Great! I like pork chops! What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Worse. One of the whole points of jQuery is that it (a) makes it practical/easy to do js in this "right way" (b) furthermore, makes it difficult to do it any other way!
You build something that works fine without any js, for example links that go to <a href="page.php?id=4" class="tablink">, and then $(document).ready() gives you a functional place to remove those links and attach your
$('.tablink).click(function(){ // put in your funky ajax/dhtml way of showing the stuff in the id specified in this.attr(href) instead })
When using jQuery, you don't hardcode the ajaxy way into your <a onclick="javascript:"> attrib, because the $ object isn't guaranteed to be available. So, it pretty much forces you to do it properly and register an event the nice way - after the fact, separate to your well-formed structural markup. Oh, and you're selecting stuff with CSS selectors, so you're pretty much forced to do "right way" CSS too.
Before frameworks - you were in a world of hurt even figuring out how to attach events in a plays-nicely way (example). Even a fundamental like getElementByID meant browser incompatibility issues. You spent so much time tearing your hair out about this crap, by the time you had the javascriptified version working, you honestly struggled to care about the 2% of people surfing with js disabled.
By (a) taking away all this bullshit and (b) encouraging (through their documentation/community), if not outright requiring, a "best practice" type of "house style" / coding conventions, frameworks like jQuery actually let developers spend time writing useful stuff that you KNOW won't fuck people's shit up, because someone cleverer than you made sure it won't, instead of spending all your time writing boilerplate nonsense to make sure it doesn't fuck people's shit up.
I mean, seriously, where is the jquery plugin for loading a "billion popups"? Where is the John Resig blog post that advises you javascript means you don't need to check POSTs server side anymore? Oh yeah, they don't exist. So this is pretty much the last audience that needed that lecture (correct as it was, in it's own right). Still, I suppose it's too much to expect for there to ever be a js related story on slashdot without someone charging in with an irrelevant anti-js rant. Same as every phone story has to have the obligatory I JUST WANT A SIMPLE PHONE wahmbulance post. *sigh*
Likewise, how many results for "IE crashes" are actually sentences like "Given a corrupt file, Powerpoint references bad memory and causes a page fault, ie crashes".
Yes, that should be technically "i.e." but I'm sure there are numerous instances of people skipping the punctuation.
I would have said I am definitely not arachnophobic, because I don't kill spiders around the house, they don't bother me at all. In fact I like seeing them, because I know they eat other bugs. I think this attitude largely came thanks to my parents: I remember there was a large (by our standards - see below) spider that used to live on the bedroom ceiling at my childhood home, they called it Fido and acted like it was a pet!
It also probably stems from the fact that I'm in the UK, where none of our spiders are dangerous, and they don't get any bigger than a couple of inches across (including legs).
But....... I clicked on that quoted link, and literally shivered in disgust. Sufficiently repulsed that I'm not even going to click on the others!
Which is why "Big" retails are well stocked with the latest Hollywood film, but not that obscure DVD with British humor.
Your explanation of the Long Tail concept is on point, but I struggle to accept Monty Python counts as "obscure" and would not normally be stocked outside of long tail stores?
He went into instances with friends, left group, tagged all the mobs, then let them do all the damage. since those mobs were designed to be taken down by a group, they gave lots of experience.
I'm pleased to say I didn't understand a word of that.
You make it sound like reddit is way worse than here. I don't really see it. Anything that makes it on slashdot, I usually saw on reddit two days before. Of the other stuff on reddit that doesn't make it on slashdot, sure, some of it is drivel, but some of it is interesting and frankly should make it on slashdot. And you should be able to skim over the drivel easily enough, no? I like the idea of editors for quality control in theory, but let's face it: the editors here don't do even the most rudimentary quality control anyway. Glaring typos in headlines, same-day dupes, factually incorrect/flamebaity headlines/summaries, etc.
Which leaves only the old stalwart, "ah, but the magic of slashdot is in the comments". Yeah. Used to be true. Not so sure any more. I remember when I first started reading slashdot, there'd be a story about space exploration, and up would pop a bona fide rocket scientist. Story about maths - here's a comment from a mathematician working in that field. Now, it's just an endless cycle of the same old topics and the same old groupthinky comments. Oh look, yet another story about the RIAA, yet another +5 insightful for someone calling them the MAFIAA, hilarious. Frankly I think the mod system has bred a certain kind of pomposity here, many of the insightful/informative comments reek of holier than thou / comic book guy, so most of the comments I really enjoy here these days are the funnies. And reddit has equally funny, if not funnier, funnies.
