If you're writing modern standards-compliant CSS and HTML you shouldn't have a problem.
Bullshit. Many browsers and websites are built following recommendations set out by W3C instead of the standards published by ISO/IEEE/IEC on CSS, XHTML and HTML. I know for a fact that if I follow even old stuff like ISO/IEC 15445:2000 to the letter, there are still instances where the major browsers won't follow the standards correctly and the same issues exist with the latest published documentation where browsers simply didn't implement the standards.
That's okay... Facebook, StumbleUpon, and Twitter will be thrilled to have you pre-screening their applicants to weed out those who refuse to break tradition in the search for improvement.
Don't Facebook and Twitter continue using MySQL for their core software still while using NoSQL for specialized circumstances?
If that is the case, I suspect these companies already have the talent they need for their very specialized niches. I don't think they have that many jobs in that area as what I consider, implied by your post. Due to NoSQL not being fairly common like SQL is currently in both large and small operations.
I'm unconvinced that opting for NoSQL all the way would be the right decision for acquiring a job in general. Just looking at monster.co.uk, I only found 18 results for NoSQL with not so common programming languages either while 'SQL' returned 2767 results, many of which included far more common programming languages.
If anything, I would honestly recommend people learn both the strengths and weaknesses of both systems and knowing where implementations of either side work best for.
To reassert my point, I am really not convinced that NoSQL is a magical job bringer.
I have been reading about firefox leaks for years, yet I have never seen them.
I've really only ever had issues with Firefox when using adblock plus or skype toolbar. Beyond that, not a single issue that I can ever recall, which is quite impressive for any software product honestly.
I don't have these problems at all. I've easily had hundreds of tabs open in several windows for a week and Firefox was only using around 500MiB of RAM.
My extensions:
British English Dictionary Flashblock HTTPS-Everywhere IE Tab Plus
(Might be useful knowledge? I tried to use Adblock plus a while back, but that extension would slow loading of pages down considerably on my not so modern computer.)
Virtually anyone that has attempted to make a PDF viewer has opened themselves up for security issues with the implementation.
Same can be said for almost any other format. Even Joint Photographic Experts Group decoders aren't free from this.
Every platform in existence (including most mobile OSes) have PDF viewer built in, so why not use it.
I didn't get a Portable Document Format viewer built into Windows XP, Windows Vista or even Windows Seven and those happen to be dominant desktop operating systems out there.
Confiscate your iPod, show that you own song X. Look through your financials, show that you never purchased song X as an MP3. I'm pretty sure you can't buy MP3s with cash.
Heres my most recent purchase:
Order Summary: Details: Order # 026-7755308-*snip* Subtotal of Items: £7.49
------ Total for this Order: £7.49
Tron: Legacy [Music Download], Price: £7.49 By: Daft Punk Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à.r.l.
What, exactly, is hard in repositioning the same UI element to a different place if screen width, say, exceeds 1000px?
In my experience about 20-70 lines of code for each 'movable' UI element.
It gets complicated when you have to deal with a dynamic layout for good amount of widgets as it requires a decent amount of design work to do it in a way that looks sane for the user. In Android, you're better off painting your own UI in the case of having many UI widgets because rewriting something like 'coolbar' is pretty asinine using the existing widget system. Neither method I would consider "easy".
It's called "flexible dynamic layout". In some cases, it also means repositioning certain UI elements programmatically.
That's fine, but as a developer, I would love to see this 'easy' method. Because I personally don't want to go about doing what Opera did which was writing their own widgets and UI system in order to do that (a considerable amount of work that I wouldn't call 'easy').
You have access to Opera Mobile source code?
I've "decompiled" many applications, Opera Mobile is one of them. There is a huge amount of code dedicated to just handling the UI logic alone, never mind the fact it's using it's own custom widgets system.
It's actually remarkable how well the UI looks in both cases despite not being radically different - that's good design for you.
From an app perspective, there isn't really a difference - you can easily write an application that adjusts its look and feel according to the screen size.
Really? I haven't really seen the APIs or dialogs that magically make a UI look right no matter what the resolution is.
Opera Mobile is a good example of that.
Not really, such a huge chunk of code in it is written to do it all, where is the easy way you were talking about - I can't find it?
