The documented standard uses a URL that links to the W3C's copy of the DTD only as an EXAMPLE. The standard DOES NOT REQUIRE usage of the URL to W3C's copy of the DTD. Responsible developers use a URL that links to their OWN COPY of the DTD. ANYTHING else is just leeching from W3C. PERIOD. Well, no, it's not. It's true that the standard does not require usage of the URL to W3C's copy of the DTD, but it's definitely recommended, since every client presumably has a cached copy of the W3C's DTD for something as common as HTML 4.01, and if you were to link to your own, some parsers might be confused and unsure about whether or not you're using Official W3C HTML (tm). (Yes, yes, I know; they should know by '-//W3C//etc' but this article is about stupid parsers, isn't it?)
They do very basic validation. asdf@asdf generates an error; asdf@asdf.asdf generates an error; asdf@asdf.asd does not. Apparently, the TLD needs to be exactly three characters; any e-mail address at a.info domain (e.g. example@example.info) will generate an error.
4) There are new actions to apply to messages. One is "Filter messages like these" the other is "mute". I'm not sure what mute does. Mute was a feature that was available in the old version by pressing M, but there were never any buttons for it. It's useful if you're on a listserv or have friends who like to Reply To All; it keeps future e-mails to the same conversation out of Inbox.
And the Gutsy Gibbon seems to run great on them too! [link] I would not define "running at VGA" to be "great". 640x480 is too small to fit Ubuntu's dialogs - quoting your link: "some of the dialogue boxes have their selection buttons off the bottom of the screen".
Your link also seems to suggest that 640x480 is the Eee PC's native resolution, while the rest of the Internet knows that its native resolution is 800x480. Since most web sites require a screen width of at least 800, this is a showstopper.
So you put a few coins in the bank and now you're the richest man in the world? Well, if you put in two cents (which, assuming American currency, is the lowest you can interpret "few coins" to mean) at 1% interest, waited 10000 years (which is, coincidentally, approximately the time since homo sapiens evolved), and assuming your bank didn't go bankrupt, yes, you'd be 1000000000000000000000000000000 times richer than Bill Gates.
Evolution can take billions of years. If you put $0.02 in the bank that long, that works out to be approximately 100000[insert around 4000000 zeroes here]00000 times richer than Bill Gates. That's about twice the number of atoms in the Universe multiplied by itself once for each square mile of land in the state of Texas. To get a sense of how big that number is, think of it like this: If you multiplied that number by the number of atoms in the universe, you'd get 100000[insert around 4000002 zeroes here]00000.
And that's just at 1% interest. At 2% interest, you'd have to take that number and square it.
Exponential growth: It grows really fast.
(And, yes, all of those values are calculated [and approximate] - it took a while to do the calculations, though - most calculators don't go higher than 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)
Putting Copurnicous on house arrest for his last 8 years of his life, because the Pope didn't like his idea....that was both malicious and stupid. Zarel would like to point out that you are speaking of Galileo. Copernicus was too afraid to publish any of his ideas until right before he died.
Other people have already pointed out that the group "Slashdot mods" consist of more than one person, so I'll just skip straight to pointing out that this is a very old and common Slashdot joke (Google reports 54 results). I can't find the original Slashdot posting, but it appears to originate from this 1998 blog post.
I'm inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of FireFox is now rivalling IE. I, on the other hand, am inclined to say they're removing the WGA restriction because the popularity of IE6 is now rivalling IE7.
I'm not sure, but I remember ClearType being on by default in as early as Windows XP (I remember having to turn it off because I hated anti-aliasing, since it made stuff too blurry). Either way, ClearType is definitely enabled by default with Vista, and we are comparing the latest technology (regardless of our opinion of that latest technology).
Here's a little page I whipped up with the different fonts from five different combinations of browser and OS.
Personally, I've never really been able to tell the difference between one font or another:) Your Windows screenshot has no anti-aliasing. Retake that screenshot with ClearType on, or else that's really unfair to Windows.
On Windows Vista, Outlook 2007 behaves as a regular window, moreso even than most other Office 2007 apps, which are fairly well-behaved for Microsoft products. Even Windows Live Messenger, which has a really stupid custom interface, manages to follow all the UI conventions I mentioned in my post.
Sounds much like every Java app. A lot of GTK+ apps. On Mac: every app not written by Apple or Adobe (all 3 of them).
This is the reason why whenever people ask me what cross platform toolkit they should use I say: none. Write a GUI for each platform you want to support and use a common backend.. that way you are more likely to write a GUI that is suitable for the platform.
