I would agree, however, it seems a lot of people are forgetting the simple fact of how bloody cold (and hot) it is up there. The tiles are going to contract along with the gap filler. Upon entry into the exosphere and then thermosphere the tiles, in theory would expand. The gap filler is probably more of a lower heat protection measure between space and exosphere. By the time the belly of the shuttle is fully heated those tiles are going to be squished together and riding on a wave of plasma.
Doh! [Re:Here is what needs to be done]
on
CSS for the LDP?
·
· Score: 1
Congratulations! You have single handedly just killed the entire idea of using CSS to separate content from design. Good job.
Writing CSS that degrades well is quite easy...and addictive once you start down the road of standards-compliant code.
Here is what needs to be done... read every CSS article at http://alistapart.com/topics/css/
I just have to say wow. I hate speaking to people who drop the H-bomb (Harvard) for the hell of it. Most of the people I know who went/go to Harvard don't like to bring it up at all. Unless we're trying to get a job or into grad school it is just something you don't do. It's considered more tactful to say: I go/went to school in Boston. And if you're asked, 'Where?' Most students reply 'in Cambridge.' It usually takes three rounds of questioning before a Harvard Alumnus gives it up in general conversation. Learn some manners and be a little humble outside The Yard. It goes a long way in life. And, what's more, you'll be considered classier for it.
It is a sad reality that most companies have this belief that if something goes wrong with a proprietary licensed software product they have recourse to sue. I was having this exact discussion with a colleague recently discussing the benefits of an open product vs. a closed one. The reality is that 99.9% of software makers include a clause in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that specifically removes them from liability. If more executives and corporate council (lawyers) knew that their companies have already agreed to contractual obligations of limited liability they would probably fall over. Know that every time a software product is installed--on a per machine basis--you have to agree with the contract limitations to install it. In the closed-source world, a perfect example of this can be seen in any Microsoft EULA (example included below). On the flip side, in open source, the same limited liability exists by default, however the difference is the availability of a community of software developers around the world to help.
With open source you can post to a user group that reaches at a minimum 100 developers in 20 countries and say, 'I need help, here's the source,' and high quality developers are there to help you find the problem or point you in the right direction. And sometimes even fix it for you. Members of the Open Source community have a vested interest in helping others, improving ideas, and sharing them. With closed source, you are screwed in both accounts: no room to sue because you or your company agreed to the EULA, a contract in itself, AND you do not have the option to track down the problem by yourself or with the help of others because you cannot see the code.
So, the next time you speak with your lawyer, print out a copy of the Microsoft EULA that comes with any of their products. It always has several clauses to indemnify themselves. Look it up on any of your workstations, EULA.txt, you will probably find more than one.
Lastly, I want to clarify, you always do have the option to sue anyone you want. However, any lawyer representing the software developer in a case of poor product quality or loss&damages only has to point to the fact the you, the end user agreed to the EULA. It reads, in essence, 'there is no guarantee this software works, and if it breaks it not our fault.' Your suit will be dropped by any judge unless you can prove negligence, which you cannot, because you cannot read the software code!
The Windows 2k source tree is a little over 30GB and the Windows XP source tree is about 40GB. So, yes, you are correct. The combined source tree's for all non-longhorn windows 32 bit computing hovers around 300GB. Don't get me started on the office source code tree...now that's funny. On a side note, the amount of code written in the Mac group for office apps is considerably smaller than the main office software group. This is mostly due to the fact that they are a tighter group of progamers who crack out some sweet code.
Anyone who lives print will tell you (or should tell you) that color profiling and calibration, while a nice touch, just is not important to getting the work done. When you are working on a CMYK coated/uncoated print job for making anything from movie posters to marketing slick-sheets, for instance, it's all about owning one or more PANTONE color guide swatch wheels. You should never, NEVER design for print interpreting color on a monitor as the color you will get from your printer. Logically, the whole idea of including profiling and calibration in the software was supposed to change this, but it has not. I cannot tell you how often I hate opening up client work in Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. and having that stupid profiling box pop up. Turn profiling and calibration off and go invest in a new set of PANTONE Spot and Process color guides. And when your new designer underling who only knows about print from inside photoshop says they do not like how it looks on screen, just smack over the head with the two-pound color guide! DOH!
