IMO "Dynamic HTML" is a vague term which is usually used by people who do not know about the subject. However, not letting that put me off, I think that this book might be useful to a professional web hacker; although they might be better off with the individual O'Reilly books on the different subjects (e.g.: DOM, CSS, HTML, XHTML, ECMAScript) (or just tree-killed standards (while learning techniques by example on the good ol' WWW or in tutorials) for those of us that can understand standards &c or cannot afford the books).
I looked at the first edition of this book in a shop and considered buying it, but decided against it due to its high price, the fact that I did not like the style (unlike most of the publisher's books which are IMO written excelently), and, mainly, my conclusion that HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide would be best for everyday design (as it has a little on other technologies (which are secondary to (X)HTML itself), and I can find about the details of these when I need them), though I'm not a professional.
I bought HTML & XHTML: The Defintive Guide, 5th Ed and it was a good read (as O'Reilly books always are), although I was a little dissapointed with a few aspects: quite a few mistakes (not just typos or such like, but the authors not actually understanding (X)HTML and giving false information in contradiction to the W3C standards), the attitude the authors took of saying "you should do foo but here is how to do bar instead", and the lack of many real-world tips, tricks and tutorials (the kind of stuff that you cannot get from the W3C). However, I found that much of the content (like extensions to HTML, browsers and history) was useful to some extent. The HTML & XHTML book is probably a good book for non-professionals and those who do not want to shell out for Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference, but still want a book. Maybe, there is an argument that to learn something well, it is best not using a book.
I am considering buying the CSS guide (and just bought XML in a Nutshell which is very comprehensive (yet reasonably concise) and well written so I it recommend highly).
Incidentally they were called "SCOX" on NASDAQ because they
wanted "SX COX" but they discovered it was one too many letters for
NASDAQ so took one "X" out. (SCO - Sucks Cocks! is their company motto for those who who didnt already know.)
Incidentally they were called "SCOX" on NASDAQ because they wanted "SX COX" but they discovered it was one too many letters for NASDAQ so took one "X" out. (SCO - Sucks Cocks! is their company motto for those who who didnt already know.)
From the article:
We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable.
I guess this Caldera guy hasn't had a very good eye on the stocks (or more likely he planned they would go back down (after everyone realised SCOSource was talking bullshit) and sold his just before they did).
(The Internet was just a network (which, incidentally, no one used before the Web) and it was invented for "defence" purposes so it does not count - see grandparent.)
Photoshopped? Not GIMPed? That's just...evil. How awful!
Using Ph*t*sh*p on Tux...poor thing...he may need help to recover though I guess being stuck with the females in the picture helped to go some way to negate any detrimental effects.:)
P.S. Do you have any information on who may have been responsible for this terrible crime?
There is certainly some truth to what you say, although MS's software seems to be almost as bad in areas (like server OS's) where they are threatened.
You might think that poking the sleeping dragon isn't such a smart idea, though.
Ummm...excuse me but weren't you talking about MS here?
I think you'll find Mozilla is the (wide-awake) dragon and MSIE is a blue (IMO dead "e").
Although, I can see how "poking the dead letter (which is a super-unintelligent shade of the colour blue [STR]) isn't such a smart idea" does not make for such an effective argument. 'Nuff said.
You expect any browser to display that "M$HTML" tag soup with crazy amounts of JS?
The so-called "webpage" is totally blank unless JS is enabled. I then enabled JS. Frankly, I prefered the version without JS enabled. Initial observations: some characters are replaced by question marks (as they do not exist in the default character encoding), the page has no useful content and the layout sucks.
No character encoding is sent with the page or included in the page and it has no doctype.
After working out the character encoding and putting in the doctype of HTML Transitional (as that is the most lax one and any old crap passes), I validated it. Enjoy! 621 errors including non-SGML characters (they exist?)
Now look at the CSS - yes all of the plethora of CSS - argghhh.
That is not a webpage. It is crap.
BTW, it looks like a bug has been filed. In fact there are hundreds of tech evangilism bugs for ESPN.
That is because about:mozilla on MSIE used to contain some poetry parodying about:mozilla (cannot find it now) with a blue background (some people say that it implies that NN & Moz cause BSOD's which is probs wrong). They removed the text from the page but left the function and page in.
