That's what kills me. This little analogy doesn't even work! If cactus becomes cacti, then virus become viri, not virii! The fact is, using a Latin plural is stupid for virus (even if you use it when you say it) becaus in Latin virus doesn't even decline; the Latin plural of virus is still virus.
So many people just don't get this whole web standards thing, or this acid test. The various browsers are NOT supposed to be optimizing for this acid test. The whole point is that the acid test is a page made using every relevant standard and thus any browser that displays it correctly will be standards compliant. Once that happens, any page that is written to be compliant will work properly in any browser that passes the Acid test.
Currently, lots of sites written to standards work properly in several browsers that aren't quite up to snuff enough to pass the acid test, but the problem is that each has its quirks. Also, there are a number of nice CSS features you just can't use right now because not enough browsers are fully standards compliant.
The Acid test doesn't exactly resemble any real regular code, but it is designed by people who do a LOT of regular coding to be representative of any standards-compliant code someone might use.
Anyway, browsers should NOT let the badly coded pages work right. That just gets people into bad habits. And how should it decide what is the right way to render that bad code? Guaranteed every rendering engine will decide a different way to deal with bad code, which is of course the point of standards.
Google and the libraries don't have to fight, and really, they're not. I don't know why the European libraries wouldn't want Google to digitize their content, but it doesn't really matter. If Google's content and these libraries' content is free to all, then it's good.
It's not even like there's anything to compete about really, it's being done for the good of humanity.
Sheesh. Obviously it needs more than a processor to run. I was just saying that this is about a Linux distro, not the companies that make the hardware. In other words, should distros that run on Dell machines get filed under Dell?
I think the idea behind it is that Grandma Jane might want to rename the 4df-NIKONZZx.jpg file she managed to get off her camera to something like "Our Trip to Colorado" but wouldn't necessarily realize that she needed to only change the part before the.jpg. There are a bunch of annoying things like this about a fresh install of Windows. Even the c:\ drive is hidden by default! It's all in the name of protecting the dumb users (you know, the majority of them) from themselves. What's useful to Slashdot readers is not universally so.
2) polygamy: central to the concept of marriage is partnership and equality. Polygamy is illegal because inherent in a union between one man and many women is inequality. There is no way for one of several women in a union to be equal to the single man in that union.
That makes no sense. First of all, there's no reason that 5 women and 1 man (or 5 men and 1 woman) can't each have 1/6 of decision-making power in such a marriage. Second of all, the Government makes no requirements that the two married people need be equal. Both people are allowed to be equal, certainly, as part of the benefits of being married, but there's no reason such equality couldn't be given to more than two people.
Polygamy is illegal because the government thinks it's immoral, just like gay marriage.
Thank you!! I've been looking for a something exactly like this! It seems this foxit page needs some serious search engine optimization, because I searched and searched and did not find them!
An infinite God would need that many planets to keep himself from going insane with boredom.
An infinite God would have an infinite capacity to withstand boredom, if such a term would even apply to Him. Furthermore, even an infinite God could not create an infinite number of finite things, because he would never finish.
Obviously his point was that current attempts at desktop search don't accomplish that objective. You say they do. But neither of you gives any rationale.
Huh? That doesn't seem to have been his point at all, and it certainly wasn't mine.
His point was that for search to work, the data it searches has to be well organized. This is just completely wrong and non-sensical, and really misses the point of searching.
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article, it is reasonable to believe a review detailing true failings of Firefox without resorting to questionable statistics would have met the requirements for 'enlightenment'.
In fact, one that didn't detail its true failings would NOT meet the requirements, as the OP was looking for something that "critically examined" the browser.
I assume no one really cares how I write my code either, but people seem to care enough to respond to my comments. I doubt too many people particularly want to hear what you have to say, but you still posted.
The point is not that I want to show how much smarter or better-endowed I am than others. The point is that there are benefits to doing things manually (such as coding, shifting). When you do things manually, you have to actually know what you're doing.
The only problem I have with that is it assumes that being "fashionable" is the most logical goal. I say, the people who do stupid and more stupid things in college are STILL stupid even if we can understand why they did them. Being fashionable is a stupid goal if it necessitates the doing of very stupid, dangerous things.
Just because we can understand why someone did something doesn't mean what they did wasn't stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that you can't upgrade the video card though. Unfortunately that's about the only think I'd WANT to upgrade...
I think if it's within a month you might be able to get them to refund some of your money, but he's definitely screwed if he got it in February.
well actually the real surprise was the lack of spelling errors!
Actually, it said the two were a "crack tram" at first and as of right now still says Mr. O'Gara and Ms. Wallace.
It's a video running in WMP of the videos running on Cell. Cell doesn't run WinXP.
Cactus::Cacti
Virus::Virii
That's what kills me. This little analogy doesn't even work! If cactus becomes cacti, then virus become viri, not virii! The fact is, using a Latin plural is stupid for virus (even if you use it when you say it) becaus in Latin virus doesn't even decline; the Latin plural of virus is still virus.
