I meant PHP as in mod_php. Many servers do not have CGI (nor a possibility of executing perl scripts) but do have mod_php or any other way of executing PHP scripts.
VB6 is generally quite weak at performing system administration tasks (e.g. service management) and database access (maybe a bit less with MS OLEDB components), though.
PHP is a very simple language as well and not overkill for simple tasks. How can it be compared to CGI? Does it have any real disadvantages?
Advantages are clear: many developers are better at writing PHP than at writing Perl and PHP is nowadays more widespread on servers than CGI.
Actually, Google has exactly the same "syndrome", it's just another case of it. If you look at the Google Calendar, it's only useful if you use Gmail for mail. Their Photo service is only useful with Picasa to manage your photos. Google Talk only works together with a Gmail address. And so on.
mtDNA, however is a completely different form of DNA. You can't compare it to usual DNA, you'll have to compare it to mtDNA of the same person.
mtDNA is DNA from the mitochondria, which are originally formed from bacteria. That also explains why mitochondria cannot be formed by the body: a mitochondrium can only be formed by 'splitting' another, because the human body doesn't posses the DNA required to build mitochondria.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
I can't understand what you're worrying about. I live in the netherlands, and there surely is nothing like such trouble here. Whats wrong with showing parts of the human body? Don't kids get that at school too?
A twelve-year-old could get GTA:SA here. They don't want that - but if they don't want children to buy it, it's because of the violence - not about the naked skin that's in it. Really, I can't understand this.
IE5.5 is doable, but 5.0's support is horrible. Javascript is not the problem - it's more the CSS support of IE5.5/6 bothering me and requiring me to write fixes (margin leaks, absolute positioning problems, fixed position not supported, etc.). And yes, UA detection is the worst there is. There are also those developers that don't check the string but do if(document.all){browser="ie"}else{browser="firefo x"} instead. That's just nearly as worse.
Probably most developers don't know they use open source tools. It might not sound like a big deal, but those developers could also be helping those projects if they miss a feature or find some bug.
Say 7.0 is standards compliant and every XP user will upgrade to 7.0, thus 90% of IE users use 7.0. Most webdevs will stop supporting IE 6.0, as it's not worth supporting that few per cent (because it is a lot of work). Then 98/ME/2000 (I think) users will be doomed because they can't view those sites. They blame the browser and download something better. Then IE's market share will decrease - and Firefox's will increase even more!
Slashdot Mirror
I meant PHP as in mod_php. Many servers do not have CGI (nor a possibility of executing perl scripts) but do have mod_php or any other way of executing PHP scripts.
VB6 is generally quite weak at performing system administration tasks (e.g. service management) and database access (maybe a bit less with MS OLEDB components), though.
PHP is a very simple language as well and not overkill for simple tasks. How can it be compared to CGI? Does it have any real disadvantages? Advantages are clear: many developers are better at writing PHP than at writing Perl and PHP is nowadays more widespread on servers than CGI.
It doesn't force him to use Windows, there's webmail for that. But the only desktop email client (Live Mail Desktop) works only on Windows.
I love the Apple laptop (MacBook Pro/PowerBook) on the Windows Live Edu website!
Actually, Google has exactly the same "syndrome", it's just another case of it. If you look at the Google Calendar, it's only useful if you use Gmail for mail. Their Photo service is only useful with Picasa to manage your photos. Google Talk only works together with a Gmail address. And so on.
Even easier: install Windows XP using VirtualPC on a PowerPC Mac -- the outside of both is exactly the same.
Maybe Seagate has better designed harddrives?
From the howto:
mtDNA, however is a completely different form of DNA. You can't compare it to usual DNA, you'll have to compare it to mtDNA of the same person. mtDNA is DNA from the mitochondria, which are originally formed from bacteria. That also explains why mitochondria cannot be formed by the body: a mitochondrium can only be formed by 'splitting' another, because the human body doesn't posses the DNA required to build mitochondria. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
AMD64 X2 is dual core, not dual CPU.
SSL2.0 is checked off for me though, in a clean Firefox install. So I think they will go further than only that.
What support? Indeed. None.
Google's own Google Earth can already do this - for the whole world. I don't think this is really impressive...
I can't understand what you're worrying about. I live in the netherlands, and there surely is nothing like such trouble here. Whats wrong with showing parts of the human body? Don't kids get that at school too? A twelve-year-old could get GTA:SA here. They don't want that - but if they don't want children to buy it, it's because of the violence - not about the naked skin that's in it. Really, I can't understand this.
That was a previous slashdot story though.
CSS2(.0) is flawed, 2.1 not. MS wanted to wait for 2.1.
IE5.5 is doable, but 5.0's support is horrible. Javascript is not the problem - it's more the CSS support of IE5.5/6 bothering me and requiring me to write fixes (margin leaks, absolute positioning problems, fixed position not supported, etc.). And yes, UA detection is the worst there is. There are also those developers that don't check the string but do if(document.all){browser="ie"}else{browser="firefo x"} instead. That's just nearly as worse.
Probably most developers don't know they use open source tools. It might not sound like a big deal, but those developers could also be helping those projects if they miss a feature or find some bug.
It's a bit low if you take in mind that nearly every developer has a copy of Firefox or some other tool.
Say 7.0 is standards compliant and every XP user will upgrade to 7.0, thus 90% of IE users use 7.0. Most webdevs will stop supporting IE 6.0, as it's not worth supporting that few per cent (because it is a lot of work). Then 98/ME/2000 (I think) users will be doomed because they can't view those sites. They blame the browser and download something better. Then IE's market share will decrease - and Firefox's will increase even more!
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/about.html#q1
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/06/css-21
CSS 2.1 is in nearly-done stage I think. At least IE devs can start working on it already...
Oh wait! Tt says 'incomparable listening experience'... (second picture on the site)
Bart Decrem was actually one of the founders/maintainers of SpreadFirefox.com. He left a week ago or so.