Of course, when they insist, I suggest they use Qt. The problem isn't that it doesn't follow UI conventions - Windows users are used to that; every company and their mother design their own UI. The problem is that it brings its UI conventions outside to the window border/window decorations. Specifically:
Can't resize by dragging window edge - This is the one the article mentioned, and it's the worst. No other Windows app I've used, not even the particularly egregious, suffer from this problem (excluding the ones that aren't meant to be resized at all).
Doesn't understand how to maximize - In Windows, maximizing means more than resizing the window so the edges touch the screen edges. 1. It means the window can't be resized, so don't show any resize handles. 2. It means the window takes up the whole screen, excluding the taskbar. 3. It means the window is the only window on screen. Open and maximize Firefox, then open and maximize Safari. If you click on the top right corner of the screen, you would expect Safari to close. But not only does Safari not close, Firefox closes. (Trillian is the only other Windows app I've used that suffers from the same problem, and is the reason why I now set Firefox to confirm before closing.)
Doesn't understand the taskbar - In Windows, when I click on a window's taskbar button, I expect it to minimize if it isn't already minimized. When I right-click on the taskbar button, I expect to be able to minimize, restore, and maximize, depending on which state it's in.
Doesn't act like a window - If I press WLK+M, I expect all windows to minimize, not all windows except Safari. If I use the taskbar to cascade or tile windows, I expect every window to cascade or tile, not every window except Safari. In short, I expect Safari's window to behave like a window.
These are problems no other Windows application suffers from except Safari (with the exception of Trillian). Even the worst GTK apps suffer from is OK/Cancel button order switching.
E.g. if I pick a real number randomly it has a probability of 0 % of being a rational number Except that the probability wasn't 0%. If you consider all real numbers set A, and all rational numbers set B. B is a subset of A, and for your probably to be 0%, A - B would have to yield an empty set, which it certainly does not. You are apparently unacquainted with the concept of infinity. Some mathematical properties - like that one - break down when infinity is involved.
Any complex number divided by infinity is zero. An infinity divided by infinity is a bit harder - you have to do a lot of fun stuff involving limits, but you eventually find out that the size of the set of rational numbers divided by the size of the set of real numbers is zero.
News to me.. I've logged into administrator hundreds of times on vista and never changed anything. He was talking about the true Administrator account, not any account with administrator privileges. The true Administrator account is hidden quite well on Vista; I believe you have to jump through a ton of hoops (including getting rid of every other Administrator account, IIRC) to access it.
Oh and administrator does have UAC. I only wish it didn't.. it's a royal pain in the ass trying to get anything done until I've created a privileged cmd.exe shortcut (itself a pain in the ass as they've blocked the name cmd.exe from elevating, you have to create a renamed copy). Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just disable UAC?
For those wishing not to use this update, for whatever your reasons, you can take three.dll files from an XP/WMP10 install and have working embedded video in Firefox under Vista.
Those three files are : npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll
The last two are most likely optional, but I copied them anyway. The only drawback (if you can really call it that) is that the lower part of the embedded window are cut off by a few pixels, but it works perfectly fine. It depends on the video. On some videos, a large part of the actual video is cut off (compare screenshots of WMP10 dll hack with MS plugin taken from this post), and in others, the embedded video is much smaller than it should be with no way to resize it (other than full-screen).
It's not as though Firefox users haven't been able to view WMV files, is it? Actually, yes it is, Firefox users on Vista haven't been able to view WMV files without hacks. Even with hacks, videos inevitably have problems, as mentioned in this post. It's really too bad the download link is down, I really needed it.
That's not as much because they think WWW is stupid as just because of where "Slashdot" comes from: "http colon slash slash slashdot dot org" is supposed to be intentionally confusing, and adding the "www" detracts from the confusion.
why is such a blatantly prejudiced comment modded insightful? shall i make a comment about the us being nothing but greedy lying bullies because microsoft or diebold is from the us? Well, if you did make such a comment, and it was relevant, it probably would get modded insightful.
I had a feeling the rendering engine improvements would break something. The Quick Contacts list of GMail with Chat has a huge space on the bottom that increases each time you hover over a user. I wonder if it's a rendering engine bug or a GMail bug.
I mean, how hard can it be? The key either is valid or it isn't. Compare the key for validity using the same algorithm that Windows installation uses and compare it against the database of invalidated keys and that's it. No other software products have no problems with validating keys, why is this causing so much problems for Microsoft? Well, considering I've gotten WGA "not genuine" notices while using a perfectly valid key, and I'm not alone - simply installing the wrong program can cause "not genuine" notices, I'd say Microsoft's system is slightly more complicated than "see if key is valid".
