If it renders properly in Basic Page Style or in Lynx they certainly have done something right.
They have done something right, certainly. They have not, however, necessarily divided presentation from content. All they have done is made two particular presentations work with the same content, to some limited extent.
A few more div's aren't really that big of a deal, they are simply invisible.
Yes, they are. The fact that they are invisible when not styled is beside the point. The fact that they were required in the first place is the problem. And the further problem is that if you want another presentation, you probably need another set of divs than what you have right now. Thus, your content is still interlinked with your presentation.
Actually the separation of presentation and content is pretty good on most of the bigger sites, i.e. you can switch to "View/Page Style/Basic Page Style" in Firefox and things will look just "fine"
That does not mean content and presentation are separated. Those pages will still contain a ton of divs that are there only to support the presentation. And neither will it be possible to make another radically different presentation for those pages, because those would need a different content structure.
There were plenty of much more responsible ways to get that vulnerability fixed. That was clearly not the intent of the people involved, since they chose this course of action rather than a responsible one.
The point was, it means "rice", and it means "America". They are two distinct meanings. America is not "colloquially" known as any land of rice, that would make no sense at all.
If you do not speak the language, maybe you should not give people advice about it. Kanji do not represent words.
And even so, "characters (i.e. sounds)"? English doesn't have characters that correspond to sounds! Where did you get the insane idea that such a correspondence exists?
YOur intuition tells you it was not possible for a car, and now they prove you wrong.
I am not sure who you are talking to. I know how the car works and that it works. I am saying that regular sailboats can not do the same that the car does, and that all the people yelling about how this is "nothing new" do not understand what is being done.
Boats can not go downwind faster than the wind. Rather than jump out and try to announce to the world how much smarter you are than the people who actually did stuff, maybe you should first go read and comprehend what they actually did.
How does Google "control" it? The spec is done. The spec is entirely open and free. What's Google going to actually do to exercise this supposed "control"?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody called them that. They are a licensing group. They did not develop the formats in question.
Well, you know, the whole thing started with people using maths to try and prove it wasn't good.
If it renders properly in Basic Page Style or in Lynx they certainly have done something right.
They have done something right, certainly. They have not, however, necessarily divided presentation from content. All they have done is made two particular presentations work with the same content, to some limited extent.
A few more div's aren't really that big of a deal, they are simply invisible.
Yes, they are. The fact that they are invisible when not styled is beside the point. The fact that they were required in the first place is the problem. And the further problem is that if you want another presentation, you probably need another set of divs than what you have right now. Thus, your content is still interlinked with your presentation.
Actually the separation of presentation and content is pretty good on most of the bigger sites, i.e. you can switch to "View/Page Style/Basic Page Style" in Firefox and things will look just "fine"
That does not mean content and presentation are separated. Those pages will still contain a ton of divs that are there only to support the presentation. And neither will it be possible to make another radically different presentation for those pages, because those would need a different content structure.
Go to about:plugins, click "Disable" twice, and you are done.
And that idea has remained a pipe dream. You'd be hard pressed to find a website that actually manages to separate presentation and content.
More realistically, it would force people to rewrite the GPL'd parts when making it proprietary. You'd still be in the exact same situation.
Yes, clearly anyone who does not share your exact values must be stupid.
It couldn't be that they value other things than you and then go on to make rational decisions or anything.
There were plenty of much more responsible ways to get that vulnerability fixed. That was clearly not the intent of the people involved, since they chose this course of action rather than a responsible one.
Did you make even the tiniest effort to understand what I said?
The point was, it means "rice", and it means "America". They are two distinct meanings. America is not "colloquially" known as any land of rice, that would make no sense at all.
They are not.
If you do not speak the language, maybe you should not give people advice about it. Kanji do not represent words.
And even so, "characters (i.e. sounds)"? English doesn't have characters that correspond to sounds! Where did you get the insane idea that such a correspondence exists?
Good job stripping out anything that isn't ASCII, Slashcode. What is this, the eighties?
Let's try the long way around.
What's the one meaning of http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%E7%B1%B3 ?
A Kanji usually only has one meaning. Only the attempt to translate it into a foreign language gives it several meanings.
What is the one meaning of ""?
Do you always make that much of an effort to sound condescending when you are wrong?
YOur intuition tells you it was not possible for a car, and now they prove you wrong.
I am not sure who you are talking to. I know how the car works and that it works. I am saying that regular sailboats can not do the same that the car does, and that all the people yelling about how this is "nothing new" do not understand what is being done.
In short, this did not happen. The vehicle did not reach steady state direct downwind travel above the ground-relative velocity of the wind.
You are incorrect. It did just this.
That is exactly what they did.
As other people have noted, this is a complete non-issue, sailors already do it, and there's no reason cars can't too.
Those other people were just as wrong as you. This is about going directly downwind, not at an angle.
Why did you feel the need to say what they already said, and miss the point just as much as they already did?
Boats can not go downwind faster than the wind. Rather than jump out and try to announce to the world how much smarter you are than the people who actually did stuff, maybe you should first go read and comprehend what they actually did.
No, that is not what it is saying. Given an open plain and constant wind, it will move faster than the wind indefinitely.
None of that sounds like a problem in any practical way at all. You're going to have to be more specific.
How does Google "control" it? The spec is done. The spec is entirely open and free. What's Google going to actually do to exercise this supposed "control"?
Citation needed?
No, this is not Wikipedia. If you want to challenge someone's claims, do so directly, in real English.
Windows tablets have been selling fine
If by "fine" you mean "barely breaking even". And Microsoft sure has marketed them, every time they tried doing the same thing over again.