Frankly since I discovered reddit it's become my first choice, and I no longer check slashdot every day, as I have done for the last 7 or 8 years...
Well it mostly looks like he mostly uses the first and last letter of each word, or the whole word if it's 3 letters. But I haven't figured out what goes on with "young" etc?
I've not seen that one before. I don't think it's the original. This says it started with a 4chan post about.RAR files. Also includes your linked pic as one of many spinoffs. (Warning: link has some NSFW advertising, so if you don't use adblock the overall page may be considered NSFW. Rest of page is SFW though. Rest of site is definitely not so careful where you browse;-) )
I disagree. Shutdown time is no big deal because you can go grab a snack while the computer shutsdown.
And pray tell me, what exactly prevents you from going to grab a snack while the computer boots up?
The reason today's computers are so ridiculously slow is because they load a bunch of crap. Why? Do I need to have Itunes or Quicktime or Microsoft Office preloaded in the background? Absolutely not. If they followed the philosophy of earlier OSes, where programs were only loaded *when needed*, then the bootup time would be very short.
Well, yeah. And then the time spent waiting to open the program would be equivalently longer, so you don't make a net gain. (Assuming you do open that software at some point after boot.) In fact it's worse, because instead of one longish wait where you can go grab a snack, but once it's done it's done and your computer is actually fit to USE, you have lots of smaller subsequent waits every time you want to actually DO anything like listen to a tune or write a letter, none of these subsequent waits long enough to grab a snack.
</devilsadvocate(ish)>
Now, I say devil's advocate (ish) because of course, I don't really think anything and everything should be stuffed into a boot-time preload. On the other hand, if it's something you ARE going to use every time you switch your computer on, then my above text seems not so much a tongue-in-cheek counterargument as much as something I would seriously stand by. iTunes for example - well, I f***ing loath itunes, but I simply do not switch on my PC without listening to music, so it would theoretically make sense to preload my media player. MS Office? Well, I simply do not switch on my work PC without using it, so why not? I do, in all seriousness, go off to make myself my morning cup of tea while it boots, so why not get all that loading out of the way then?
I guess the key from my perspective is that software which does this should do so transparently - i.e., I should be the one who chooses to preload at boot, and I should be able to un-choose at any time. As opposed to the Realplayer habit of infesting yourself automatically. So long as it's all in my control I honestly don't see the problem with what you're denigrating.
I didn't bother trying Chrome to be honest, so I wasn't actually saying I think they are faster. I was just saying, we are now well past the point where you can say either "very few popular sites use javascript" or "very few sites use javascript that takes more than 2ms to run", let alone both at once.
I'll answer the AC reply while I'm here - no, it's not a Pentium 90. It's not state of the art either, to be fair: it's a P4, single core 2.4Ghz, 1GM RAM. But that machine can mix 50 channels of hi def audio with a whole shedload of realtime DSP plugins and my sequencer stays responsive throughout. But dial up any remotely "cutting-edge" webapp, and it frequently fails to keep the browser responsive, so there's gotta be room for improvement in the latter department. Improvement as in optimisation, not simply "chuck some newer hardware at it".
I honestly don't know the details of WHY, whether it's the js engine exactly, or something else. Perhaps the perceived speed improvement in Chrome over Firefox is more about the different processes stuff (UI in a separate one?). Either way I just know there's still room yet in the market for optimisation, so even though I don't fancy Chrome right now, I'm glad they're doing something which people say makes things seem faster, cos if that something is any good, Firefox et al will nick it sooner or later.
The number of pages where parsing javascript is more than 2 miliseconds is probably analogous to the number of crap webpages on the internet. Most people dont spend a lot of time on those, including you.
A rather ironic comment to be making here, the one site I frequent which uses sufficiently heavy javascript to regularly trigger firefox's "this has been going on for bloody ages, do you want to abort it" warning dialog.
Other examples? Facebook uses javascript quite heavily, a quick profile with firebug suggested about 93ms spent parsing javascript when I hit F5 on my homepage. I know slashdotters are far too sneery and off-my-lawn to use social networking websites, but "most people" do use them.