PC devs have been programming software for a multitude of different screen sizes and aspect ratios, as well as a number of possible hardware combinations so vast, it may as well be infinite.
As a developer, all I have ever done with screen resolutions is ensured the application windows fit a standard windows desktop running at 1024x768. I'm fairly certain other developers do the same thing, so I find your implication that PC developers have a harder time rather unlikely.
MS (and Apple, and probably other in the same position) can and do make use of API calls not available (due to not being publicly exposed or documented) to competitors.
The complaints of native APIs being undocumented is greatly exaggerated, I have had access to such documentation when I was writing drivers for Windows (didn't work for Microsoft) which was available from Microsoft provided you signed an NDA. These days you can get "Native API Reference" books without even needing such a NDA.
On the scale of Windows and Microsoft, it's a real problem.
I'm unconvinced. The major Native API functions that offer performance benefits are well known.
It doesn't suprise me certain competitors were not aware of this functionality when they were developing in a higher level framework, if they had done a reasonable amount of low level work in Windows, they would have been well aware of these functions.
With LCD's, the backlight is always on regardless of what is on screen.
My netbook (an Acer Aspire One) has a power feature where it can use low lighting and greater gamma values to use less power but present a picture at the same brightness depending on the pixel colors used on the screen. Appears to be a driver function in the AMD graphics provided.
BT prioritorizes HTTP traffic over everything else. Even HTTPS takes a back seat to it and since HTTPS is rarely used for large downloads, it goes relatively unnoticed.
Fine then, lets drop all TLDs because they mean nothing and chap your hide.
Many people have been saying the difference between sites on.com,.net and.org doesn't seem to mean anything anymore and arguments related to this make sense.
Just what is your problem?
Broken 'solutions' that seem to exist to extort money yet in reality, don't solve anything (60USD per year to protect your brand name? 60USD as an alternative for a 6USD.com that is adult related?).
I'm seriously considering moving some of my websites to.xxx and not having porn on them (anybody want to register laughingsto.xxx?). Are there any restrictions to registering whatever you want on.xxx?
I'm intending to run a 'color me in' website for children on a.xxx domain, once the price goes down for the.xxx domains.
I was however discussing another method which is far simpler. Since DNSSEC doesn't have authentication for glue records and since glue records are essential for Internet operation, you might begin to undertand a problem. Consider being able to intercept all DNS traffic on a network and have a glue record set as root that points to your your own DNSSEC root keys etc. It won't make any difference to a DNSSEC resolver, which will have to accept it as valid by design.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Many browsers and websites are built following recommendations set out by W3C instead of the standards published by ISO/IEEE/IEC on CSS, XHTML and HTML. I know for a fact that if I follow even old stuff like ISO/IEC 15445:2000 to the letter, there are still instances where the major browsers won't follow the standards correctly and the same issues exist with the latest published documentation where browsers simply didn't implement the standards.
Don't Facebook and Twitter continue using MySQL for their core software still while using NoSQL for specialized circumstances?
If that is the case, I suspect these companies already have the talent they need for their very specialized niches. I don't think they have that many jobs in that area as what I consider, implied by your post. Due to NoSQL not being fairly common like SQL is currently in both large and small operations.
I'm unconvinced that opting for NoSQL all the way would be the right decision for acquiring a job in general. Just looking at monster.co.uk, I only found 18 results for NoSQL with not so common programming languages either while 'SQL' returned 2767 results, many of which included far more common programming languages.
If anything, I would honestly recommend people learn both the strengths and weaknesses of both systems and knowing where implementations of either side work best for.
To reassert my point, I am really not convinced that NoSQL is a magical job bringer.
Cool story, bro.
Reading this article in Firefox, it doesn't look like Chrome is conservative at all with how much memory it takes.
I've really only ever had issues with Firefox when using adblock plus or skype toolbar. Beyond that, not a single issue that I can ever recall, which is quite impressive for any software product honestly.
I've had performance issues with Adblock Plus, so I stopped using it a while back.
I don't have these problems at all. I've easily had hundreds of tabs open in several windows for a week and Firefox was only using around 500MiB of RAM.
My extensions:
British English Dictionary
Flashblock
HTTPS-Everywhere
IE Tab Plus
(Might be useful knowledge? I tried to use Adblock plus a while back, but that extension would slow loading of pages down considerably on my not so modern computer.)
