Which, in America, 99% of us are. Although this is coming from the Department of Redundancy Department, a month from now I won't be able to take a shit the wrong way without the cops busting down my door. Some good tips here.
We all know this new wave of information control isn't going to catch anyone. A neanderthal could point that out. Al-Queda members will circumvent it, while people like me who are still bending over backward to avoid getting a ten-month sentence will just be brought in under suspicion.
Once again it's just a new way for the real terrorists to keep us in their grip.
I wonder how much longer the tinfoil hat scarecrow is going to stand now that the Big Brother stuff is becoming so painfully obvious that even the most conformed and obedient psychos are beginning to notice it.
Terrorist! Do you want Al Queda to blow something else up? Are you working for Bin Laden? THEN YOU WILL pay for our gigantic screens which will be used to monitor your safety in the shower!
*gives long congress-like speech on how I'm related to someone who's sister's uncle's room-mate once talked to a guy who died somewhere near the WTC explosion*
That was probably sarcasm or something, but if not, I take it you're trying to say he didn't weave the the straw correctly? Right that would have help sooo much.
Well, you managed to get everything backward, assert that I called evolution a non-theory, give a very hopeless attempt at turning creationism into faith, and try to remove the logic from what I worded clear as day. Then tried to make evolutionism useful somehow.
But, oh wait, the proof was in your other pair of pants.
To put it this way: 2+2=4. I know that. It's indisputable. I'd much rather find the absolute reality than settle for a single unproven theory.
I... don't think giving the longest explanation possible makes it reasonable.
There are still holes in my explanation, but its a reasonable explanation, and is more specific than a vague concept of "energy" creating everything as-is
I have no clue how you got into the 'creation of planets' subject but it has pretty much nothing to do with this, in fact I explained that we're only talking about the formation of life. I never said anything about 'energy creating everything'.
Also what you added to step 1. is one of hundreds of plausible theories on how that took place. The addition to 3 is what some people choose to believe and the new version of 4 is a huge collection of different ideas, a few of which can be proven but most of which relies on the theory of bacterial origin to begin with. Even if the idea of bacterial origin were proven, a lot of those ideas would still be up for opinion.
But I'm sure you know that we're just talking theory and nothing more, so that all goes without saying.
And of course, my own idea is very undeveloped. We know independent energetic sentience is possible; it would just be nice to know how it works, and whether it formed cellular life, the other way around, or neither. Obviously it couldn't be 'pure' energy as I inaccurately put it. There'd have to be a number of materials involved for it to hold together, or it could exist 'between the atoms' so to speak, persisting by influencing all surrounding material. It would explain a lot if so.
Or, cellular life may have come first, in which case spirits could be the result of an evolutionary mechanism by animals a long time ago. Though, considering today's theoretic age of the universe, that'd be far more likely to happen on another planet first, perhaps as an organism's way of preserving itself when it's cellular form is destroyed. Maybe a race couldn't survive on a given planet and needed a way to migrate elsewhere.
Lots of possibilities; the current theories, no matter how far you take them, are barely the tip of the iceberg.
That's basically what I was saying about the gigantic question mark. Only, the evolution theory offers nothing solid on what happened between now and then, just assumptions based on the assumption that life sprang up without intelligence to begin with.
ultimately, no matter how improbable the current world is, here it is.
That certainly didn't prove anything. Saying we came from amoeba most certainly can't be proven by saying "we're here", although, that's about as deep as its evidence gets.
My theory has at least as much evidence behind it; you must not have been paying attention. It's simple logic that energy produces intelligence if channelled the right way; the fact that we can think to begin with proves that. If energetic materials come together correctly then it becomes sentient. I'd like to find out which materials could do this. But your attempt to make it 'baseless' relies entirely on the fact that you have no clue about energy-based life forms.
And on the other end of the spectrum you have me: A guy who's not religious in any aspect but finds it waaay more likely that an intelligent life form
What I dislike about the evolution theory (and by that I mean the idea that cellular life came from an ooze, a lightning strike or a volcano, not the factual progress of dna) is the ease of which you can justify any crazy idea by throwing a million trillion years into it. It's way too simple, takes little into account, and leaves extremely wide multi-million-year gaps during which it's assumed that nothing besides mating, hunting and maybe the discovery of a few tools happened. One theory says life forms from other planets or systems may have come during one of these gaps and boosted things a little. That makes perfect sense, and it shortens the gaps a little, but far too much is still left open.