Gmail took a mighty 7219ms running javascript when I logged into my inbox. I believe Hotmail, Yahoo etc have similar AJAXy interfaces for their webmail too, and "most people" in my experience use webmail rather than use the address their ISP gives them, let alone the 'run my own server' stuff popular on slashdot.
Opening the Youtube homepage? 203ms.
Opening the Flickr homepage? 94ms.
So, sorry, I can't really agree with your statement. I fear you might get on that aforementioned slashdot sneery high horse and declare that I only proved your point because Facebook and Youtube are classic examples of "crap webpages", but that still leaves the rest of the statement to disagree with, and I would argue that "most people" use these sort of sites, and they conclusively take a lot more than 2ms running their javascript.
So personally I know where GP is coming from, with js stuff becoming increasingly widespread and heavy, I'm finding it increasingly common to sit here annoyed with a laggy, cpu-spiralling firefox, wondering how the hell a PC I bought for music production, and which handles umpteen tracks of hi-definition audio with ease, struggles to view a webpage these days. But, the speedup of a faster engine in Chrome isn't worth seeing ads for me. Nothing is, heh.
I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended
No, nor do I. That line was supposed to be sort dryly sarcastic. Point being, at least that copy/paste troll / knee-jerk slashbot-ism would make some basic sort of "plausible" sense given the situation, even if I don't personally think it an argument worth any real weight in practice.
I assume this is a deliberate troll because nobody could actually be that stupid. After all, you don't need to google jquery to see you have it completely backwards, it only requires reading the summary.
In short: jQuery is not Microsoft's ripoff of anything, and they are not open sourcing it. It already WAS open source (dual MIT/GPL licensed), and it wasn't written by them. It was created by John Resig who now works for Mozilla.
So far from being the latest example of MS's "Not Invented Here" problem, it's actually a suggestion that they may be overcoming NIH. And when you say "They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them" - that's what they did.
If you really must come out with a standard-issue anti-MS troll, I believe the "they'll embrace, extend, extinguish it, just you wait and see" one is the correct one to use in this situation.
Oh, and as for Prototype/scriptaculous doing it better... *shrug* well I prefer jQuery but it's obviously a matter of opinion to some extent, so if you found you prefered them (or mootools, or YUI, or whatever), fair enough. That said, your given justification is off target, jQuery has a plugin system so if you don't want a bunch of UI level stuff but just the "lower-layer stuff", that works too. Admittedly the distinction of what is lower layer and what is plugin may be slightly different between projects, and jquery core does include some animation related stuff, but still, you can't realistically imply jquery is monolithically bloated.
Even if you're in equal temperament, it's not entirely safe to say E#==F.
It would be equal as in "the pitch of the two notes is the same", but not conceptually interchangable. For example, the third note of A-flat minor is a C-flat, not a B natural.
Perhaps Technologizer got tired of clicking through TFA before reaching #5.
Technologizer is the name of the site itself. ie, this was self-submitted. ie, what many on/. would call spam, although I don't really see why people shouldn't submit their own stuff, personally.
The questioning the omission of "Dave" came from Samzenpus. It is, of course, entirely unsurprising that the 'editor' who approved TFA didn't bother to read it.
True, but then you have to consider the fact that the road was originally a cattle trail, and the cows were walking northward, just like the article said.
I never have mod points when I want them... This is the point I make some remark about spraying my mouthful of tea all over my keyboard, except that didn't happen, and frankly I suspect it never happens, to anybody.
Anyway, to give some vaguely on-topic content besides the "MOD UP FUNNYY!!"1!!", has else found much significance in their north-south orientation? I've read that humans, too, have a favourite, for sleeping, and if (for example) they always sleep pointing north at home, they may find sleep difficult/disturbed if they go away to (eg) a hotel room with a westerly bed. Can't remember where I read it, though, so I've no idea how seriously to take it.
There was actually something good about Napster, when you got a song, it was actually a song, instead of going on p2p's, downloading an MP3, and it ends up being some dog fucking a woman
I mean, I still won, but what if it had been something sick...
I admit I know effectively zero knowledge, let alone intimate knowledge, about transit card systems, but I'm fairly sure xaxa is correct. I'm fairly sure I remember reading that Oyster was asynchronous, ie value was stored "distributed" on the cards not on a single centralised/trusted database.
