I realize it was not pornographic, but it isn't exactly the kind of thing I'd like to pull up at work or anything (let alone the fact I did not particularly want to pull it up here at home.)
Parent said association with a competing product: iPods are associated with Apple, which shares many markets with Microsoft, among them Operating Systems, Software Media players, media file formats and computer peripherals.
I really don't know much about it. Due to its flexibility and extensibility, Gentoo traditionally takes a long time to install, having to wait on the linux kernel to compile. I thought that this (as opposed to "binary versions of live CDs") would be a funny sight to see, as speed of bootup is a concern with live CD's. 'Tis all.
I have never even run gentoo (though I am thinking of installing it on my play-around box.)
I don't know if you were just trolling or not, but I don't mean to be a jackass. I have no problem with gentoo, it just isn't too suited for applications like livecds.
I don't know if I'd call these laptops underpowered, but Averatec makes x86 laptops which go for around $900 that are slightly thinner and lighter with pretty comparable tech specs (XP-M 2200+, 512MiB, 60GiB, CD-RW/DVD, 11g) that I would say seems fairly comparable to the 12" powerbook.
Different in several ways, but certainly competitive.
Which standards do they not support which other browsers do?
I don't know, but lack of standards support isn't why most sites don't render correctly in my experience./., for example, claims to be written to W3C HTML3.2 standards, but doesn't actually code to them. I would be willing to bet the vast, vast majority of the problem is simply sloppy coding.
A browser still needs to be flexible in what it renders. Perhaps there should be an extension to show how (in)valid the HTML on the page is, but the browser should accept malformed HTML. Particularly popular malformed HTML.
Firefox does support improper scripting. The problem is, it cannot accept ALL improper scripting: it cannot read minds. It does a pretty good job on/., I am on pretty damn often and have never had it render unreadable.
It should be able to run, but to my knowledge no one yet has been able to make an X-box a freestanding PVR. But I don't see why playback should not work.
Webscripting exists only in the minds and text editors and servers of geeks. It's not as though W3C has the right to dictate the standards inherently, but rather that I believe we should adopt SOME standards, something many scripters have.
The W3C honestly doesn't care what your web browser does; it just publishes recommendations that are purposefully vague. You can never, ever be guaranteed of pixel-perfect compatibility across multiple browsers.
But if all browsers interepret scripting in the same, documented way, it comes closer to this. When a site I write validates with W3C, it has without exception as of yet looked how I want it in Firefox, Safari, and Opera. Will there always be a compatibility problem? Perhaps. But adoption of some standards will help it be a minor problem, not something that is the bulk of web design.
I have not used that blog in several months, and have since programmed a standards-complient blog of my own: never liked that MT was not complient. That being said, I would not blame IE or Opera or Firefox for when I had a problem with it. For that matter, I don't fall for the kind of pitfalls the article talks about: I make sure all my sites display immaculately in IE. Further, I would never say a number of the idiotic things from that article it was implied pro-standards people support, please don't think I'm that zealous or unobservant.
Overall, though, the article writer seems just silly to me. They act as if standards advocates do not realize they have to code for IE, then concludes with the claim "it's not HTML that breaks compatibility, but rather JavaScript." That last claim is simply not true: I have written a number of sites without a touch of javascript (don't know the stuff well) and had them render differently in different browsers, I'm sure we all have. They end telling us, "Asking someone to rewrite their IE web application for Firefox is asking them to break their application in a totally different way." Precisely, and that is WHY we need to standardize it in SOME way.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think the "I can get a new finger if one is compromised" comment would make it clear enough that I was not being overly serious.
I'd be more concerned about my fingerprint data being stolen.
I'm pretty sure I leave my fingerprint info around quite a bit.
I can get a new credit card if one is compromised.
And I can get a new finger if one is compromised. What's your point?
I realize it was not pornographic, but it isn't exactly the kind of thing I'd like to pull up at work or anything (let alone the fact I did not particularly want to pull it up here at home.)
Parent said association with a competing product: iPods are associated with Apple, which shares many markets with Microsoft, among them Operating Systems, Software Media players, media file formats and computer peripherals.
Why in the world does google have safesearch if I still get that fisrt result. I mean, really...