Following the 'great coincidence' logic, I could say the Sears tower evolved from a volcano if I threw a few hundred millenniums into the equation, and said 'look, all these other towers are pretty similar to it. It probably evolved from them.' Simple as can be. The basic model for the 'old life' theory is.
1. Billions of years 2. ??? 3. life 4. millions of years 5. ??? 6. Intelligence!
It's a little more complex than that, but not by much. Problem is that intelligent cellular life takes gigantic chances and extremely slim odds to pop up first.
So, now, what's the alternative? How about a life form based purely on energy. Let's play the 'most likely situation' game. There are way-the-hell more stars in the universe than there are livable planets. Even the mainstream knows that. The right situation with the right atoms and energy types can produce sentience. Heck, it's the very reason we can think with our brains. And with all the activity taking place in stars, that 'right situation' can occur very frequently in comparison to the loads of statistics required for cellular life.
This doesn't mean that energetic life preceded cellular life, necessarily, it just means that the chances are so high that it almost renders the 'cellular life came first' theories obsolete, and it also takes spirits into account; something which most other theories do everything to avoid.
So, a energy-based life form made from the right materials could probably leave its system and go elsewhere in the universe. At one point or another, it wouldn't be farfetched at all if it invented life forms out of normal, planetary materials.
So, all in all, there are gaps in my ideas too. I'd like to follow through and complete those gaps. the thing is that Darwin came up with a great theory. He followed through with it. Why don't we have more theories like that? I want more options and I think we all need more ideas if we're really going to figure this thing out.
There we have evolutionism in a nutshell: Saying it has proof, but, oops, it forgot the proof in its other pair of pants, trying to make itself real by trying to make creation false, relying on a thousand one-in-a-million coincidences to do what intelligence does with no problem. All in all, an over-elaborate excuse to complain about some Jahovah's Witnesses that once came to your door. No more sensible than if I said my house evolved out of ancient sticks and stones from the ground.
The root article gives no attempt at making evolutionism real, and it's pretty obvious why.
Re:I think is was said somewhere else...
on
P2P Leaks Surprises
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The problem is that somebody published the pictures on the network. Did anybody notice that, or would we rather just follow Rick's solution and have the people from our oh-so-trustworthy 'that blunder is confidential' military tell us what we can publish and see on the internet? Oh, sounds great. "Hey Jim, this picture has 'no war' written on it. You know what to do..."
I guess we COULD track down whoever leaked the info, but why do that when you can go after anyone on or in the remote proximity of any random network? Perfect plan. A big 'duuuhhhr' goes out to Rick who lacks the capacity to get this through his head.
I guess we've come to accept that every government, no matter how promising, will bite the dust and control every aspect of every citizen's life, till eventually those one or two saviors rise up and realize that, if nothing else, the government was right about one thing: Eventually you're going to have to kill someone to gain your freedom.::Gives in and puts on a tinfoil hat::
Well, that's just based on the 'linear intelligence' scale, which is made and judged mostly by less intelligent humans. You know what I mean; the scale where you lose points for playing video games and doing things that have a purpose, and gain points for reading mindless old books. There are a few other factors in this scale but I guess people following this idea will think whatever they want.
Anyway here in reality, there isn't an intelligence that you can put into a box. Humans are incredibly technological; that's simply a trait. Some aliens might be more mind-oriented and capable of doing things with pure thought that some people might fear or just deny. Some could be more communicative and better with understanding. Some could be a cuddly race of catgirls.
Hey, there's a lot of possibilities. It's pretty obvious, judging by the acceleration of communication and info in the last few decades, that man is just now crawling out of the hole. If you asked me I'd say the key has always been the 'communication' factor. If, for example, dogs had conceived of complex communication before we did, they'd probably be the ones putting us in boxes and selling us like groceries.
So the thing is, that thanks to communication, we've become the most complex animal because we can understand the experiences of a whole lot of people, as opposed to just our own and a few others. It's only logical that the greatest forms of extraterrestrial life would be the ones that have the widest range of communication, and with this in mind, there are probably some very huge systems of information out there beyond our little Earth. It'd be nice to be part of that and have more to think about than the way your stupid roommate keeps leaving the bathroom light on and always turns the thermostat way the hell down and blasts the stereo when you're asleep.
Well, your standpoint is explained by the fact that you're unable to parse the simplest comparison or read a word of the post. No wonder. I could re-explain it at third-grade level but your reply would be "explain is to standpoint as JPG is to post? Wuh? Huh?" and more delusive statements based on whatever else stoners see when they look at the screen.