This tallies with reality, I can jump off a bus, onto another, then quickly off that and head straight into the tube, and the tube barrier will reflect the money I just spent on the buses. Without fail. There's clearly no way the buses have "docked" at the depot, and would these mobile phone modems be "always on"? It doesn't seem right to me. There are 8000 buses, which are actually owned/operated by a multitude of sub-contracted private companies, it seems like storing value on the card would be an easily proposition than relying on all those mobile phone modems staying permanently connected? On the flipside, it would be pretty slow to complete a bus rider boarding/paying with an oyster card event - how slow are we talking about here? The AC talks of "microseconds", which is no problem at all, the Oyster generally does need to make fairly decent 'contact' with the reader, a highly vague/fast dab will often fail to read. I'd easily call it a 10th of a second 'pause' as you swipe - be generous, call it a 20th - that's still 50 microseconds, isnt that enough to transfer a single currency value?
That's genuine curiosity in those questions, btw, not rhetorical hostility. Like I said, I don't know much about this stuff and happy to learn, but I do remember reading it was on the card...
WP says, incidentally:
The system is asynchronous, with the current balance and ticket data held electronically on the card rather than in the central database. The main database is updated periodically with information received from the card by barriers and validators. Tickets purchased online or over the telephone are "loaded" at a preselected barrier or validator.
But when I say read, I mean somewhere more 'solid' than WP... Can't find a reference now...
Slashdot Mirror
Great! I like pork chops! What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Worse. One of the whole points of jQuery is that it (a) makes it practical/easy to do js in this "right way" (b) furthermore, makes it difficult to do it any other way!
You build something that works fine without any js, for example links that go to <a href="page.php?id=4" class="tablink">, and then $(document).ready() gives you a functional place to remove those links and attach your
$('.tablink).click(function(){
// put in your funky ajax/dhtml way of showing the stuff in the id specified in this.attr(href) instead
})
When using jQuery, you don't hardcode the ajaxy way into your <a onclick="javascript:"> attrib, because the $ object isn't guaranteed to be available. So, it pretty much forces you to do it properly and register an event the nice way - after the fact, separate to your well-formed structural markup. Oh, and you're selecting stuff with CSS selectors, so you're pretty much forced to do "right way" CSS too.
Before frameworks - you were in a world of hurt even figuring out how to attach events in a plays-nicely way (example). Even a fundamental like getElementByID meant browser incompatibility issues. You spent so much time tearing your hair out about this crap, by the time you had the javascriptified version working, you honestly struggled to care about the 2% of people surfing with js disabled.
By (a) taking away all this bullshit and (b) encouraging (through their documentation/community), if not outright requiring, a "best practice" type of "house style" / coding conventions, frameworks like jQuery actually let developers spend time writing useful stuff that you KNOW won't fuck people's shit up, because someone cleverer than you made sure it won't, instead of spending all your time writing boilerplate nonsense to make sure it doesn't fuck people's shit up.
I mean, seriously, where is the jquery plugin for loading a "billion popups"? Where is the John Resig blog post that advises you javascript means you don't need to check POSTs server side anymore? Oh yeah, they don't exist. So this is pretty much the last audience that needed that lecture (correct as it was, in it's own right). Still, I suppose it's too much to expect for there to ever be a js related story on slashdot without someone charging in with an irrelevant anti-js rant. Same as every phone story has to have the obligatory I JUST WANT A SIMPLE PHONE wahmbulance post. *sigh*
Likewise, how many results for "IE crashes" are actually sentences like "Given a corrupt file, Powerpoint references bad memory and causes a page fault, ie crashes".
Yes, that should be technically "i.e." but I'm sure there are numerous instances of people skipping the punctuation.
Holy [nationalgeographic.com]
I would have said I am definitely not arachnophobic, because I don't kill spiders around the house, they don't bother me at all. In fact I like seeing them, because I know they eat other bugs. I think this attitude largely came thanks to my parents: I remember there was a large (by our standards - see below) spider that used to live on the bedroom ceiling at my childhood home, they called it Fido and acted like it was a pet!
It also probably stems from the fact that I'm in the UK, where none of our spiders are dangerous, and they don't get any bigger than a couple of inches across (including legs).
