Better looking UIs aren't just "eye candy," any more than proportional fonts and properly set type aren't just eye candy over plain-vanilla monospaced text.
That said, I agree that Microsoft's barking up the wrong tree here.
Right, and if you can stuff a Snickers bar in your pocket and leave the drugstore without paying, then it IS FREE, regardless of whether you think it should be. Or did I miss your point?
Dude, if documents can contain any undefined elements and attributes they want and still conform to the spec, then what on earth doesn't conform? You're saying that as long as I include a doctype and a title, I can spew random garbage in tags and it'll still be HTML 3.2 compliant? Where in the reference spec does it say that?
Not closing <p>s and <li>s is one thing, but those are far from the only errors in Slashcode's HTML output. Invalid attributes, invalid elements, missing character encoding... the list goes on and on. But that's sort of beside the point. The point is that it's obvious Slashcode's developers don't give a shit about web standards, so it's rather hypocritical for them to whine about IE's doing the same.
Are you serious? It's exactly on the same plane. You might as well say: "If a popular browser doesn't support standards, but renders popular pages well, then what's the problem?"
Actually, Firefox stopped ripping off IE's interface a long time ago. Now they've moved on, and rip off Safari (placement of Google search bar, "busy" animation, toolbar customization dialog, etc. ad infinitum).
Yeah, but I hope you're not trying to imply the geek's pages won't look like crap. Anyway, it's not as if there aren't talented designers who know how to code CSS, or who can't work with geeks to produce something pleasant between them.
Actually, it doesn't. Since Slashdot blocks the W3C validator as a referer [sic], try downloading a Slashdot page (any page) and uploading it to the validator manually. You'll see undefined elements, invalid attributes, omitted end tags, end tags with no matching start tag, and on, and on, and on... It's really a quite potent indictment of the open source process, if you ask me.
Personally, I can't fucking stand laptops with two buttons. They drive me nuts. I know there are people who prefer two buttons on their trackpads, but be aware that opinions differ--some of us actually appreciate one-button trackpads.
Maybe you meant to be ironic, but have you seen Apple's mouse? It's already a no-button mouse! Steve actually introduced it that way at MWNY 2000: "We've gone from a one-button mouse to a no-button mouse."
In case you are interested in curing your ignorance, you should read USC Title 17, which concerns itself with the definition of CRIMINAL infringement of copyright. And since stupid fucking Slashbots like you also seem to persist, cowlike, in your absolutely ridiculous argument that "infringement != theft LOLZ" (undoubtedly as a means of rationalizing your morally unjustifiable behavior), you might also be interested in USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113, which lists criminally infringing materials as a type of STOLEN PROPERTY. The arrogant obstinacy of you self-congratulating jackasses is nothing short of amazing.
"This 'democratization' of the media is a welcome development in this era of media consolidation and a corresponding lack of diversity of views in traditional media outlets," said the group, which consists of thirteen Democrats and one Republican.
The FEC ruled in 2002 that Internet activities do not count as "coordinated political activity" and thus don't have to comply with laws that regulate money in politics.
"Curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the Web for original, insightful political commentary," said the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers and online activists.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like you've got those links the wrong way around. "Elliptical Marquee Tool," for example, is Photoshop's name for the tool, not GIMPshop's.
Best argument I've ever heard in favor of the GIMP. "Rather like fucking a pig, but it gets the job done!"
Dude, I'm sorry to be blunt, but you don't know what you're talking about. Please never design a UI.
Better looking UIs aren't just "eye candy," any more than proportional fonts and properly set type aren't just eye candy over plain-vanilla monospaced text.
That said, I agree that Microsoft's barking up the wrong tree here.
You're kidding, right? Wikipedia is a no-holds-barred joke.
Yeah, and then you can upgrade from Firefox to a good browser like Safari. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Ever felt like you might be an irrational, arrogant twat?
Right, and if you can stuff a Snickers bar in your pocket and leave the drugstore without paying, then it IS FREE, regardless of whether you think it should be. Or did I miss your point?
Yeah, possibly, or it could be he's just been, you know, READING THE NEWS. Jesus fucking Christ.
Dude, if documents can contain any undefined elements and attributes they want and still conform to the spec, then what on earth doesn't conform? You're saying that as long as I include a doctype and a title, I can spew random garbage in tags and it'll still be HTML 3.2 compliant? Where in the reference spec does it say that?
Slashcode stands up terribly against the written standard, and by trying to defend it on technicalities, you're kind of missing the point. See this.
Not closing <p>s and <li>s is one thing, but those are far from the only errors in Slashcode's HTML output. Invalid attributes, invalid elements, missing character encoding... the list goes on and on. But that's sort of beside the point. The point is that it's obvious Slashcode's developers don't give a shit about web standards, so it's rather hypocritical for them to whine about IE's doing the same.
Are you serious? It's exactly on the same plane. You might as well say: "If a popular browser doesn't support standards, but renders popular pages well, then what's the problem?"
Actually, Firefox stopped ripping off IE's interface a long time ago. Now they've moved on, and rip off Safari (placement of Google search bar, "busy" animation, toolbar customization dialog, etc. ad infinitum).
Yeah, but I hope you're not trying to imply the geek's pages won't look like crap. Anyway, it's not as if there aren't talented designers who know how to code CSS, or who can't work with geeks to produce something pleasant between them.
Actually, it doesn't. Since Slashdot blocks the W3C validator as a referer [sic], try downloading a Slashdot page (any page) and uploading it to the validator manually. You'll see undefined elements, invalid attributes, omitted end tags, end tags with no matching start tag, and on, and on, and on... It's really a quite potent indictment of the open source process, if you ask me.
Personally, I can't fucking stand laptops with two buttons. They drive me nuts. I know there are people who prefer two buttons on their trackpads, but be aware that opinions differ--some of us actually appreciate one-button trackpads.
Maybe you meant to be ironic, but have you seen Apple's mouse? It's already a no-button mouse! Steve actually introduced it that way at MWNY 2000: "We've gone from a one-button mouse to a no-button mouse."
More?!?? Man, is there no end?
Whatever, dude. Mac OS X Mail.app had incremental searching (just like in iTunes) from the very beginning.
Sorry for being an obnoxious Macboy. I can't seem to stop myself...
In case you are interested in curing your ignorance, you should read USC Title 17, which concerns itself with the definition of CRIMINAL infringement of copyright. And since stupid fucking Slashbots like you also seem to persist, cowlike, in your absolutely ridiculous argument that "infringement != theft LOLZ" (undoubtedly as a means of rationalizing your morally unjustifiable behavior), you might also be interested in USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 113, which lists criminally infringing materials as a type of STOLEN PROPERTY. The arrogant obstinacy of you self-congratulating jackasses is nothing short of amazing.
"This 'democratization' of the media is a welcome development in this era of media consolidation and a corresponding lack of diversity of views in traditional media outlets," said the group, which consists of thirteen Democrats and one Republican.
The FEC ruled in 2002 that Internet activities do not count as "coordinated political activity" and thus don't have to comply with laws that regulate money in politics.
"Curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the Web for original, insightful political commentary," said the Online Coalition, a group of bloggers and online activists.
Fourteen members of the House of Representatives said blogs foster a welcome diversity of viewpoints.