The HTML Canvas tag will probably take care of that. Or they'll have to put everything in Flash, but that's not really a solution to the problem, and not hip & hot Web 2.0. IE doesn't support Canvas (without some Novell plugin, at least), so I doubt that. Not that you'd need it; JavaScript can be used to animate things well enough.
What I don't understand is why they do this. They're blurring out the roof of the building. If terrorists want to do something with a building, like bomb it, being able to see a roof and being able to see a blurred roof isn't going to make any difference. If they want to infiltrate the building, the roof shape isn't going to help them much, and you can see the roof shape from the blurred version, anyway. So the blurring doesn't do anything except alert terrorists that there's something that probably should be bombed here.
So can anyone explain why this building is being blurred?
TFA complains that the new Word rendering engine in Outlook doesn't support very much CSS, and fancy e-mail designs will have to use table-based layouts.
On a completely unrelated note, all Microsoft's e-mail newsletters use table-based layouts.
The problem is that you're not listening. Go read my original post. Eight commercial AJAX products failed us. We actually tried them. We put them to use. We even got the vendor's assistance in once case. Yet these products failed. I clearly outline exactly how they fail in my original post: performance problems, usability problems, consistency problems, and so forth. It is quite statistically possible that you were unlucky in that all eight commercial vendors you found were incompetent. Factor in the fact that Ajax is the new buzzword, so most of the vendors advertising Ajax are probably not as competent as you would like.
I have also given plenty of evidence that those companies don't know what they're doing: They've somehow managed to make an Ajax application many times slower for the client and server, as well as take up much more bandwidth, the exact opposite of what Ajax is meant to do.
AJAX doesn't cut it for real-world deployments, kid. I know, you probably won't believe me. After all, I've only directly experienced the problems AJAX presents. I've only attempted to deploy eight AJAX applications, only to see all eight fail horribly. I can understand your frustration. But, please, try Ajax sometime in the future, after it's no longer Buzzword of the Week and you can find people who actually know how to use it properly, and you might find that it's a lot better than what you thought.
I'm not talking about your experience with AJAX. Think bigger, kid. I'm talking about your lack of experience doing large-scale enterprise deployments. We're not throwing together some site for your high school that'll get 250 hits per month.
What we're talking about here is even towards the low end of the spectrum. The AJAX applications we attempted to use were only being used by about 8000 people spread throughout our offices in the northeastern US. You won't understand a deployment even of this small size until you've actually done it one or twice, kid. I've written Web sites that take advantage of Ajax that were used by a lot more than 8000 people. Believe me, I know how to use it in ways that actually save bandwidth and server processor cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't validate the e-mail address.
They do very basic validation. asdf@asdf generates an error; asdf@asdf.asdf generates an error; asdf@asdf.asd does not. Apparently, the TLD needs to be exactly three characters; any e-mail address at aYour link also seems to suggest that 640x480 is the Eee PC's native resolution, while the rest of the Internet knows that its native resolution is 800x480. Since most web sites require a screen width of at least 800, this is a showstopper.
Evolution can take billions of years. If you put $0.02 in the bank that long, that works out to be approximately 100000[insert around 4000000 zeroes here]00000 times richer than Bill Gates. That's about twice the number of atoms in the Universe multiplied by itself once for each square mile of land in the state of Texas. To get a sense of how big that number is, think of it like this: If you multiplied that number by the number of atoms in the universe, you'd get 100000[insert around 4000002 zeroes here]00000.
And that's just at 1% interest. At 2% interest, you'd have to take that number and square it.
Exponential growth: It grows really fast.
(And, yes, all of those values are calculated [and approximate] - it took a while to do the calculations, though - most calculators don't go higher than 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)
Other people have already pointed out that the group "Slashdot mods" consist of more than one person, so I'll just skip straight to pointing out that this is a very old and common Slashdot joke (Google reports 54 results). I can't find the original Slashdot posting, but it appears to originate from this 1998 blog post.
I'm not sure, but I remember ClearType being on by default in as early as Windows XP (I remember having to turn it off because I hated anti-aliasing, since it made stuff too blurry). Either way, ClearType is definitely enabled by default with Vista, and we are comparing the latest technology (regardless of our opinion of that latest technology).
Personally, I've never really been able to tell the difference between one font or another
On Windows Vista, Outlook 2007 behaves as a regular window, moreso even than most other Office 2007 apps, which are fairly well-behaved for Microsoft products. Even Windows Live Messenger, which has a really stupid custom interface, manages to follow all the UI conventions I mentioned in my post.
This is the reason why whenever people ask me what cross platform toolkit they should use I say: none. Write a GUI for each platform you want to support and use a common backend.. that way you are more likely to write a GUI that is suitable for the platform.
