the list could not be distributed in a secure fashion, my claims have always been that the production of the list will be error-prone and subvertible.
Indeed, anytime you bring a human into the mix you will have a process that is error-prone and subvertible. :)
I say that as far as securing the creation and transmission of data it will be possible to do so in a reliable fashion. I'm not saying that it won't be perfect nor am I saying that there won't be any potential exploits, just that 99.999999999% of the time you would be able to rely on the data. (I don't actually check my kernels, for the record) But that one 0.0000000000000000001% when the data is wrong and 300 people or more die is going to be more trouble than anything, really. If a human built it, a human can break it. The root of the problem is still a human problem, and no matter how much you or I try to make technology fix it, it won't happen. I suppose we are actually in agreement after all, eh? :)
CRCs, etc do not ensure the quality/validity of the data that is input into the system. They only ensure that it was unchanged in transit. You still need someone to input and verify the data prior to CRC. That is the single person you need access to. Even a minor change of 1/1000 of a degree in the input data will allow you to move the area by 70cm. If you have several thousand of these numbers, how are you going to validate each and every one for accuracy down to even the nearest second?
Great, you responded to most of my post. But you left something out, the digital signature. Ever check your kernel to see who signed it? THAT is how you verify that the data is authentic. First you check the digital signature to see if the right person sent it. THEN you check the CRC to verify that the data was unchanged in transit.
It's not a perfect solution to the problem, here, but it is viable at least. We use it for heavy-duty computing security, without which people's lives may well be at stake. Why not here?
Don't get me wrong, I think that soft-walls are a bad way to approach the problem. I posted elsewhere in this article that the problem is a human problem and deserves a human solution; technological solutions will be inadequate.
Oh yeah... well... that's actually a decent answer. Pity you screwed it up by looking like a troll :)
I was in this whole LIES LIES mode and every post I made last night had at least one sentence that said LIES LIES LIES. :) Heh. I don't mind being modded troll, though, when I'm actually trolling. :)
That would only make sense if Linux itself is being undermined by something or someone... which is... what exactly?
How about this stupid argument about whether or not the operating system should be called Linux or GNU/Linux? How about all the shit SCO is talking about Linus personally stealing code from UnixWare while he was working for IBM? It's obviously all LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES.
This line of propaganda was expected. This is the entire goal, to break the collective thoughts of disparate programmers around the world. They want to *blame* Linux, to belittle Linux, so that the megacorps can control.
AND IF ALL YOU ASSHOLES WEREN'T SO GODAWFULLY CALLING THE OS LINUX THEN MAYBE GNU COULD TAKE SOME OF THIS BURDEN AS WELL.
Instead, since you have all insisted that Linus take COMPLETE credit for the so-called "Linux Operating System", NOWHERE do you see GNU getting discredited as a result of SCO. SCO's shit isn't hitting GNU and the FSF, it's only landing on the penguin's plate.
I hope you're all happy.
One more thing, LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and MORE LIES
Ok, I think I'm done ranting and raving like al unatice, but I'm not promising anything. :)
LInux. Li-l-li-li-li-li-li-li li nux.
SCO's a freakin' freak but I ain't got time to care
I've got Linux. Li li linux, yeah.
Etc. Etc.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
and MORE LIES
Stupid AC Troll. Reread your post. First you quote the FSF as saying thsi:
""So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work we have done, and the software we have developed--such as the GNU/Linux operating system. "
Then you try to summarize it for those of us that can actually read and say this:
RMS and FSF claim they developed the Linux OS.
Obviously, the quote you used is RMS and the FSF claiming they developed the GNU/Linux OS. They wouldn't say "the Linux Operating System", and the page you linked to explains why.
Try again. Next.
Bill Bates? I hope, I hope, that's a pun between 'Bill Gates' and the Czech word for idiot, 'blbec,' which is pronounced, with the Prague drawl, as 'Bill Bates.'
Sorry dude, but I checked, and it really does look like Bill Bates is going to inherent the Bates Motel. Then he's going to build newer and better windows for the thing. Then he's going to get big guns and stuff and start screaming about the penguins that are attacking his windows.
Then he's gonna cry "mommy mommy mommy" and wake up. :)
no just GNU would work to? Since Hurd is a part of the GNU Project. But then if you want to be fully correct GNU/Hurd would work.
The real problem is that there will be two kernels available for GNU, and you will have to be more explicit when you need people to know how compatible their shit is with yours.
All of this discussion would have been avoided if RMS hadn't egotistically decided not to use Linux as the GNU kernel. In fact, in Free as in Freedom, he almost sounds regretful that they didn't. It's not too late now. Drop the Hurd, adopt Linux, and then sue everyone who calls the OS Linux instead of GNU. :)
But it's way too late, and no matter who's right on the matter (I am, although my website doesn't say it), this is never going to be resolved. But consider this:
The reason we're to call the OS GNU/Linux is to educate people on GNU and give them a reason to ask "What is GNU?" so that they can learn all about Free Software. If you take away the opportunity for someone to learn, then you take away the choices inherent in the learning. However, this big ol' fight should do a good job educating people on the issue, no matter which side they line up on. RMS wins either way, so keep on fighting. Keep on keepin' on.
This isn't a troll.
LIES LIES LIES and MORE LIES
This is why:
"Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux (an operating system kernel, which is the underlying interface to hardware devices and other system resources and not a complete package of applications/tools etc. that may or may not be GNU and copyrighted by the FSF) ...."
Obviously a trollish statement. If you were a real person, and not a LIAR, you might have said:
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel
And that would be the end of it. -operating system +kernel
What's so hard to understand about that? Why do you think that saying "kernel" in this article means someone has to define the word "kernel", but saying "operating system" does not require definition?