The problem with this post is that it has no ground to stand on.
The sad truth is that you can take any nutcase concept, throw a thousand million years into it, and with no trouble at all, you've got the less competent side of the science community eating out of your hands. It's not very intelligent in the big scheme of things, but some people just want to believe whatever coincidence-theory spans the most years. If the logic common to these lower scientists held any ground, I could say that Manhattan evolved out of rocks and snails if I tossed a few hundred millenniums into the equation.
For one, one does not read a book intended for spiritual enlightenment as a history book
Now we're just shooting off in so many random directions that it's no wonder this post supports evolutionism. First: What book? Did this book create life? No? Then your argument and much of evolutionism is relying on something that has nothing to do with the subject. If you wanted to rant about some Jahovah's Witness that came to your door then there are other, more reasonable concepts to use.
Second, if the "History cannot be spiritual" logic follows through then I can declare George Washington's biography to be a book written for spiritual enlightenment, and that would turn it into a big conspiracy lie and whatnot.
Here we see evolutionism in a nutshell: Fragmented, inconsistent, unable to present an ounce of solid logic. All-in-all, nothing more than a misplaced rebellion against certain spiritual people and at most, a thoughtless piece of ammo to up the reputations of emerging pseudo-scientists. And if anything, the/. article this all stems from has proven that some evolutionists will grab at absolutely anything in order to say they have the slightest bit of proof.
All of this talk about IE, Photoshop, and "pngcrush" just shows that PNG is still not living up as totally suitable replacement for GIF.
No, it shows that PNG is an ideal replacement. It's simply a better, smaller, more capable format. Trying to make it bad on account of IE's legendary incompetence and Adobe's out-of-character lack of support is clearly a hopeless effort. Otherwise I could call JPG a lesser format because calculators don't use it.
Oh ho, bring on all the 'everyone who r believe life on Mars have tinfoil hats' stuff, soon to be debunked in a year or so. Just throw them in with 'people who believed Mars had water have tinfoil hats' and so forth. Always a a great bunch, they are.
In fact I'm a veteran with Flash scripting; it makes life really easy for putting together graphics, though you can't go very in-depth with the video engine or do much in the way of 3d rendering, beyond manual wireframes and isometrics. It's not very high-level compared to from-the-ground-up coding, but it does the trick for all your 2d material.
It depends what kind of video games you're playing, which are evidently rap-mixing games the great Barbie series.
If you get up and look out at what's really there then you'll find lots of innovative ideas, very original soundtracks (here and there), and artwork by people who have more talent in their pinky than anyone who ever did work for your local art museum. Even if that's no saying much.
But yeah nearly everything else there is true. I'm a fairly skilled artist and it'd be great to shell out some ideas and create a video game, but the programming behind a decent game is so unforgiving that I don't even bother with it. C++ still sucks. There are few humanly legible guides to it. The only way I'd get anywhere is to find someone else who would do the programming, but how much control would that give me?
Compilers are still way too undeveloped compared to what they could be. This wouldn't such an intangible art form if more development programs didn't require you to know every aspect and angle of C++ in order to make a sprite.
Well it's a good thing I never expect *too* much intelligent life in/. I'd be terribly disappointed. It's your browser war; you wallow in it. Put simply, if you can't handle possibility and innovation in browsing then you can go ahead and fall behind, restricting yourself to limited capabilities just because you think it'll end this 'browser war' you've come up with.
Jc pretty much debunks the W3C stuff, so that makes my life easier. I'm in the middle of a project which uses (gasp!) Javascript, CSS and PHP and is still compatible with everything. Making a page ugly and uninteractive for the sake of one person's ideas of 'standards' is just not my thing.
Yeah, and beside that, screw all this browser war junk. I don't give a crap which different browsers and methods there are - web languages are the most versatile of all because everyone's free to make their own browser innovations and design pages for whatever they want.
I'm a web designer and even though dealing with multiple browsers complicates the code, it's the entire reason the web has so many options and capabilities today.
And yeah, this isn't on the subject of Passport, but this frickin' 'everything's a war' stuff is way over-dramatised.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a criminal
Which, in America, 99% of us are. Although this is coming from the Department of Redundancy Department, a month from now I won't be able to take a shit the wrong way without the cops busting down my door. Some good tips here.
We all know this new wave of information control isn't going to catch anyone. A neanderthal could point that out. Al-Queda members will circumvent it, while people like me who are still bending over backward to avoid getting a ten-month sentence will just be brought in under suspicion.