You can see the about:* pages for MSIE and edit them in the registry at Hkey_Local_Machine/Software/Microsoft/Internet Explorer/AboutURLs.
This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and
misspelled Slashdot headlines are made.
You've got to love this.
The headline of this story should read "GNU FDL" or "GFDL" - not "GNU GFDL" which is redundant.
Also, I think they mean "Debian to declare" - not "Debian GNU/Linux to declare" - as last time I checked my OS did not have the ability to express opinions.
So that is 2 mistakes and that's just the headline. If only the editors RTFA they might pay special attention to not making typos in headlines where the article says "This is the stuff of... misspelled Slashdot headlines".
it must be one of those new hyper-intelligent servers that can see into the future and pre-emtively brought itself down befor it could be/.ed .
Grrrr... Let's just hope these things don't get too popular or people might not be able RTFA (wait...seriously when did they do that...maybe every1 will want to when they can't).
How is that flamebait? It has lots of very good points and is soo true. Mod Parent +5 Insightful.
/. in summary: Really insightful: get modded down. Pander to the/. masses (with a content-free troll or something that states the obvious or your opinions with no argument to back up): get modded up.
This so-called 4-D optical mouse (2-D surely?;-) ) at ThinkGeek can do horizontal and vertical scrolling with a mouseball on top instead of a mousewheel.
Far more important than its application in spreadsheets etc. is the fact that these are modern optical mouse that still have balls.
Didn't you find it really annoying that with the advent of optical mice you could no longer play with their balls. All you worries have been lifted with the "4-D optical mouse"!
Not only can you play with its ball but it is positioned on top so you can do it with out looking like a wierdo with your mouse upside down on your desk. Your boss thinks u r scrolling through important-looking spreadsheets with your ball mouse when u r really just playing with its ball. Amazing stuff!
Thanks! I got modded "over-rated". Maybe, I should be less forceful. If one sounds nice even if it is crap, I guess, one gets modded up. It was a bit off-topic I admit. This post will be even more so.;-)
Be careful, as the word "Constitution" is probably copyrighted.
You can copyright single words now? Seriously, although I do not think you can do that, different forms of IP have now crossed over (especially in the USA) to make the seperate categories (TM's, copyright, plant rights, patents, &c) almost meaningless. IP needs a serious overhaul.
Also, due to international agreements, if one country (e.g.: US) considers something, say, patentable and it is applied for there, it becomes registered IP elsewhere.
This is a big problem now that the USPTO are now patenting discoveries (e.g.: lifeforms, laws of nature, mathematical algorithms and numbers), patenting information (as opposed to copyrighting it), trademarking generic terms (e.g.: "Windows"), &c
It's at Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, where "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" This allows an Army and Navy for the U.S.(federal), and militias of the people (state).
Now I think about it, it may be saying that the individual states have standing armies but not the country as a whole (if it is saying what I think it is).
this is an archive of historic documents, why do you worry that it will be interpeted as a "propoganda machine"
I was refering to an earlier comment that described it as such and I do not think it is at all.
Also, the Constitution does not, in any way, forbid a standing military.
If you read the bit about the military it could be construed as saying that there should not be a permanent army (e.g: one should be created when attacked) (particularly see the 2-year rule). I am not sure if that is exactly what it means but I am not sure what else it could mean. I thought that bit was surprsing and may be topical given the current war. I may be misinterpreting.
primary role of the President is to command the military
I do not agree that the government is trying to break the Constitution.
But do you agree that they are (even if not trying) with the numerous invasions of privacy and removal of rights (like the DMCA) which are on/. all the time?
But there have also been times in the past when the constitional rights came under great strain (such as the Civil War).
I did not say that it was necessarily a recent thing. My point was that, it looks no more democratic than countries without a clear constitution (and less democratic than many). This seems to indicate that, whether the Governments powers are set in stone or not, they will be abused (or, maybe, that typical random citizens do not think that their rights are that important - at least, not until they are directly and personally affected by the removal of them).