I use 'Avast Internet Security' too.
Same can be said for almost any other format. Even Joint Photographic Experts Group decoders aren't free from this.
I didn't get a Portable Document Format viewer built into Windows XP, Windows Vista or even Windows Seven and those happen to be dominant desktop operating systems out there.
Heres my most recent purchase:
Happy now?
In my experience about 20-70 lines of code for each 'movable' UI element.
It gets complicated when you have to deal with a dynamic layout for good amount of widgets as it requires a decent amount of design work to do it in a way that looks sane for the user. In Android, you're better off painting your own UI in the case of having many UI widgets because rewriting something like 'coolbar' is pretty asinine using the existing widget system. Neither method I would consider "easy".
That's fine, but as a developer, I would love to see this 'easy' method. Because I personally don't want to go about doing what Opera did which was writing their own widgets and UI system in order to do that (a considerable amount of work that I wouldn't call 'easy').
I've "decompiled" many applications, Opera Mobile is one of them. There is a huge amount of code dedicated to just handling the UI logic alone, never mind the fact it's using it's own custom widgets system.
I remain unconvinced that this is easy.
Really? I haven't really seen the APIs or dialogs that magically make a UI look right no matter what the resolution is.
Not really, such a huge chunk of code in it is written to do it all, where is the easy way you were talking about - I can't find it?
As a developer, all I have ever done with screen resolutions is ensured the application windows fit a standard windows desktop running at 1024x768. I'm fairly certain other developers do the same thing, so I find your implication that PC developers have a harder time rather unlikely.
The complaints of native APIs being undocumented is greatly exaggerated, I have had access to such documentation when I was writing drivers for Windows (didn't work for Microsoft) which was available from Microsoft provided you signed an NDA. These days you can get "Native API Reference" books without even needing such a NDA.
I'm unconvinced. The major Native API functions that offer performance benefits are well known.
It doesn't suprise me certain competitors were not aware of this functionality when they were developing in a higher level framework, if they had done a reasonable amount of low level work in Windows, they would have been well aware of these functions.
My netbook (an Acer Aspire One) has a power feature where it can use low lighting and greater gamma values to use less power but present a picture at the same brightness depending on the pixel colors used on the screen. Appears to be a driver function in the AMD graphics provided.
Under my own testing, uploads aren't prioritorized.
BT prioritorizes HTTP traffic over everything else. Even HTTPS takes a back seat to it and since HTTPS is rarely used for large downloads, it goes relatively unnoticed.
Seems to here.
It's over nine thousand!
Nokia abandoned MeeGo too :|
Many people have been saying the difference between sites on .com, .net and .org doesn't seem to mean anything anymore and arguments related to this make sense.
Broken 'solutions' that seem to exist to extort money yet in reality, don't solve anything (60USD per year to protect your brand name? 60USD as an alternative for a 6USD .com that is adult related?).
There are also adults who find 'swear words' objectionable.
There are also adults who find 'women without veils' objectionable.
There are also adults who find 'white people' objectionable.
There are also adults who find 'eating animals' objectionable.
There are also adults who find 'Christianity' objectionable.
There are also adults who find 'Americans' objectionable.
Honestly, I find that argument very weak.
Sure they can:
"I never expected to see gay men with hairy chests on .xxx! I thought I was going to see thirty bears... After all.. it says bears dot thirty!"
It's an easy rule to setup in IOS (Cisco router OS), just drop DNS packets that query or respond with .xxx domains.
Wouldn't need to. The above rule handles that issue too.
Children are supposed to use kids.us tlds, not .com. Get it right.
I'm intending to run a 'color me in' website for children on a .xxx domain, once the price goes down for the .xxx domains.
Some MitM methods are discussed in http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/10/pdf/17.pdf if you're curious.
I was however discussing another method which is far simpler. Since DNSSEC doesn't have authentication for glue records and since glue records are essential for Internet operation, you might begin to undertand a problem. Consider being able to intercept all DNS traffic on a network and have a glue record set as root that points to your your own DNSSEC root keys etc. It won't make any difference to a DNSSEC resolver, which will have to accept it as valid by design.