But....... I clicked on that quoted link, and literally shivered in disgust. Sufficiently repulsed that I'm not even going to click on the others!
"revere the greatest sweaterdresses assets"?
I suppose technically that doesn't work for lack of an apostrophe after sweaterdresses.
Which is why "Big" retails are well stocked with the latest Hollywood film, but not that obscure DVD with British humor.
Your explanation of the Long Tail concept is on point, but I struggle to accept Monty Python counts as "obscure" and would not normally be stocked outside of long tail stores?
1. It's EXIF, not EXIM.
2. 11th-14th words of the summary, never mind the article, "shorn of any metadata".
Truly, your comment was BRILLIANT. Brilliantly retarded.
He went into instances with friends, left group, tagged all the mobs, then let them do all the damage. since those mobs were designed to be taken down by a group, they gave lots of experience.
I'm pleased to say I didn't understand a word of that.
You make it sound like reddit is way worse than here. I don't really see it. Anything that makes it on slashdot, I usually saw on reddit two days before. Of the other stuff on reddit that doesn't make it on slashdot, sure, some of it is drivel, but some of it is interesting and frankly should make it on slashdot. And you should be able to skim over the drivel easily enough, no? I like the idea of editors for quality control in theory, but let's face it: the editors here don't do even the most rudimentary quality control anyway. Glaring typos in headlines, same-day dupes, factually incorrect/flamebaity headlines/summaries, etc.
Which leaves only the old stalwart, "ah, but the magic of slashdot is in the comments". Yeah. Used to be true. Not so sure any more. I remember when I first started reading slashdot, there'd be a story about space exploration, and up would pop a bona fide rocket scientist. Story about maths - here's a comment from a mathematician working in that field. Now, it's just an endless cycle of the same old topics and the same old groupthinky comments. Oh look, yet another story about the RIAA, yet another +5 insightful for someone calling them the MAFIAA, hilarious. Frankly I think the mod system has bred a certain kind of pomposity here, many of the insightful/informative comments reek of holier than thou / comic book guy, so most of the comments I really enjoy here these days are the funnies. And reddit has equally funny, if not funnier, funnies.
Frankly since I discovered reddit it's become my first choice, and I no longer check slashdot every day, as I have done for the last 7 or 8 years...
I think Gutenberg was a person.
Yeah, he was in those Police Academy movies, right?
Well it mostly looks like he mostly uses the first and last letter of each word, or the whole word if it's 3 letters. But I haven't figured out what goes on with "young" etc?
I've not seen that one before. I don't think it's the original. This says it started with a 4chan post about .RAR files. Also includes your linked pic as one of many spinoffs. (Warning: link has some NSFW advertising, so if you don't use adblock the overall page may be considered NSFW. Rest of page is SFW though. Rest of site is definitely not so careful where you browse ;-) )
That dudes from the cartoons Metalocalypse has a vocal tick wheres he pluralises everythings. Basically.
<devilsadocate(ish)>
I disagree. Shutdown time is no big deal because you can go grab a snack while the computer shutsdown.
And pray tell me, what exactly prevents you from going to grab a snack while the computer boots up?
The reason today's computers are so ridiculously slow is because they load a bunch of crap. Why? Do I need to have Itunes or Quicktime or Microsoft Office preloaded in the background? Absolutely not. If they followed the philosophy of earlier OSes, where programs were only loaded *when needed*, then the bootup time would be very short.
Well, yeah. And then the time spent waiting to open the program would be equivalently longer, so you don't make a net gain. (Assuming you do open that software at some point after boot.) In fact it's worse, because instead of one longish wait where you can go grab a snack, but once it's done it's done and your computer is actually fit to USE, you have lots of smaller subsequent waits every time you want to actually DO anything like listen to a tune or write a letter, none of these subsequent waits long enough to grab a snack.
</devilsadvocate(ish)>
Now, I say devil's advocate (ish) because of course, I don't really think anything and everything should be stuffed into a boot-time preload. On the other hand, if it's something you ARE going to use every time you switch your computer on, then my above text seems not so much a tongue-in-cheek counterargument as much as something I would seriously stand by. iTunes for example - well, I f***ing loath itunes, but I simply do not switch on my PC without listening to music, so it would theoretically make sense to preload my media player. MS Office? Well, I simply do not switch on my work PC without using it, so why not? I do, in all seriousness, go off to make myself my morning cup of tea while it boots, so why not get all that loading out of the way then?
