You are right that the book is not a comprehensive reference for browser variations, although it does bring up differences between the CSS specification and actual browser implementations (ca. 2007), when they are critical to the content being discussed.
For example, in the chapter on Backgrounds, the book points out the relatively limited browser support for the background-origin property.
In the chapter on forms, the book mentions that only in the latest generation of browsers can you actually style input elements by selecting for type (i.e. via CSS attribute selectors).
Although robust web development requires understanding the many browser quirks that abound, I can also understand the rationale behind the authors' approach in this book, which generally is implementation-agnostic.
They are betting that as time goes on, browsers will tend to converge to the spec, and antiquated browsers will represent less and less of the browser population. In other words, the book as written will only become more accurate with time (with respect to existing specs and browsers in actual use), while information about variations in today's browsers diminish to the status of curiosities.
He was actually referring to cocaine; the fact that visual inspection of a quantity of cocaine can tell you nothing of its actual content. This is analogous to the meaninglessness of processor designations.
So the metaphor was appropriate.
It is not just a Wi-Fi SD card.
It is an SD memory card that transparently and asynchronously uploads all files stored on it to a designated IP endpoint.
In this case it's more informative to consult the literal definition of turbo, which is a mechanical device that harnesses otherwise wasted energy in order to enable a machine to suck a whole lot more.
Monday morning editions of western European regional newspapers are verifying reports of construction of Russian SRBM silos in the southwest of France, where fashion sits: Putin armed Biarritz.
This should drive home the point that deep integration between the desktop and the web is not a good idea, without tremendous thought put into the security model.
"Tremendous thought" is a weaker notion than transparency, public scrutiny, or even rigorous proof, which are really what's required.
Everything else is just hope; hide and seek.
Hopefully Google can learn and set an example here.
Companies roll it out before it's finished, or tested completely.
Can you give a real-life example of any non-trivial piece of software that is "finished" in the sense of being unimprovable (let alone bug-free)?
One of the few bits of wisdom I can share is the realization that software is never really "done", and the longer you toil in hopes of getting it "complete", the more likely you are to veer from what your customers actually want.
At best, software requirements accurately represent what customers think they want, and that's only at one point in time.
Those wants and needs are going to change, and more importantly, the real needs only become apparent after giving somebody what they "want", their tasting it, and saying, "actually, it would be better if...".
This is not an excuse for poor testing but it is a defense for early release and frequent iteration.
In my experiences with several major drive vendors, I have never gotten an "upgrade".
What you get is a replacement drive, but generally it's the same drive (perhaps refurbished or firmware-revised) and the original warranty period is still in effect (with perhaps a 30 day extension to account for your downtime).
I've RMA'd a lot of drives and never have I gotten one of different spec/size. I'm not even sure this would be desirable, e.g. in the case of replacing a drive in a RAID array with something of different specification (yes, even "better" specification). Symmetry and everything.
What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
It's a matter of inertia and first-mover advantage. YouTube will have run away with the online video audience, much as eBay ran away with the auction marketplace more than 7 years ago.
Others might pay more for content but it won't change the fact that YouTube is where everyone visits.
By way of example, Yahoo! Auctions finally did away with fees a couple years ago. It did not suddenly catapult them to parity with eBay.
So long as YouTube doesn't do anything to endanger their organic draw (e.g. FaceBook's privacy gaffes, Friendster's performance issues), they are poised to hold onto their user base indefinitely.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right that the book is not a comprehensive reference for browser variations, although it does bring up differences between the CSS specification and actual browser implementations (ca. 2007), when they are critical to the content being discussed.
For example, in the chapter on Backgrounds, the book points out the relatively limited browser support for the background-origin property.
In the chapter on forms, the book mentions that only in the latest generation of browsers can you actually style input elements by selecting for type (i.e. via CSS attribute selectors).
Although robust web development requires understanding the many browser quirks that abound, I can also understand the rationale behind the authors' approach in this book, which generally is implementation-agnostic.
They are betting that as time goes on, browsers will tend to converge to the spec, and antiquated browsers will represent less and less of the browser population. In other words, the book as written will only become more accurate with time (with respect to existing specs and browsers in actual use), while information about variations in today's browsers diminish to the status of curiosities.
He was actually referring to cocaine; the fact that visual inspection of a quantity of cocaine can tell you nothing of its actual content. This is analogous to the meaninglessness of processor designations. So the metaphor was appropriate.
I, for one, welcome our new robot applelords.
Remember what happened to Ned "The Head" Ryerson: his voice was his passport and he got verified, per se.
Watch out for that last step, it's a doozy!
It is not just a Wi-Fi SD card. It is an SD memory card that transparently and asynchronously uploads all files stored on it to a designated IP endpoint.
I think you misspelled "alibi".
In this case it's more informative to consult the literal definition of turbo, which is a mechanical device that harnesses otherwise wasted energy in order to enable a machine to suck a whole lot more.
I'm afraid it's more serious.
Monday morning editions of western European regional newspapers are verifying reports of construction of Russian SRBM silos in the southwest of France, where fashion sits: Putin armed Biarritz.
"Tremendous thought" is a weaker notion than transparency, public scrutiny, or even rigorous proof, which are really what's required.
Everything else is just hope; hide and seek.
Hopefully Google can learn and set an example here.
Also, they are three companies who have never been in my kitchen.
One of these things is not like the others.
Yes, and we'd like to keep it that way.
Thanks
- China
Touché, but if it takes a Knuth to finish software, I think the rest of us might want to consider sticking with more iterative approaches.
Can you give a real-life example of any non-trivial piece of software that is "finished" in the sense of being unimprovable (let alone bug-free)?
One of the few bits of wisdom I can share is the realization that software is never really "done", and the longer you toil in hopes of getting it "complete", the more likely you are to veer from what your customers actually want.
At best, software requirements accurately represent what customers think they want, and that's only at one point in time.
Those wants and needs are going to change, and more importantly, the real needs only become apparent after giving somebody what they "want", their tasting it, and saying, "actually, it would be better if ...".
This is not an excuse for poor testing but it is a defense for early release and frequent iteration.
I guess that means that the entirety of the release is a HALT instruction?
I'm here all week.
Forget MTTF - that would be a pretty realistic reflection of how often they really expect their drives to fail.
In my experiences with several major drive vendors, I have never gotten an "upgrade". What you get is a replacement drive, but generally it's the same drive (perhaps refurbished or firmware-revised) and the original warranty period is still in effect (with perhaps a 30 day extension to account for your downtime). I've RMA'd a lot of drives and never have I gotten one of different spec/size. I'm not even sure this would be desirable, e.g. in the case of replacing a drive in a RAID array with something of different specification (yes, even "better" specification). Symmetry and everything.
This does seem like good work, but realistically we won't know how important it is until it appears as a deus ex machina device on NUMB3RS.
Fans of Mr. Show will recognize this as a tragic case of Entitlitis.
You are jealous because he got gain.
Not to mention that this kind of auth is at best inconvenient (at worst, dangerous) in a hands-free situation such as driving.
More like the Vaiocaust.
Others might pay more for content but it won't change the fact that YouTube is where everyone visits.
By way of example, Yahoo! Auctions finally did away with fees a couple years ago. It did not suddenly catapult them to parity with eBay.
So long as YouTube doesn't do anything to endanger their organic draw (e.g. FaceBook's privacy gaffes, Friendster's performance issues), they are poised to hold onto their user base indefinitely.
The lack of lexical scoping and proper namespaces is really what kills the language.
Who knew there were so many gradations between 2 and 3 inches?
I hope one of you brought calipers.