Fuck off, Troll.
So I guess my real question is: what is the name GNU/Linux trying to do? Prove to everyone who already knows it that the "linux" that most people run includes GNU tools?
Obviously the reporter that wrote the summary for the article does not know that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. My dad doesn't know that Linux is only a kernel, and not an operating system. Many people who are potential users do not know that Linux is just the kernel, and not a complete operating system. Would you have them believe all these LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES that Linux is a complete operating system created solely by Linus Torvalds?
Come up with a better name that doesn't give undue credit to Linus Torvalds, who jumped on the bandwagon 7 years after RMS started GNU. Linus Torvalds did not create an operating system, he gathered together the GNU tools and built a kernel. Then other people got interested, and he began taking credit for everyone else's work.
Credit is important, dude. I'm all for finding an easier name than GNU/Linux for the operating system, but if you're going to give credit to Linus Torvalds for his role, don't you think you should credit the roots too? Without GNU, Linux would never have existed. It's irrelevant whether or not you completely rebuild the GNU stuff just so you don't have to call your OS GNU/Linux, but you can't change history.
Linux is running all my drivers, talking to all my hardware, managing my memory and my processes. It is controlling my computer as an operational system. You can take GNU out of the equation with a bit of work and Linux will still go at it.
True.
I choose to use Linux. It just so happens GNU tools are included on the distros I use, but I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools, I'm choosing to use it for the kernel, its hardware support, and so forth. If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
True.
Allow me some leeway, here, though. HEre's more, not from your post:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system,
This is a lie. Linus Torvalds did not create the Linux Operating System, he created the Linux Kernel.
Whether or not you give a shit about GNU, and the fact that LInus would never have made Linux without GNU (as he has said many times, so you can google for it, you need the exercise), is completely irrelevant for the article. Furthermore, GNU is completely irrelevant for the article. The only correction needed is this:
Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux kernel,
As you can see, my edited version is much clearer, and in fact completely jives with your own goals.
RMS asks us to call the operating system GNU/Linux, but he never ever says that you can't refer to Linux without prepending GNU/. In fact, he specifically says that when you are referring to Linux the kernel, you should not prepend GNU/.
Get a brain, asshole, and learn to read.
Alright that made me laugh out loud. And confirmed the fact to the wife that I'm a geek because it did.
Hasn't she seen your dick? Isn't that proof enough?
They stole my car from a crowded, busy parking lot in the middle of business from a well guarded mall.
You should have locked the doors and hoped they didn't have blasters.
Hope that clears it up for you also.
I think your post didn't make any sense, although I think I know what you were trying to say.
I'll say this about Christians questioning their bible, though. They're only allowed to come up with "The bible is true and good" or else they're evil satanists damned to hell for all eternity.
At least, that's what they tell me whenever I question that book and come up with something other than "Yeah, yeah, god is great, yeah, yeah, god is good".
And how can we prove it is alive? If we cannot, then death must be a possbility.
Go tell someone else about your dick, this is not the place for such discussion.
I was specifically commenting on the sentence "The federal government has no reciprocal power" or somesuch and pointing out that the federal government used force of arms in the Civil War to take away rights from the Confederate States. That is their reciprocal power, military strength.
In a way, they can. If the required number of states (2/3) ratified a constitutional amendment disolving the federal government, that would be the end of the federal government. The fed has no such reciprical power to disolve state governments.
And the Civil War applies to this how, exactly? By showing that the feds can use force of arms to prevent the states from exercising their rights? The feds may not be able to dissolve state governments, but they can deadlock them, "dead" being the operative word.
That HTML SPec page is pretty vague about the closing comment delimiter. Seems to say that the hyphens are part of the delimiter, but you're allowed to put whitespace between the hyphens and the closing >.
I've heard about Opera for Linux, but haven't actually seen it, so I'm not in a position to screw with it. But I will definitely keep this in mind when I'm making pages. :)
I forgot to mention that in spite of what I said, the page author really needs to go back and add a hyphen. :) It sucks, but all of us web developers really do have to cater to different browsers. I'm not exactly saying that we need to care about Opera, but Opera was on the rise last time I checked, so maybe we should care at least a little bit.
Actually, Opera is rendering the site properly. If you look at the source, you'll notice that in some Javascript at the top of the page, they don't properly close one of their HTML comments. Just like it should, Opera doesn't display anything else on the page, as it's all commented out.
I don't mean to be too anal, but I went and looked at the page again and identified the line you're talking about. Then I went and looked at the doctype for the page and checked the w3c page with the spec for HTML 4. Had to scroll down a ways to get to HTML 4 Transitional (the doctype for the document in question). I didn't find anything that gave a standard for forming a HTML comment. I did find this text:
The line in question on the document in question looks like this:
Note the missing hyphen that is typically there in an HTML comment.
When I first learned html, I learned that all you needed to mark something as a comment was <! and the closing >. The hyphens are optional and make it easier to identify that something is a hyphen. Most syntax highlighting editors I've used look for the hyphens as well (Kwrite, Programmers Notepad on Windows). However, as far as I know, the hyphens are not actually required. A browser is supposed to ignore that which it doesn't understand. Furthermore, those comments are only stuck in the script tags for browsers that don't understand the script. Browsers that DO understand the script are supposed to ignore them and interpret the script.
With all that said, why should Opera choke on this? Why doesn't it just ignore it? I've not pointed several Mozillas and Konqueror 3.1 at that page and seen it all. Why isn't Opera with the program?
I modded you up. I had to esp since this was the first god damn thing that came to my mind.
Well, you sure in the fuck didn't do him any good by posting after modding him up, since posting in the same forum that you mod in cancels your mods. Sorry, try again.