Wow, the Safari team should be ashamed. Instead of specifically testing for the Acid 3 test, they are specifically testing for a webfont that Acid 3 uses.
I've seen a lot of people make jokes about (usually IE) behaving differently if it detected the Acid 2 test, and I thought it was ridiculous to imagine that anybody would ever actually do that. But now I see that Apple really is doing it.
Shit like this is not going to help the web in the least.
Sort of. Their response was to claim that because the failure didn't occur on the original test (ignoring this, where IE8 also breaks), that the mirrors are unfair because they test something which the original did not.
IE8's behavior is definitely wrong (and has nothing to do with XSS), but Microsoft claims the original test didn't test that particular behavior, so failing on that doesn't mean they fail the original test.
It's not that big of a deal since this will most likely be resolved before the next release.
ScreamingMonkey is the project to add script-engine integration glue to Tamarin, so that it can handle <script type="application/ecmascript;version=4"> and <script type="application/javascript;version=2"> tags in other browsers, starting with IE (using ActiveScript interfaces).
Would an email sent from a reserved domain/TLD be accepted by most email software? It wouldn't work to use "donotreply@donotreply.invalid" or "donotreply@example.com" as the From: field if such emails were blocked from reaching their target.
Why is this modded funny? Is there a joke about "realtime" or "relatime" (relative access time) that I'm not aware of? Or is he just making fun of the above poster who made that mistake?
That's, quite literally a fuckton of systems. So simply patching new kernels isn't going to make the problem go away. Other compilers, like ICC from Intel, do not set the flag. That's, quite literally a fuckton of binaries already out in the wild. So simply patching GCC isn't going to make the problem go away either.
The problem is in the kernel, and GCC cannot solve that. This problem will exist whether GCC adds an ugly hack or not. Even if GCC had never changed their behavior, this would still be a problem for other compilers.
I'm somehow embarrassed to admit it, but I'm doing that. (And I'm guessing many other people here are also.) I keep telling myself I'm only doing it for the fun and learning, and that I don't expect it to ever actually be used by anybody, but...
In some ways, I feel it is very bad creating a new programming language. All those open source projects, and I'm spending all my time creating a new crappy language to throw on the already far-too-large pile. I could be out there helping, but instead, I'm wasting my time.
Oh, and I was at one time working on my own game engine, too. These wheels, I just keep reinventing them.
If you really want to do something great, join an open source project. Firefox, Gnash, RadeonHD, whatever. You'll get real world experience and be a positive contribution to society.
I saw lots of horrific reviews of The Little Schemer, but I bought it anyway because it sounded so different. And you know what? I hated it. A lot.
Anybody planning to read this book should know that reactions have been very mixed. You may love it or you may hate it. Try not to be too disappointed if it doesn't turn out as amazing as it sounds.
I personally recommend SICP (google it) if for nothing more than it being free and it being a meme on 4chan's/prog/ board.
I love Python, but it doesn't really make me think in new ways like e.g. Lisp does. When you just want to get something done, Python is really great, but if you're trying to expand your horizons, I think Python would be a bad choice.
Go try something different, then come back and apply in Python what you've learned.
Too many people is not the problem. The problem is that we aren't making good use of our resources.
Saying we have too many people reminds me of those network admins who whine about ever increasing hard disk capacities and how hard it is getting to back up so much data. The problem is not that hard disks hold too much data, the problem is that we haven't yet figured out a good way of backing up all that data.
People are good (overall). I want more of them. The earth could easily support 20 billion people; we just need to figure out how to do it.
Trying to slow down population growth (see China) is not a solution, it is a failure to find a solution. We need to figure out how to handle more people, not how to prevent there from being more people.
This bugs me too. I've been compiling every 3.0 beta release myself because I can't download 64-bit versions from Mozilla. The 32-bit versions of Firefox look like shit on my box because they can't use the 64-bit Qt widget libraries. What really bothers me about this lack of support is that it means the 64-bit versions aren't going to be tested nearly as well. It's like Mozilla only cares about getting feedback on the 32-bit versions.
I think smoking tobacco is bad, but I opposed taxing tobacco more than other goods. I think obesity is bad, but I would oppose fining people for eating too much. I think sun tanning is bad, but I would oppose fining people for damaging their skin. I think religion is bad, but I would oppose punishing people for engaging in religious activities.
#1 does not lead to #2 because I value freedom.
