Is there a way to specify the version of CSS that a certain CSS file follows? The W3C validator, for some reason, defaults to 2.0 instead of 2.1, and when I use features that exist only in 2.1 I have to specify the version in the URL to the validator. That is, instead of http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer I have to do http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer?p rofile=css21. That is not neat. It should be able to extract that information itself. (Go on, by the way, check the links to see how well Slashdot is doing in the validation.)
Equally non-neat is that, when reading a CSS file, one has to _guess_ the character set (!) to be able to read the "@charset" rule. At lest that's what I've heard. Is it true? Did _you_ come up with that? Have thou yet punished thyself? Do you want some help with that (the punishment)? Of course, the whole charset rule contains only ASCII characters, which is compatible with many (but not all) other encodings. Still, this is not what you would expect from a W3C standard.
...I can finally view it in my, somewhat old, browser Cyberdog! Ah, never heard of that one, did you? Not that it can do CSS (or Javascript, or frames, or PNG,...) oh no, but it could neither correctly interpret the color information Slashdot had in it's HTML, which resulted in a completely black page.:-( But now I'm happy again!:-)
That sounds interesting. I never heard about any automatic methods for doing this (I mean, manually looking for reflections is obvious). Do you have more info, or links?
...what is he doing at Micrsofot? I mean, toddlers, as they grow up to become techies of honour and glory, prefer the freedom of free software and the (not brain damaged) structure of Unix. Why doesn't he join the Rebel Alliance instead of the Empire?
You know your article lacks in substance when you actually need filler text just so you can write a 3 line blurb about it...
Sorry, the number of lines is not something every observer will agree on. It has not to do with the observers' relative speeds asmuch as their window widths.
Tom's Hardware is running a 500 hour Windows Vista review that spreads out 40 pages.
Please tell Tom's Hardware that in this age of wonderful technology, even a 500 hour review (whatever that is supposed to mean) doesn't have to span any more than a single page. I wouldn't read this one even if it was about something interesting.
...that someone had set up a powerful magnet system in the door to the servers so that if they were removed, the drives were turned to soup. Someone here is bound to know if such a thing would work, would do any good, or is even possible. I was just curious.
I would suggest the following: Unplugging the computer (without doing the appropriate voodoo tricks in advance), a self destructing sequence is initiated (by special hardware, or mabye software running on the main processor), which overwrites all data on the harddrives. An internal battery would power the procedure when the servers are on their way to the police.:-)
The video shows that the police covers up the cameras
Gah, _that_ I have a problem with! Why are they doing that?!?! I want my authorities to be open about practically everything. Why on earth should they be allowed to have secrets?
and the cost of putting something up there is still reasonably proportional to weight?
I think it's more than proportional, acually. For every piece of luggage you want to put up there, you need some amount of energy. That energy comes from fuel, which in itself adds to the total mass, thus requiring even more fuel. The fuel can quickly become the largest part of your spacecraft. Look for example at a NASA shuttle at the launch pad. As you probably know, the orange thing just contains fuel, and the two solid rocket boosters mounted on it doesn't contain any useful cargo either. The shuttle itself is the smaller part of it all.
Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!
So, they are supporting only certain browsers? Seems like an indication that _they_ shouldn't be taken too seriously. I have the same problems with some (but not all) banks where I live.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a way to specify the version of CSS that a certain CSS file follows? The W3C validator, for some reason, defaults to 2.0 instead of 2.1, and when I use features that exist only in 2.1 I have to specify the version in the URL to the validator. That is, instead of http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer I have to do http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer?p rofile=css21. That is not neat. It should be able to extract that information itself. (Go on, by the way, check the links to see how well Slashdot is doing in the validation.)
Equally non-neat is that, when reading a CSS file, one has to _guess_ the character set (!) to be able to read the "@charset" rule. At lest that's what I've heard. Is it true? Did _you_ come up with that? Have thou yet punished thyself? Do you want some help with that (the punishment)? Of course, the whole charset rule contains only ASCII characters, which is compatible with many (but not all) other encodings. Still, this is not what you would expect from a W3C standard.
...I can finally view it in my, somewhat old, browser Cyberdog! Ah, never heard of that one, did you? Not that it can do CSS (or Javascript, or frames, or PNG, ...) oh no, but it could neither correctly interpret the color information Slashdot had in it's HTML, which resulted in a completely black page. :-( But now I'm happy again! :-)
...yes, stupid lameness filter, I'm looking at you!
...what is he doing at Micrsofot? I mean, toddlers, as they grow up to become techies of honour and glory, prefer the freedom of free software and the (not brain damaged) structure of Unix. Why doesn't he join the Rebel Alliance instead of the Empire?
...combine with similar movies about software patents and trusted computing.
Oh, you're still down there?
I will make myself one, that's for sure.
See my sig.
How can you, as a virus author, get paid without blowing your cover?