Good Site but It's Sad
on
NARA Goes Online
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
First I would say this site is a very good idea. I do not think people should judge it as a "propoganda machine" yet. It certainly does not look that way to me. It uses some bad HTML and does not validate (even the homepage has invalid HTML) but it is not bad (and/. is probably worse). I have not looked at it all but it seems very comprehensive and interesting from the perspective of a non-USAn.
I am not in the US but I must say that I think the US Constitution is very well written and a great model for any nation (even if I may not totally disagree with small parts). I just read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and it it is well-written, timeless (i.e.: still applicable) and looks like the authors really cared about democracy and wanted to start a true democratic republic where the people had the power (and were not controlled by a government but had ccontrol over a truly democratic congress).
However, the more I read of the Constitution, the more it seems that the modern governments of the USA try to break every rule (just go through them) it sets (to the extent that I believe many countries are far more democratic). Something I did not know that is interesting is that it seems to implie that the USA government is not allowed to have a permenent army but when attacked the citizens may form one for a short period (hence the right to bear arms, I guess). Throughout it really does put the citizens control, but, I guess, it did not work...
Slashdot Mirror
(Incidentally, there is not really anything orignal in the MSW GUI - it is nearly all copied from elsewhere (e.g.: Apple).)
(I was going to mod this a troll but was not sure if it was, so replied instead).
IMO "Dynamic HTML" is a vague term which is usually used by people who do not know about the subject. However, not letting that put me off, I think that this book might be useful to a professional web hacker; although they might be better off with the individual O'Reilly books on the different subjects (e.g.: DOM, CSS, HTML, XHTML, ECMAScript) (or just tree-killed standards (while learning techniques by example on the good ol' WWW or in tutorials) for those of us that can understand standards &c or cannot afford the books).
I looked at the first edition of this book in a shop and considered buying it, but decided against it due to its high price, the fact that I did not like the style (unlike most of the publisher's books which are IMO written excelently), and, mainly, my conclusion that HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide would be best for everyday design (as it has a little on other technologies (which are secondary to (X)HTML itself), and I can find about the details of these when I need them), though I'm not a professional.
I bought HTML & XHTML: The Defintive Guide, 5th Ed and it was a good read (as O'Reilly books always are), although I was a little dissapointed with a few aspects: quite a few mistakes (not just typos or such like, but the authors not actually understanding (X)HTML and giving false information in contradiction to the W3C standards), the attitude the authors took of saying "you should do foo but here is how to do bar instead", and the lack of many real-world tips, tricks and tutorials (the kind of stuff that you cannot get from the W3C). However, I found that much of the content (like extensions to HTML, browsers and history) was useful to some extent. The HTML & XHTML book is probably a good book for non-professionals and those who do not want to shell out for Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference , but still want a book. Maybe, there is an argument that to learn something well, it is best not using a book.
I am considering buying the CSS guide (and just bought XML in a Nutshell which is very comprehensive (yet reasonably concise) and well written so I it recommend highly).
Incidentally they were called "SCOX" on NASDAQ because they wanted "SX COX" but they discovered it was one too many letters for NASDAQ so took one "X" out. ( SCO - Sucks Cocks! is their company motto for those who who didnt already know.)
God is a company?...that begins to explain a lot about the world.
hmmm...maybe www.god.gov or even www.god.net or www.god.org but .com?
Incidentally they were called "SCOX" on NASDAQ because they wanted "SX COX" but they discovered it was one too many letters for NASDAQ so took one "X" out. ( SCO - Sucks Cocks! is their company motto for those who who didnt already know.)
From the article:
I guess this Caldera guy hasn't had a very good eye on the stocks (or more likely he planned they would go back down (after everyone realised SCOSource was talking bullshit) and sold his just before they did).(The Internet was just a network (which, incidentally, no one used before the Web) and it was invented for "defence" purposes so it does not count - see grandparent.)
Come to that, who invented the computer?
>>so that you could afford more votes>closer to "people power" hmmm ;-)
Using Ph*t*sh*p on Tux...poor thing...he may need help to recover though I guess being stuck with the females in the picture helped to go some way to negate any detrimental effects. :)
P.S. Do you have any information on who may have been responsible for this terrible crime?