Once again it's just a new way for the real terrorists to keep us in their grip.
I wonder how much longer the tinfoil hat scarecrow is going to stand now that the Big Brother stuff is becoming so painfully obvious that even the most conformed and obedient psychos are beginning to notice it.
Terrorist! Do you want Al Queda to blow something else up? Are you working for Bin Laden? THEN YOU WILL pay for our gigantic screens which will be used to monitor your safety in the shower!
*gives long congress-like speech on how I'm related to someone who's sister's uncle's room-mate once talked to a guy who died somewhere near the WTC explosion*
Yes that's right, I went there.
That was probably sarcasm or something, but if not, I take it you're trying to say he didn't weave the the straw correctly? Right that would have help sooo much.
Security is a job function, not a function of the system
So the first Little Pig's problem is that he wasn't weaving the straw very well.
How much can you do with weak materials?
Well, you managed to get everything backward, assert that I called evolution a non-theory, give a very hopeless attempt at turning creationism into faith, and try to remove the logic from what I worded clear as day. Then tried to make evolutionism useful somehow.
But, oh wait, the proof was in your other pair of pants.
To put it this way: 2+2=4. I know that. It's indisputable. I'd much rather find the absolute reality than settle for a single unproven theory.
Id'a said 'the justice system' but hey, no argument here.
annoyances you have to deal with in a free society.
Yep, we dealt with them all right. Same way we deal with shoplifting,
I... don't think giving the longest explanation possible makes it reasonable.
There are still holes in my explanation, but its a reasonable explanation, and is more specific than a vague concept of "energy" creating everything as-is
I have no clue how you got into the 'creation of planets' subject but it has pretty much nothing to do with this, in fact I explained that we're only talking about the formation of life. I never said anything about 'energy creating everything'.
Also what you added to step 1. is one of hundreds of plausible theories on how that took place. The addition to 3 is what some people choose to believe and the new version of 4 is a huge collection of different ideas, a few of which can be proven but most of which relies on the theory of bacterial origin to begin with. Even if the idea of bacterial origin were proven, a lot of those ideas would still be up for opinion.
But I'm sure you know that we're just talking theory and nothing more, so that all goes without saying.
And of course, my own idea is very undeveloped. We know independent energetic sentience is possible; it would just be nice to know how it works, and whether it formed cellular life, the other way around, or neither. Obviously it couldn't be 'pure' energy as I inaccurately put it. There'd have to be a number of materials involved for it to hold together, or it could exist 'between the atoms' so to speak, persisting by influencing all surrounding material. It would explain a lot if so.
Or, cellular life may have come first, in which case spirits could be the result of an evolutionary mechanism by animals a long time ago. Though, considering today's theoretic age of the universe, that'd be far more likely to happen on another planet first, perhaps as an organism's way of preserving itself when it's cellular form is destroyed. Maybe a race couldn't survive on a given planet and needed a way to migrate elsewhere.
Lots of possibilities; the current theories, no matter how far you take them, are barely the tip of the iceberg.
That's basically what I was saying about the gigantic question mark. Only, the evolution theory offers nothing solid on what happened between now and then, just assumptions based on the assumption that life sprang up without intelligence to begin with.
ultimately, no matter how improbable the current world is, here it is.
That certainly didn't prove anything. Saying we came from amoeba most certainly can't be proven by saying "we're here", although, that's about as deep as its evidence gets.
My theory has at least as much evidence behind it; you must not have been paying attention. It's simple logic that energy produces intelligence if channelled the right way; the fact that we can think to begin with proves that. If energetic materials come together correctly then it becomes sentient. I'd like to find out which materials could do this. But your attempt to make it 'baseless' relies entirely on the fact that you have no clue about energy-based life forms.
And on the other end of the spectrum you have me: A guy who's not religious in any aspect but finds it waaay more likely that an intelligent life form
What I dislike about the evolution theory (and by that I mean the idea that cellular life came from an ooze, a lightning strike or a volcano, not the factual progress of dna) is the ease of which you can justify any crazy idea by throwing a million trillion years into it. It's way too simple, takes little into account, and leaves extremely wide multi-million-year gaps during which it's assumed that nothing besides mating, hunting and maybe the discovery of a few tools happened. One theory says life forms from other planets or systems may have come during one of these gaps and boosted things a little. That makes perfect sense, and it shortens the gaps a little, but far too much is still left open.