I really don't know much about it. Due to its flexibility and extensibility, Gentoo traditionally takes a long time to install, having to wait on the linux kernel to compile. I thought that this (as opposed to "binary versions of live CDs") would be a funny sight to see, as speed of bootup is a concern with live CD's. 'Tis all.
I have never even run gentoo (though I am thinking of installing it on my play-around box.)
*drools*
The really sad part is that those got my mouth literally watering. I love subnotebooks so...
I don't know if you were just trolling or not, but I don't mean to be a jackass. I have no problem with gentoo, it just isn't too suited for applications like livecds.
Meh. For the amount I use my cell phone, I pay anywhere from .9 to 3 cents/minute.
Yeah, what about us 5up3r-1337 mofos who want to do it right? Lazy idiots with their binary versions of live CDs...
Advanced? +5, Funny, maybe.
For some reason, many of these pads have "tap for click" turned on.
I suspect that is because it is a good function.
I would, however, recommend turning it off during car rides. That has caused me some fun.
say nouse
Quite a quandary: worse results, or just feel dirty searching.
Google: time to pull out of VOIP and hamster farming and start being the best search engine in all respects on earth again.
The two-finger thing is pretty slick. I would say comparable to the controls on an iPod: creative, functional, and not apt to be super-annoying.
Damnit, IBM. And already said. I thought that end of replies to first child was end of replies to parent.
I don't know about experiences, but I think Toshiba has been doing this inside their notebook drives for a while now.
I don't know if I'd call these laptops underpowered, but Averatec makes x86 laptops which go for around $900 that are slightly thinner and lighter with pretty comparable tech specs (XP-M 2200+, 512MiB, 60GiB, CD-RW/DVD, 11g) that I would say seems fairly comparable to the 12" powerbook.
Different in several ways, but certainly competitive.
Which standards do they not support which other browsers do?
/., for example, claims to be written to W3C HTML3.2 standards, but doesn't actually code to them. I would be willing to bet the vast, vast majority of the problem is simply sloppy coding.
/., I am on pretty damn often and have never had it render unreadable.
I don't know, but lack of standards support isn't why most sites don't render correctly in my experience.
A browser still needs to be flexible in what it renders. Perhaps there should be an extension to show how (in)valid the HTML on the page is, but the browser should accept malformed HTML. Particularly popular malformed HTML.
Firefox does support improper scripting. The problem is, it cannot accept ALL improper scripting: it cannot read minds. It does a pretty good job on
I see how I misinterpretted it, and now feel quite silly.
Insightful? Looks like a troll to me. Or at best a joke.
It should be able to run, but to my knowledge no one yet has been able to make an X-box a freestanding PVR. But I don't see why playback should not work.
Web "standards" exist only in the minds of geeks.
Webscripting exists only in the minds and text editors and servers of geeks. It's not as though W3C has the right to dictate the standards inherently, but rather that I believe we should adopt SOME standards, something many scripters have.
The W3C honestly doesn't care what your web browser does; it just publishes recommendations that are purposefully vague. You can never, ever be guaranteed of pixel-perfect compatibility across multiple browsers.
But if all browsers interepret scripting in the same, documented way, it comes closer to this. When a site I write validates with W3C, it has without exception as of yet looked how I want it in Firefox, Safari, and Opera. Will there always be a compatibility problem? Perhaps. But adoption of some standards will help it be a minor problem, not something that is the bulk of web design.
I have not used that blog in several months, and have since programmed a standards-complient blog of my own: never liked that MT was not complient. That being said, I would not blame IE or Opera or Firefox for when I had a problem with it. For that matter, I don't fall for the kind of pitfalls the article talks about: I make sure all my sites display immaculately in IE. Further, I would never say a number of the idiotic things from that article it was implied pro-standards people support, please don't think I'm that zealous or unobservant.
Overall, though, the article writer seems just silly to me. They act as if standards advocates do not realize they have to code for IE, then concludes with the claim "it's not HTML that breaks compatibility, but rather JavaScript." That last claim is simply not true: I have written a number of sites without a touch of javascript (don't know the stuff well) and had them render differently in different browsers, I'm sure we all have. They end telling us, "Asking someone to rewrite their IE web application for Firefox is asking them to break their application in a totally different way." Precisely, and that is WHY we need to standardize it in SOME way.
I hear that CMM has even more problems than ABC.