Another alternative would be to have little tests that you could take to rate your knowledge. Not comprehensive, but better than nothing. I was in an interview once where they asked me to rate myself from 1 to 5 on technology x, then would ask me questions from their list of those that should be answerable by someone at that level. Seemed like an effective interview technique. (BTW, I got the job offer but turned it down.)
According to the article it's actually 141.18%, but we all know that slashdotters don't actually read the articles! Apparently we aren't even reading the little blurb on/. now, because those numbers total 109% not 104%.;-)
In all seriousness, there's obviously some overlap here. It was probably a survey where respondents answered multiple questions.
It depends on what you mean by "support" for older browsers. If you're looking for pixel perfection on every "supported" browser then it's mostly about how much it costs you in time and money to do that. Can you afford to make your webpage look and act the same in IE 6.x and 1.x?
If, on the other hand, "support" means "usable" then I would take a lesson from Dan Cederholm, author of Bulletproof Web Design (a great read, BTW!) He advocates using lean, semantically meaningful (X)HTML. All of the style is maintained separately in stylesheets. You give up pixel perfection, but you end up with web pages that look good in modern browsers, are usable by the visually impared, easier to maintain, and (most importantly) degrade gracefully even to the point where they are usable by the lowliest of browsers (i.e. PDAs, cell phones, webtv, etc.)
I'm a professional cat herder looking for a subtle way to start a religious war on/. about languages and OSs. Call it a hobby of mine. Any suggestions on techniques that might get this past the/. editors? Thanks.
No need for a chip. The plain ol' bot has all the personality of Chuck Norris. Or is it that Chuck Norris has all the personality of the plain ol' bot? I get confused.
I wonder if they'll ever get artificial blood so close to human blood that they'll be able to power these things with it. Will the day come when advertisers sell electronics saying "artificial blood not included"?
Believe it or not, not everyone thought Star Wars was more than just "a nice scifi film from the 70's"
Maybe it's only amazing to people who were around in the '70s when the original first came out. At the time it was revolutionary. I was only 7 years old when my pop took me to see it, but I remember being completely awestruck.
On the Discovery channel I have seen things like the "dung" camera to observe elephants, and the "log" camera to observe lions. Both met with great success.
Slashdot Mirror
Another alternative would be to have little tests that you could take to rate your knowledge. Not comprehensive, but better than nothing. I was in an interview once where they asked me to rate myself from 1 to 5 on technology x, then would ask me questions from their list of those that should be answerable by someone at that level. Seemed like an effective interview technique. (BTW, I got the job offer but turned it down.)
According to the article it's actually 141.18%, but we all know that slashdotters don't actually read the articles! Apparently we aren't even reading the little blurb on /. now, because those numbers total 109% not 104%. ;-)
In all seriousness, there's obviously some overlap here. It was probably a survey where respondents answered multiple questions.
"...how do you Slashdot readers keep up with your continuing education, while still maintaining a personal life?"
Have you seen how many jokes are floating around about Slashdotters not having girlfriends?
It depends on what you mean by "support" for older browsers. If you're looking for pixel perfection on every "supported" browser then it's mostly about how much it costs you in time and money to do that. Can you afford to make your webpage look and act the same in IE 6.x and 1.x?
If, on the other hand, "support" means "usable" then I would take a lesson from Dan Cederholm, author of Bulletproof Web Design (a great read, BTW!) He advocates using lean, semantically meaningful (X)HTML. All of the style is maintained separately in stylesheets. You give up pixel perfection, but you end up with web pages that look good in modern browsers, are usable by the visually impared, easier to maintain, and (most importantly) degrade gracefully even to the point where they are usable by the lowliest of browsers (i.e. PDAs, cell phones, webtv, etc.)
Salvador Dali meets a camera. Brilliant stuff!
type?
I'm a professional cat herder looking for a subtle way to start a religious war on /. about languages and OSs. Call it a hobby of mine. Any suggestions on techniques that might get this past the /. editors? Thanks.
No need for a chip. The plain ol' bot has all the personality of Chuck Norris. Or is it that Chuck Norris has all the personality of the plain ol' bot? I get confused.
Perhaps I ought to kick that sleep habit. I'm woefully dependent on sleep.
My German Shepherd is smarter than your chimp.
Yes, I do find it funny that you and a dell tech spent 38 hours trouble shooting a poweredge scsi assemble. And voodoo is always an option.
...another language-x-is-better-than-y holy war disguised as a thoughful, coherent discussion!
What? There's a "free" Internet? Then why the hell am I paying $40/month US to Comcast?!!!
I can stop anytime. ANYTIME damn it!
Most of the /. crowd probably touches their own chicken enough without needing to reach out and cybernetically touch another!
BTW, the subject is one of Keanu Reeves' lines from Parenthood.
I wonder if they'll ever get artificial blood so close to human blood that they'll be able to power these things with it. Will the day come when advertisers sell electronics saying "artificial blood not included"?
Believe it or not, not everyone thought Star Wars was more than just "a nice scifi film from the 70's" Maybe it's only amazing to people who were around in the '70s when the original first came out. At the time it was revolutionary. I was only 7 years old when my pop took me to see it, but I remember being completely awestruck.
On the Discovery channel I have seen things like the "dung" camera to observe elephants, and the "log" camera to observe lions. Both met with great success.