Of course, when they insist, I suggest they use Qt. The problem isn't that it doesn't follow UI conventions - Windows users are used to that; every company and their mother design their own UI. The problem is that it brings its UI conventions outside to the window border/window decorations. Specifically:
- Can't resize by dragging window edge - This is the one the article mentioned, and it's the worst. No other Windows app I've used, not even the particularly egregious, suffer from this problem (excluding the ones that aren't meant to be resized at all).
- Doesn't understand how to maximize - In Windows, maximizing means more than resizing the window so the edges touch the screen edges. 1. It means the window can't be resized, so don't show any resize handles. 2. It means the window takes up the whole screen, excluding the taskbar. 3. It means the window is the only window on screen. Open and maximize Firefox, then open and maximize Safari. If you click on the top right corner of the screen, you would expect Safari to close. But not only does Safari not close, Firefox closes. (Trillian is the only other Windows app I've used that suffers from the same problem, and is the reason why I now set Firefox to confirm before closing.)
- Doesn't understand the taskbar - In Windows, when I click on a window's taskbar button, I expect it to minimize if it isn't already minimized. When I right-click on the taskbar button, I expect to be able to minimize, restore, and maximize, depending on which state it's in.
- Doesn't act like a window - If I press WLK+M, I expect all windows to minimize, not all windows except Safari. If I use the taskbar to cascade or tile windows, I expect every window to cascade or tile, not every window except Safari. In short, I expect Safari's window to behave like a window.
These are problems no other Windows application suffers from except Safari (with the exception of Trillian). Even the worst GTK apps suffer from is OK/Cancel button order switching.Any complex number divided by infinity is zero. An infinity divided by infinity is a bit harder - you have to do a lot of fun stuff involving limits, but you eventually find out that the size of the set of rational numbers divided by the size of the set of real numbers is zero.
Those three files are : npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll
The last two are most likely optional, but I copied them anyway. The only drawback (if you can really call it that) is that the lower part of the embedded window are cut off by a few pixels, but it works perfectly fine. It depends on the video. On some videos, a large part of the actual video is cut off (compare screenshots of WMP10 dll hack with MS plugin taken from this post), and in others, the embedded video is much smaller than it should be with no way to resize it (other than full-screen).
That's not as much because they think WWW is stupid as just because of where "Slashdot" comes from: "http colon slash slash slashdot dot org" is supposed to be intentionally confusing, and adding the "www" detracts from the confusion.
shall i make a comment about the us being nothing but greedy lying bullies because microsoft or diebold is from the us? Well, if you did make such a comment, and it was relevant, it probably would get modded insightful.
I had a feeling the rendering engine improvements would break something. The Quick Contacts list of GMail with Chat has a huge space on the bottom that increases each time you hover over a user. I wonder if it's a rendering engine bug or a GMail bug.
What I don't understand is why they do this. They're blurring out the roof of the building. If terrorists want to do something with a building, like bomb it, being able to see a roof and being able to see a blurred roof isn't going to make any difference. If they want to infiltrate the building, the roof shape isn't going to help them much, and you can see the roof shape from the blurred version, anyway. So the blurring doesn't do anything except alert terrorists that there's something that probably should be bombed here.
So can anyone explain why this building is being blurred?
TFA complains that the new Word rendering engine in Outlook doesn't support very much CSS, and fancy e-mail designs will have to use table-based layouts.
On a completely unrelated note, all Microsoft's e-mail newsletters use table-based layouts.
I have also given plenty of evidence that those companies don't know what they're doing: They've somehow managed to make an Ajax application many times slower for the client and server, as well as take up much more bandwidth, the exact opposite of what Ajax is meant to do. AJAX doesn't cut it for real-world deployments, kid. I know, you probably won't believe me. After all, I've only directly experienced the problems AJAX presents. I've only attempted to deploy eight AJAX applications, only to see all eight fail horribly. I can understand your frustration. But, please, try Ajax sometime in the future, after it's no longer Buzzword of the Week and you can find people who actually know how to use it properly, and you might find that it's a lot better than what you thought. I'm not talking about your experience with AJAX. Think bigger, kid. I'm talking about your lack of experience doing large-scale enterprise deployments. We're not throwing together some site for your high school that'll get 250 hits per month.
What we're talking about here is even towards the low end of the spectrum. The AJAX applications we attempted to use were only being used by about 8000 people spread throughout our offices in the northeastern US. You won't understand a deployment even of this small size until you've actually done it one or twice, kid. I've written Web sites that take advantage of Ajax that were used by a lot more than 8000 people. Believe me, I know how to use it in ways that actually save bandwidth and server processor cycles.