I think you'll find Mozilla is the (wide-awake) dragon and MSIE is a blue (IMO dead "e").
Although, I can see how "poking the dead letter (which is a super-unintelligent shade of the colour blue [STR]) isn't such a smart idea" does not make for such an effective argument. 'Nuff said.
It is the worst (de)compression/archiving program I have ever enocuntered.
Only happens in Mozilla Firebird.
Bad request Your browser sent a query this server could not understand
The so-called "webpage" is totally blank unless JS is enabled. I then enabled JS. Frankly, I prefered the version without JS enabled. Initial observations: some characters are replaced by question marks (as they do not exist in the default character encoding), the page has no useful content and the layout sucks.
No character encoding is sent with the page or included in the page and it has no doctype.
After working out the character encoding and putting in the doctype of HTML Transitional (as that is the most lax one and any old crap passes), I validated it. Enjoy! 621 errors including non-SGML characters (they exist?)
Now look at the CSS - yes all of the plethora of CSS - argghhh.
That is not a webpage. It is crap.
BTW, it looks like a bug has been filed. In fact there are hundreds of tech evangilism bugs for ESPN.
You can see the about:* pages for MSIE and edit them in the registry at Hkey_Local_Machine/Software/Microsoft/Internet Explorer/AboutURLs.
The headline of this story should read "GNU FDL" or "GFDL" - not "GNU GFDL" which is redundant.
Also, I think they mean "Debian to declare" - not "Debian GNU/Linux to declare" - as last time I checked my OS did not have the ability to express opinions.
So that is 2 mistakes and that's just the headline. If only the editors RTFA they might pay special attention to not making typos in headlines where the article says "This is the stuff of ... misspelled Slashdot headlines".
it must be one of those new hyper-intelligent servers that can see into the future and pre-emtively brought itself down befor it could be /.ed .
Grrrr... Let's just hope these things don't get too popular or people might not be able RTFA (wait...seriously when did they do that...maybe every1 will want to when they can't).
/. in summary: Really insightful: get modded down. Pander to the /. masses (with a content-free troll or something that states the obvious or your opinions with no argument to back up): get modded up.
(Yes this is flamebait. ;-) )
Far more important than its application in spreadsheets etc. is the fact that these are modern optical mouse that still have balls.
Didn't you find it really annoying that with the advent of optical mice you could no longer play with their balls. All you worries have been lifted with the "4-D optical mouse"!
Not only can you play with its ball but it is positioned on top so you can do it with out looking like a wierdo with your mouse upside down on your desk. Your boss thinks u r scrolling through important-looking spreadsheets with your ball mouse when u r really just playing with its ball. Amazing stuff!
Also see www.favelets.com.
N.B.: I have read the constitution and actually like it (if only it was implemented) see <plug type="shameless">a post I just made to another related story</plug>
You can copyright single words now? Seriously, although I do not think you can do that, different forms of IP have now crossed over (especially in the USA) to make the seperate categories (TM's, copyright, plant rights, patents, &c) almost meaningless. IP needs a serious overhaul.Also, due to international agreements, if one country (e.g.: US) considers something, say, patentable and it is applied for there, it becomes registered IP elsewhere.
This is a big problem now that the USPTO are now patenting discoveries (e.g.: lifeforms, laws of nature, mathematical algorithms and numbers), patenting information (as opposed to copyrighting it), trademarking generic terms (e.g.: "Windows"), &c
Also, see my cousin (to this) reply.
I am not in the US but I must say that I think the US Constitution is very well written and a great model for any nation (even if I may not totally disagree with small parts). I just read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and it it is well-written, timeless (i.e.: still applicable) and looks like the authors really cared about democracy and wanted to start a true democratic republic where the people had the power (and were not controlled by a government but had ccontrol over a truly democratic congress).
However, the more I read of the Constitution, the more it seems that the modern governments of the USA try to break every rule (just go through them) it sets (to the extent that I believe many countries are far more democratic). Something I did not know that is interesting is that it seems to implie that the USA government is not allowed to have a permenent army but when attacked the citizens may form one for a short period (hence the right to bear arms, I guess). Throughout it really does put the citizens control, but, I guess, it did not work...