Following the 'great coincidence' logic, I could say the Sears tower evolved from a volcano if I threw a few hundred millenniums into the equation, and said 'look, all these other towers are pretty similar to it. It probably evolved from them.' Simple as can be. The basic model for the 'old life' theory is.
1. Billions of years
2. ???
3. life
4. millions of years
5. ???
6. Intelligence!
It's a little more complex than that, but not by much. Problem is that intelligent cellular life takes gigantic chances and extremely slim odds to pop up first.
So, now, what's the alternative? How about a life form based purely on energy. Let's play the 'most likely situation' game. There are way-the-hell more stars in the universe than there are livable planets. Even the mainstream knows that. The right situation with the right atoms and energy types can produce sentience. Heck, it's the very reason we can think with our brains. And with all the activity taking place in stars, that 'right situation' can occur very frequently in comparison to the loads of statistics required for cellular life.
This doesn't mean that energetic life preceded cellular life, necessarily, it just means that the chances are so high that it almost renders the 'cellular life came first' theories obsolete, and it also takes spirits into account; something which most other theories do everything to avoid.
So, a energy-based life form made from the right materials could probably leave its system and go elsewhere in the universe. At one point or another, it wouldn't be farfetched at all if it invented life forms out of normal, planetary materials.
So, all in all, there are gaps in my ideas too. I'd like to follow through and complete those gaps. the thing is that Darwin came up with a great theory. He followed through with it. Why don't we have more theories like that? I want more options and I think we all need more ideas if we're really going to figure this thing out.
There we have evolutionism in a nutshell: Saying it has proof, but, oops, it forgot the proof in its other pair of pants, trying to make itself real by trying to make creation false, relying on a thousand one-in-a-million coincidences to do what intelligence does with no problem. All in all, an over-elaborate excuse to complain about some Jahovah's Witnesses that once came to your door. No more sensible than if I said my house evolved out of ancient sticks and stones from the ground.
The root article gives no attempt at making evolutionism real, and it's pretty obvious why.
The problem is that somebody published the pictures on the network. Did anybody notice that, or would we rather just follow Rick's solution and have the people from our oh-so-trustworthy 'that blunder is confidential' military tell us what we can publish and see on the internet? Oh, sounds great. "Hey Jim, this picture has 'no war' written on it. You know what to do..."
I guess we COULD track down whoever leaked the info, but why do that when you can go after anyone on or in the remote proximity of any random network? Perfect plan. A big 'duuuhhhr' goes out to Rick who lacks the capacity to get this through his head.
I guess we've come to accept that every government, no matter how promising, will bite the dust and control every aspect of every citizen's life, till eventually those one or two saviors rise up and realize that, if nothing else, the government was right about one thing: Eventually you're going to have to kill someone to gain your freedom. ::Gives in and puts on a tinfoil hat::
I guess they were right.
Mmm, it's the coffee that goes right through you! again and again..
Well, that's just based on the 'linear intelligence' scale, which is made and judged mostly by less intelligent humans. You know what I mean; the scale where you lose points for playing video games and doing things that have a purpose, and gain points for reading mindless old books. There are a few other factors in this scale but I guess people following this idea will think whatever they want.
Anyway here in reality, there isn't an intelligence that you can put into a box. Humans are incredibly technological; that's simply a trait. Some aliens might be more mind-oriented and capable of doing things with pure thought that some people might fear or just deny. Some could be more communicative and better with understanding. Some could be a cuddly race of catgirls.
Hey, there's a lot of possibilities. It's pretty obvious, judging by the acceleration of communication and info in the last few decades, that man is just now crawling out of the hole. If you asked me I'd say the key has always been the 'communication' factor. If, for example, dogs had conceived of complex communication before we did, they'd probably be the ones putting us in boxes and selling us like groceries.
So the thing is, that thanks to communication, we've become the most complex animal because we can understand the experiences of a whole lot of people, as opposed to just our own and a few others. It's only logical that the greatest forms of extraterrestrial life would be the ones that have the widest range of communication, and with this in mind, there are probably some very huge systems of information out there beyond our little Earth. It'd be nice to be part of that and have more to think about than the way your stupid roommate keeps leaving the bathroom light on and always turns the thermostat way the hell down and blasts the stereo when you're asleep.
Just an example.
Well, your standpoint is explained by the fact that you're unable to parse the simplest comparison or read a word of the post. No wonder. I could re-explain it at third-grade level but your reply would be "explain is to standpoint as JPG is to post? Wuh? Huh?" and more delusive statements based on whatever else stoners see when they look at the screen.