I guess the key from my perspective is that software which does this should do so transparently - i.e., I should be the one who chooses to preload at boot, and I should be able to un-choose at any time. As opposed to the Realplayer habit of infesting yourself automatically. So long as it's all in my control I honestly don't see the problem with what you're denigrating.
I didn't bother trying Chrome to be honest, so I wasn't actually saying I think they are faster. I was just saying, we are now well past the point where you can say either "very few popular sites use javascript" or "very few sites use javascript that takes more than 2ms to run", let alone both at once.
I'll answer the AC reply while I'm here - no, it's not a Pentium 90. It's not state of the art either, to be fair: it's a P4, single core 2.4Ghz, 1GM RAM. But that machine can mix 50 channels of hi def audio with a whole shedload of realtime DSP plugins and my sequencer stays responsive throughout. But dial up any remotely "cutting-edge" webapp, and it frequently fails to keep the browser responsive, so there's gotta be room for improvement in the latter department. Improvement as in optimisation, not simply "chuck some newer hardware at it".
I honestly don't know the details of WHY, whether it's the js engine exactly, or something else. Perhaps the perceived speed improvement in Chrome over Firefox is more about the different processes stuff (UI in a separate one?). Either way I just know there's still room yet in the market for optimisation, so even though I don't fancy Chrome right now, I'm glad they're doing something which people say makes things seem faster, cos if that something is any good, Firefox et al will nick it sooner or later.
The number of pages where parsing javascript is more than 2 miliseconds is probably analogous to the number of crap webpages on the internet. Most people dont spend a lot of time on those, including you.
A rather ironic comment to be making here, the one site I frequent which uses sufficiently heavy javascript to regularly trigger firefox's "this has been going on for bloody ages, do you want to abort it" warning dialog.
Other examples? Facebook uses javascript quite heavily, a quick profile with firebug suggested about 93ms spent parsing javascript when I hit F5 on my homepage. I know slashdotters are far too sneery and off-my-lawn to use social networking websites, but "most people" do use them.
Gmail took a mighty 7219ms running javascript when I logged into my inbox. I believe Hotmail, Yahoo etc have similar AJAXy interfaces for their webmail too, and "most people" in my experience use webmail rather than use the address their ISP gives them, let alone the 'run my own server' stuff popular on slashdot.
Opening the Youtube homepage? 203ms.
Opening the Flickr homepage? 94ms.
So, sorry, I can't really agree with your statement. I fear you might get on that aforementioned slashdot sneery high horse and declare that I only proved your point because Facebook and Youtube are classic examples of "crap webpages", but that still leaves the rest of the statement to disagree with, and I would argue that "most people" use these sort of sites, and they conclusively take a lot more than 2ms running their javascript.
So personally I know where GP is coming from, with js stuff becoming increasingly widespread and heavy, I'm finding it increasingly common to sit here annoyed with a laggy, cpu-spiralling firefox, wondering how the hell a PC I bought for music production, and which handles umpteen tracks of hi-definition audio with ease, struggles to view a webpage these days. But, the speedup of a faster engine in Chrome isn't worth seeing ads for me. Nothing is, heh.
I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended
No, nor do I. That line was supposed to be sort dryly sarcastic. Point being, at least that copy/paste troll / knee-jerk slashbot-ism would make some basic sort of "plausible" sense given the situation, even if I don't personally think it an argument worth any real weight in practice.
I assume this is a deliberate troll because nobody could actually be that stupid. After all, you don't need to google jquery to see you have it completely backwards, it only requires reading the summary.
In short: jQuery is not Microsoft's ripoff of anything, and they are not open sourcing it. It already WAS open source (dual MIT/GPL licensed), and it wasn't written by them. It was created by John Resig who now works for Mozilla.
So far from being the latest example of MS's "Not Invented Here" problem, it's actually a suggestion that they may be overcoming NIH. And when you say "They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them" - that's what they did.
If you really must come out with a standard-issue anti-MS troll, I believe the "they'll embrace, extend, extinguish it, just you wait and see" one is the correct one to use in this situation.