It wasn't that kind of parody. It was meant to look right at a first glance but become obvious if you actually read the things on the site.
*Sigh*
So many people just don't get this whole web standards thing, or this acid test. The various browsers are NOT supposed to be optimizing for this acid test. The whole point is that the acid test is a page made using every relevant standard and thus any browser that displays it correctly will be standards compliant. Once that happens, any page that is written to be compliant will work properly in any browser that passes the Acid test.
Currently, lots of sites written to standards work properly in several browsers that aren't quite up to snuff enough to pass the acid test, but the problem is that each has its quirks. Also, there are a number of nice CSS features you just can't use right now because not enough browsers are fully standards compliant.
The Acid test doesn't exactly resemble any real regular code, but it is designed by people who do a LOT of regular coding to be representative of any standards-compliant code someone might use.
Anyway, browsers should NOT let the badly coded pages work right. That just gets people into bad habits. And how should it decide what is the right way to render that bad code? Guaranteed every rendering engine will decide a different way to deal with bad code, which is of course the point of standards.
Google and the libraries don't have to fight, and really, they're not. I don't know why the European libraries wouldn't want Google to digitize their content, but it doesn't really matter. If Google's content and these libraries' content is free to all, then it's good.
It's not even like there's anything to compete about really, it's being done for the good of humanity.
Sheesh. Obviously it needs more than a processor to run. I was just saying that this is about a Linux distro, not the companies that make the hardware. In other words, should distros that run on Dell machines get filed under Dell?
Geez, I was just trying to start a conversation.
Well IBM makes those processors, why not file under IBM? Or better yet under Linux or something?
I guess it shows how interesting this article is to me when I'm willing to quibble over its filing!
Why exactly is this filed under Apple?
It's a fun physics experiment, but I don't think it is much use in the economic driven world.
That's an interesting conclusion to come to without getting the answers to your questions.
What is "the beachball"?
The wait cursor your mouse turns into in OS X looks sort of like a beachball. Second image here
This guy has posted a few times before stating that he works at Apple.
I think the idea behind it is that Grandma Jane might want to rename the 4df-NIKONZZx.jpg file she managed to get off her camera to something like "Our Trip to Colorado" but wouldn't necessarily realize that she needed to only change the part before the .jpg. There are a bunch of annoying things like this about a fresh install of Windows. Even the c:\ drive is hidden by default! It's all in the name of protecting the dumb users (you know, the majority of them) from themselves. What's useful to Slashdot readers is not universally so.
2) polygamy: central to the concept of marriage is partnership and equality. Polygamy is illegal because inherent in a union between one man and many women is inequality. There is no way for one of several women in a union to be equal to the single man in that union.
That makes no sense. First of all, there's no reason that 5 women and 1 man (or 5 men and 1 woman) can't each have 1/6 of decision-making power in such a marriage. Second of all, the Government makes no requirements that the two married people need be equal. Both people are allowed to be equal, certainly, as part of the benefits of being married, but there's no reason such equality couldn't be given to more than two people.
Polygamy is illegal because the government thinks it's immoral, just like gay marriage.
Thank you!! I've been looking for a something exactly like this! It seems this foxit page needs some serious search engine optimization, because I searched and searched and did not find them!
An infinite God would need that many planets to keep himself from going insane with boredom.
An infinite God would have an infinite capacity to withstand boredom, if such a term would even apply to Him. Furthermore, even an infinite God could not create an infinite number of finite things, because he would never finish.
Obviously his point was that current attempts at desktop search don't accomplish that objective. You say they do. But neither of you gives any rationale.
Huh? That doesn't seem to have been his point at all, and it certainly wasn't mine.
His point was that for search to work, the data it searches has to be well organized. This is just completely wrong and non-sensical, and really misses the point of searching.
Portability?
Searching for stuff requires you to have organized it well in the first place.
No it doesn't. The point of searching is to bypass organization or to impose organization on data according to current needs.
Surely you are referring to American English then.
And what English do you think Woody Norris speaks?
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article, it is reasonable to believe a review detailing true failings of Firefox without resorting to questionable statistics would have met the requirements for 'enlightenment'.
In fact, one that didn't detail its true failings would NOT meet the requirements, as the OP was looking for something that "critically examined" the browser.
I assume no one really cares how I write my code either, but people seem to care enough to respond to my comments. I doubt too many people particularly want to hear what you have to say, but you still posted.
The point is not that I want to show how much smarter or better-endowed I am than others. The point is that there are benefits to doing things manually (such as coding, shifting). When you do things manually, you have to actually know what you're doing.
The only problem I have with that is it assumes that being "fashionable" is the most logical goal. I say, the people who do stupid and more stupid things in college are STILL stupid even if we can understand why they did them. Being fashionable is a stupid goal if it necessitates the doing of very stupid, dangerous things.
Just because we can understand why someone did something doesn't mean what they did wasn't stupid.