The problem is that creationism is pseudo-science
/. article this all stems from has proven that some evolutionists will grab at absolutely anything in order to say they have the slightest bit of proof.
The problem with this post is that it has no ground to stand on.
The sad truth is that you can take any nutcase concept, throw a thousand million years into it, and with no trouble at all, you've got the less competent side of the science community eating out of your hands. It's not very intelligent in the big scheme of things, but some people just want to believe whatever coincidence-theory spans the most years. If the logic common to these lower scientists held any ground, I could say that Manhattan evolved out of rocks and snails if I tossed a few hundred millenniums into the equation.
For one, one does not read a book intended for spiritual enlightenment as a history book
Now we're just shooting off in so many random directions that it's no wonder this post supports evolutionism. First: What book? Did this book create life? No? Then your argument and much of evolutionism is relying on something that has nothing to do with the subject. If you wanted to rant about some Jahovah's Witness that came to your door then there are other, more reasonable concepts to use.
Second, if the "History cannot be spiritual" logic follows through then I can declare George Washington's biography to be a book written for spiritual enlightenment, and that would turn it into a big conspiracy lie and whatnot.
Here we see evolutionism in a nutshell: Fragmented, inconsistent, unable to present an ounce of solid logic. All-in-all, nothing more than a misplaced rebellion against certain spiritual people and at most, a thoughtless piece of ammo to up the reputations of emerging pseudo-scientists. And if anything, the
Thank you and goodnight!
All of this talk about IE, Photoshop, and "pngcrush" just shows that PNG is still not living up as totally suitable replacement for GIF.
No, it shows that PNG is an ideal replacement. It's simply a better, smaller, more capable format. Trying to make it bad on account of IE's legendary incompetence and Adobe's out-of-character lack of support is clearly a hopeless effort. Otherwise I could call JPG a lesser format because calculators don't use it.
Oh ho, bring on all the 'everyone who r believe life on Mars have tinfoil hats' stuff, soon to be debunked in a year or so. Just throw them in with 'people who believed Mars had water have tinfoil hats' and so forth. Always a a great bunch, they are.
Python? Interesting.
In fact I'm a veteran with Flash scripting; it makes life really easy for putting together graphics, though you can't go very in-depth with the video engine or do much in the way of 3d rendering, beyond manual wireframes and isometrics. It's not very high-level compared to from-the-ground-up coding, but it does the trick for all your 2d material.
Maybe I could look into a few alternatives.
It depends what kind of video games you're playing, which are evidently rap-mixing games the great Barbie series.
If you get up and look out at what's really there then you'll find lots of innovative ideas, very original soundtracks (here and there), and artwork by people who have more talent in their pinky than anyone who ever did work for your local art museum. Even if that's no saying much.
But yeah nearly everything else there is true. I'm a fairly skilled artist and it'd be great to shell out some ideas and create a video game, but the programming behind a decent game is so unforgiving that I don't even bother with it. C++ still sucks. There are few humanly legible guides to it. The only way I'd get anywhere is to find someone else who would do the programming, but how much control would that give me?
Compilers are still way too undeveloped compared to what they could be. This wouldn't such an intangible art form if more development programs didn't require you to know every aspect and angle of C++ in order to make a sprite.
Well it's a good thing I never expect *too* much intelligent life in /. I'd be terribly disappointed. It's your browser war; you wallow in it. Put simply, if you can't handle possibility and innovation in browsing then you can go ahead and fall behind, restricting yourself to limited capabilities just because you think it'll end this 'browser war' you've come up with.
Jc pretty much debunks the W3C stuff, so that makes my life easier. I'm in the middle of a project which uses (gasp!) Javascript, CSS and PHP and is still compatible with everything. Making a page ugly and uninteractive for the sake of one person's ideas of 'standards' is just not my thing.
Great.
/. and I get the one that's Chinese.
Hundreds of mods in
Also, 90% of the Chinese workforce is under age 12.
Yeah, and beside that, screw all this browser war junk. I don't give a crap which different browsers and methods there are - web languages are the most versatile of all because everyone's free to make their own browser innovations and design pages for whatever they want.
I'm a web designer and even though dealing with multiple browsers complicates the code, it's the entire reason the web has so many options and capabilities today.
And yeah, this isn't on the subject of Passport, but this frickin' 'everything's a war' stuff is way over-dramatised.