... by blaming religion for something inherently problematic with people... Religion is not the source, it merely encourages people to give in to their bigotry instead of fighting against it.
Bigotry doesn't require religion. I basically said the same thing. Religion also doesn't necessarily lead to bigotry. But religion is one of the biggest encouragers of bigotry.
I don't, for a second, think that you wouldn't excuse rounding up religious types because they "threaten" your utopia, and shove them into a gas oven. That's ridiculous, but I'm not surprised you're so paranoid. For you to be religious, you have had to think irrationally. Your mind is warped.
How else would you expunge us all from your world? I think people need to come to their senses on their own, which is happening. The percentage of people who are not religious is growing every year.
I wonder what you are capable of in the name of ridding this world of the people you so hate? I value freedom enough that I would rather allow people to be complete idiots than to try forcing them to stop. I think you are a making a very bad decision by buying into this delusion, but I do support your ability to do it.
You seem to think non-religious people are horrible evil monsters who would slaughter everyone else if ever given the chance. But that is not true. I want peace. I want people to get along. I want people to be able to think clearly. And I want everyone who is currently religious to willingly become a part of that.
Are you claiming that religious people are not more bigoted than non-religious people? Why would anybody want to deny something so incredibly obvious? Oh wait, your username is "Archangel Michael". You're most likely religious, so of course you want to deny that religion is harmful.
Bigotry and religion go hand in hand. It is no coincidence that there is such a strong correlation between religion and racism. Religion requires irrational thinking, and irrational thinking breeds bigotry. You don't need religion for irrational thinking, but religion is one of the biggest encouragers of it.
Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it.
... one of the mirrors happens to be webstandards.org... Hold up. You're srsly claiming webstandards.org is a mirror? Well then we must not be using the same definition, because that sure don't sound like a mirror to me.
The mirrors did not introduce anything new. From the linked IEBlog:
It's worth mentioning that although most sites allow navigation like http://webstandards.org/ (note: the no www) this is also considered a cross domain access as www.webstandards.org != webstandards.org. This will also cause us to fail the ACID2 test and render the picture that you see above. So please type www.webstandards.org!
Ah, the omphalos hypothesis. It's name alone is enough to confuse most creationists. ("Wait, what? It has a name?! I totally did not expect that!") My favorite version is Last Thursdayism, which I'm sure everyone here at/. is well aware of. I just wish we could decide on the name of the cat that created the universe. She will always be Molly to me, but others disagree.
It seems to me that the purpose is just to be fun, to draw attention to web standards. There are several test suites that are much better at testing this stuff, but not many casual users are going to see how well their browser does in those. Browser implementers are more likely to pay attention to standards if many of their users are looking at a test of those standards.
Aren't most free software developers going to want to work on free software? Maybe there's not enough such work to go around for them, but if you're not producing free software, they're probably not going to be very happy about working for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, the Safari team should be ashamed. Instead of specifically testing for the Acid 3 test, they are specifically testing for a webfont that Acid 3 uses.
I've seen a lot of people make jokes about (usually IE) behaving differently if it detected the Acid 2 test, and I thought it was ridiculous to imagine that anybody would ever actually do that. But now I see that Apple really is doing it.
Shit like this is not going to help the web in the least.
Sort of. Their response was to claim that because the failure didn't occur on the original test (ignoring this, where IE8 also breaks), that the mirrors are unfair because they test something which the original did not.
IE8's behavior is definitely wrong (and has nothing to do with XSS), but Microsoft claims the original test didn't test that particular behavior, so failing on that doesn't mean they fail the original test.
It's not that big of a deal since this will most likely be resolved before the next release.
Would an email sent from a reserved domain/TLD be accepted by most email software? It wouldn't work to use "donotreply@donotreply.invalid" or "donotreply@example.com" as the From: field if such emails were blocked from reaching their target.
Why is this modded funny? Is there a joke about "realtime" or "relatime" (relative access time) that I'm not aware of? Or is he just making fun of the above poster who made that mistake?
The problem is in the kernel, and GCC cannot solve that. This problem will exist whether GCC adds an ugly hack or not. Even if GCC had never changed their behavior, this would still be a problem for other compilers.
I'm somehow embarrassed to admit it, but I'm doing that. (And I'm guessing many other people here are also.) I keep telling myself I'm only doing it for the fun and learning, and that I don't expect it to ever actually be used by anybody, but...