Oh, and as for Prototype/scriptaculous doing it better... *shrug* well I prefer jQuery but it's obviously a matter of opinion to some extent, so if you found you prefered them (or mootools, or YUI, or whatever), fair enough. That said, your given justification is off target, jQuery has a plugin system so if you don't want a bunch of UI level stuff but just the "lower-layer stuff", that works too. Admittedly the distinction of what is lower layer and what is plugin may be slightly different between projects, and jquery core does include some animation related stuff, but still, you can't realistically imply jquery is monolithically bloated.
*sigh* I guess I shouldn't feed the trolls.
Even if you're in equal temperament, it's not entirely safe to say E#==F.
It would be equal as in "the pitch of the two notes is the same", but not conceptually interchangable. For example, the third note of A-flat minor is a C-flat, not a B natural.
Perhaps Technologizer got tired of clicking through TFA before reaching #5.
Technologizer is the name of the site itself. ie, this was self-submitted. ie, what many on /. would call spam, although I don't really see why people shouldn't submit their own stuff, personally.
The questioning the omission of "Dave" came from Samzenpus. It is, of course, entirely unsurprising that the 'editor' who approved TFA didn't bother to read it.
Fewer :)
True, but then you have to consider the fact that the road was originally a cattle trail, and the cows were walking northward, just like the article said.
I never have mod points when I want them... This is the point I make some remark about spraying my mouthful of tea all over my keyboard, except that didn't happen, and frankly I suspect it never happens, to anybody.
Anyway, to give some vaguely on-topic content besides the "MOD UP FUNNYY!!"1!!", has else found much significance in their north-south orientation? I've read that humans, too, have a favourite, for sleeping, and if (for example) they always sleep pointing north at home, they may find sleep difficult/disturbed if they go away to (eg) a hotel room with a westerly bed. Can't remember where I read it, though, so I've no idea how seriously to take it.
It's that sick, twisted, perverted and utterly gross kind of porn that comes up with the searches, the kind that I certainly do NOT want.
Obligatory bash.org:
There was actually something good about Napster, when you got a song, it was actually a song, instead of going on p2p's, downloading an MP3, and it ends up being some dog fucking a woman I mean, I still won, but what if it had been something sick...
You need the UI architect/lead
Allow me to recommend this guy!
I admit I know effectively zero knowledge, let alone intimate knowledge, about transit card systems, but I'm fairly sure xaxa is correct. I'm fairly sure I remember reading that Oyster was asynchronous, ie value was stored "distributed" on the cards not on a single centralised/trusted database.
This tallies with reality, I can jump off a bus, onto another, then quickly off that and head straight into the tube, and the tube barrier will reflect the money I just spent on the buses. Without fail. There's clearly no way the buses have "docked" at the depot, and would these mobile phone modems be "always on"? It doesn't seem right to me. There are 8000 buses, which are actually owned/operated by a multitude of sub-contracted private companies, it seems like storing value on the card would be an easily proposition than relying on all those mobile phone modems staying permanently connected? On the flipside, it would be pretty slow to complete a bus rider boarding/paying with an oyster card event - how slow are we talking about here? The AC talks of "microseconds", which is no problem at all, the Oyster generally does need to make fairly decent 'contact' with the reader, a highly vague/fast dab will often fail to read. I'd easily call it a 10th of a second 'pause' as you swipe - be generous, call it a 20th - that's still 50 microseconds, isnt that enough to transfer a single currency value?
That's genuine curiosity in those questions, btw, not rhetorical hostility. Like I said, I don't know much about this stuff and happy to learn, but I do remember reading it was on the card...
WP says, incidentally:
The system is asynchronous, with the current balance and ticket data held electronically on the card rather than in the central database. The main database is updated periodically with information received from the card by barriers and validators. Tickets purchased online or over the telephone are "loaded" at a preselected barrier or validator.
But when I say read, I mean somewhere more 'solid' than WP... Can't find a reference now...
But there are cases outside the norm where this penalty is charged unjustly ... when you ... leave the station without travelling.
When this happened to me
to get it refunded you have to phone a helpline with all the usual crap to go through, so you end up being out of pocket.
I just spoke to a member of staff and he went to the machine and refunded it on the spot, no questions asked.
Admittedly, though, staffing levels / hours are not exactly stellar.