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree, however, it seems a lot of people are forgetting the simple fact of how bloody cold (and hot) it is up there. The tiles are going to contract along with the gap filler. Upon entry into the exosphere and then thermosphere the tiles, in theory would expand. The gap filler is probably more of a lower heat protection measure between space and exosphere. By the time the belly of the shuttle is fully heated those tiles are going to be squished together and riding on a wave of plasma.
Congratulations! You have single handedly just killed the entire idea of using CSS to separate content from design. Good job.
Writing CSS that degrades well is quite easy...and addictive once you start down the road of standards-compliant code.
Here is what needs to be done... read every CSS article at http://alistapart.com/topics/css/
I just have to say wow. I hate speaking to people who drop the H-bomb (Harvard) for the hell of it. Most of the people I know who went/go to Harvard don't like to bring it up at all. Unless we're trying to get a job or into grad school it is just something you don't do.
It's considered more tactful to say: I go/went to school in Boston. And if you're asked, 'Where?' Most students reply 'in Cambridge.' It usually takes three rounds of questioning before a Harvard Alumnus gives it up in general conversation.
Learn some manners and be a little humble outside The Yard. It goes a long way in life. And, what's more, you'll be considered classier for it.
Cheers,
Akoni
now gone partner...
It is a sad reality that most companies have this belief that if something goes wrong with a proprietary licensed software product they have recourse to sue. I was having this exact discussion with a colleague recently discussing the benefits of an open product vs. a closed one. The reality is that 99.9% of software makers include a clause in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that specifically removes them from liability. If more executives and corporate council (lawyers) knew that their companies have already agreed to contractual obligations of limited liability they would probably fall over. Know that every time a software product is installed--on a per machine basis--you have to agree with the contract limitations to install it. In the closed-source world, a perfect example of this can be seen in any Microsoft EULA (example included below). On the flip side, in open source, the same limited liability exists by default, however the difference is the availability of a community of software developers around the world to help.
With open source you can post to a user group that reaches at a minimum 100 developers in 20 countries and say, 'I need help, here's the source,' and high quality developers are there to help you find the problem or point you in the right direction. And sometimes even fix it for you. Members of the Open Source community have a vested interest in helping others, improving ideas, and sharing them. With closed source, you are screwed in both accounts: no room to sue because you or your company agreed to the EULA, a contract in itself, AND you do not have the option to track down the problem by yourself or with the help of others because you cannot see the code.
So, the next time you speak with your lawyer, print out a copy of the Microsoft EULA that comes with any of their products. It always has several clauses to indemnify themselves. Look it up on any of your workstations, EULA.txt, you will probably find more than one.
Lastly, I want to clarify, you always do have the option to sue anyone you want. However, any lawyer representing the software developer in a case of poor product quality or loss&damages only has to point to the fact the you, the end user agreed to the EULA. It reads, in essence, 'there is no guarantee this software works, and if it breaks it not our fault.' Your suit will be dropped by any judge unless you can prove negligence, which you cannot, because you cannot read the software code!
Cheers,
Akoni
The Windows 2k source tree is a little over 30GB and the Windows XP source tree is about 40GB. So, yes, you are correct. The combined source tree's for all non-longhorn windows 32 bit computing hovers around 300GB. Don't get me started on the office source code tree...now that's funny. On a side note, the amount of code written in the Mac group for office apps is considerably smaller than the main office software group. This is mostly due to the fact that they are a tighter group of progamers who crack out some sweet code.
Anyone who lives print will tell you (or should tell you) that color profiling and calibration, while a nice touch, just is not important to getting the work done. When you are working on a CMYK coated/uncoated print job for making anything from movie posters to marketing slick-sheets, for instance, it's all about owning one or more PANTONE color guide swatch wheels. You should never, NEVER design for print interpreting color on a monitor as the color you will get from your printer. Logically, the whole idea of including profiling and calibration in the software was supposed to change this, but it has not. I cannot tell you how often I hate opening up client work in Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. and having that stupid profiling box pop up. Turn profiling and calibration off and go invest in a new set of PANTONE Spot and Process color guides. And when your new designer underling who only knows about print from inside photoshop says they do not like how it looks on screen, just smack over the head with the two-pound color guide! DOH!