In some ways, I feel it is very bad creating a new programming language. All those open source projects, and I'm spending all my time creating a new crappy language to throw on the already far-too-large pile. I could be out there helping, but instead, I'm wasting my time.
Oh, and I was at one time working on my own game engine, too. These wheels, I just keep reinventing them.
If you really want to do something great, join an open source project. Firefox, Gnash, RadeonHD, whatever. You'll get real world experience and be a positive contribution to society.
I saw lots of horrific reviews of The Little Schemer, but I bought it anyway because it sounded so different. And you know what? I hated it. A lot.
/prog/ board.
Anybody planning to read this book should know that reactions have been very mixed. You may love it or you may hate it. Try not to be too disappointed if it doesn't turn out as amazing as it sounds.
I personally recommend SICP (google it) if for nothing more than it being free and it being a meme on 4chan's
I love Python, but it doesn't really make me think in new ways like e.g. Lisp does. When you just want to get something done, Python is really great, but if you're trying to expand your horizons, I think Python would be a bad choice.
Go try something different, then come back and apply in Python what you've learned.
You could probably find out if you googled it.
By "people are good" I meant that I like people. I like high population density and populous cities. Was my comment really that confusing?
The 20 billion number did indeed come from my ass. Please don't feel embarrassed saying (or typing) words like "ass".
Too many people is not the problem. The problem is that we aren't making good use of our resources.
Saying we have too many people reminds me of those network admins who whine about ever increasing hard disk capacities and how hard it is getting to back up so much data. The problem is not that hard disks hold too much data, the problem is that we haven't yet figured out a good way of backing up all that data.
People are good (overall). I want more of them. The earth could easily support 20 billion people; we just need to figure out how to do it.
Trying to slow down population growth (see China) is not a solution, it is a failure to find a solution. We need to figure out how to handle more people, not how to prevent there from being more people.
How difficult would something like that be to remove if they had 3 copies to compare?
This bugs me too. I've been compiling every 3.0 beta release myself because I can't download 64-bit versions from Mozilla. The 32-bit versions of Firefox look like shit on my box because they can't use the 64-bit Qt widget libraries. What really bothers me about this lack of support is that it means the 64-bit versions aren't going to be tested nearly as well. It's like Mozilla only cares about getting feedback on the 32-bit versions.
#1 does not lead to #2 because I value freedom.
... by blaming religion for something inherently problematic with peopleYou seem to think non-religious people are horrible evil monsters who would slaughter everyone else if ever given the chance. But that is not true. I want peace. I want people to get along. I want people to be able to think clearly. And I want everyone who is currently religious to willingly become a part of that.
Are you claiming that religious people are not more bigoted than non-religious people? Why would anybody want to deny something so incredibly obvious? Oh wait, your username is "Archangel Michael". You're most likely religious, so of course you want to deny that religion is harmful.
Bigotry and religion go hand in hand. It is no coincidence that there is such a strong correlation between religion and racism. Religion requires irrational thinking, and irrational thinking breeds bigotry. You don't need religion for irrational thinking, but religion is one of the biggest encouragers of it.
Religion is harmful, and the world would be better without it.
... one of the mirrors happens to be webstandards.orgEven if unintentional, it isn't something that was introduced by the mirrors. That's all I was trying to say.
The test should work from http://webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html and http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html, but IE8 fails the first one. The mirrors might exacerbate the problem, but they certainly did not introduce anything that wasn't in the original test.
However, it is true that this issue has nothing to do with hardcoding a certain URL and trying to cheat.
Ah, the omphalos hypothesis. It's name alone is enough to confuse most creationists. ("Wait, what? It has a name?! I totally did not expect that!") My favorite version is Last Thursdayism, which I'm sure everyone here at /. is well aware of. I just wish we could decide on the name of the cat that created the universe. She will always be Molly to me, but others disagree.
It seems to me that the purpose is just to be fun, to draw attention to web standards. There are several test suites that are much better at testing this stuff, but not many casual users are going to see how well their browser does in those. Browser implementers are more likely to pay attention to standards if many of their users are looking at a test of those standards.
regular test suites -> not fun
Acid tests -> fun
That's the difference.
Aren't most free software developers going to want to work on free software? Maybe there's not enough such work to go around for them, but if you're not producing free software, they're probably not going to be very happy about working for you.