Reality has become a joke when a joke becomes reality.
Next thing you know, Bush will end the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity, and Gillette will make a five bladed razor with two lubricating strips.
jQuery is entirely contained within its own namespace. Multiple versions of jQuery can coexist on the same page, so upgrades wouldn't be a problem, sites could just include the latest version if the version shipped with browsers wasn't suitable.
If you are looking for science t-shirts, these ones are pretty cool. They have a teach the controversy section that's pretty relevant to this discussion too.
I never quite got how its a wonderful thing when Apple and Google cross-subsidize free-as-in-beer Internet browsers but when They Who Must Not Be Named do the same thing its evil, monopolistic, anti-consumer behavior.
History lesson for people tempted to fall for this troll:
Once upon a time, people sold browsers just like they sold any other piece of software. Netscape were making money licensing their browser for corporate environments. The web, and consequently its leader, Netscape, threatened Microsoft's desktop monopoly. So Microsoft used all the cash they had from selling desktop operating systems, bought a web browser (defrauding that company in the process) and spent lots of money developing it further. Then they gave it away for free, at a massive loss to themselves, to "cut off Netscape's air supply". Still, that wasn't enough to unseat Netscape, so Microsoft went further and bundled it into their operating system too. Now all of a sudden 95% of the people on the planet had Microsoft's browser whether they liked it or not - and Netscape were basically dead.
Microsoft were able to eliminate the competition not because they offered a better product, but because they had a dominant position in another market and were willing to dump their product on the market no matter the cost, to put another company out of business. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. The free market cannot deal with this situation well. The invisible hand is tied behind its invisible back. So in many countries, abusing a monopoly position in this way is illegal. And that's why Microsoft is vilified here - because they acted like bullies, took something dear to geeks, and shat all over it to make money.
Now that browsers are a commodity, how are Apple and Google harming the browser market with anticompetitive actions? Answer - they aren't. They are actually competing by providing better products. And that's why it's completely different to what Microsoft did.
Why do many experts not think very highly of Herbert Schildt's
books?
A good answer to this question could fill a book by itself. While
no book is perfect, Schildt's books, in the opinion of many
gurus, seem to positively aim to mislead learners and encourage
bad habits. Schildt's beautifully clear writing style only makes
things worse by causing many "satisfied" learners to recommend his
books to other learners.
The above reviews are admittedly based on two of Schildt's older
books. However, the language they describe has not changed in the
intervening period, and several books written at around the same
time remain highly regarded.
The following humorous post also illustrates the general feeling
towards Schildt and his books.
As for the GP's point, if SO wants to become the source of all good bits it would *need* to duplicate the questions that can be easily Googled so that it has all of the answers. A lot of the information on Wikipedia could have been Googled as well, but the people who added that info added value to Wikipedia regardless.
Being "the source of all good bits" is neither feasible nor optimal. If the question being asked is how to use a particular function, then a search engine should take you to the API reference page for that function, not a bunch of squabbling wannabes giving bad advice. If the question being asked is "is there a Firefox extension for [x]?", then a search engine should take you to the website for that extension, not a page with ten different people supplying the same link to the same place.
I've been using it for the past day or so, and although there are lots of decent questions, there are also a lot of people who post things that could easily be answered by with Google or RTFM, a lot of students posting homework questions (and getting answers!), and a lot of people posting bad code as answers. Time will tell whether they can build a community that can resolve these problems, but in my experience, the quality of these types of communities only goes down.
by getting rid of Firefox, it'll just be more difficult to get people to migrate...
How? The only thing Ubuntu would lose is the brand name. The functionality is still there. And as far as the value of branding is concerned, simply by putting an Ubuntu CD in the drive, they have shown a willingness to choose something other than the big brand.
There are plenty of examples of flawed superstitious beliefs leading to an equally large disadvantage or equally great damage.
Yes, but while that may be a problem for the individuals involved, it's not a problem in the context of this article. If 10 wacky cults spring up and 9 of them are harmful while one is beneficial, the individuals who join the beneficial one outcompete everybody else and raise their more numerous children in the cult too. Over a number of generations, the size of the beneficial cult grows while the others fade. It may not be in the genes, but it's evolution, nonetheless. In fact, this is where the word 'meme' comes from.
having used IE in the past, I know how easy it is for a page to open lots of popups.
Not any more. Internet Explorer 6+ has included a popup blocker since Windows XP Service Pack 2. In any case, I doubt popups run in their own process, as it would complicate the implementation of window.opener for no good reason.
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded.
It's not a story. It's stupid fearmongering perpetuated by blazing fuckwits who like to hop on the hate bandwagon.
These kinds of terms are necessary for services where copyrighted material is hosted. Otherwise, they don't have permission to serve your content to other users, which is the whole point of the service.
In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
Everybody who thinks this is some kind of evil scheme by Google to rob content should now leave Slashdot, for they are doing exactly the same thing.
but building web pages, rendering the SAME most of the time is more important than passing a silly test.
You certainly have the right to that opinion, but that is an entirely different thing to telling people that it only tests error handling. The two aren't even at odds with each other. The better a browser does on the Acid tests, the more likely it is to render the same as another browser.
When laying out complex javascript or CSS you really need the browsers to follow the spec much more closely
And you don't think testcases help with that?
There's not a widely accepted test that shows if REAL things work.
So things like:hover, margins, positioning, generated content, they all aren't real then? Even though they are significant parts of the specifications you have just said browsers need to follow much more closely?
Acid has been misrepresented in the press as a compatibility tool when it's just an error checker.
It is a compatibility tool. It demonstrates a selection of areas where browsers do not follow the specifications. Browsers following the specifications is a fundamental part of compatibility.
Look, just go and read the documentation for the Acid2 test. You are woefully misinformed about it.
Yeah because you can't talk with people using MSN, ICQ, so on so on as long as they have an MSN, ICQ-compatible client and an account for that..
An account for that... on MSN. Accounts on those networks are tied to the operator of the network. XMPP is decentralised, like email, so ISPs can provide their own servers, or you can use your own server.
I'd like to try to convince people to use XMPP but as long as it don't support voice and webcam there is no reason to even try.
XMPP supports voice and video through the Jingle extension, which originally came from and is supported by GTalk, if I recall correctly.
but a browser can be ACID2 compliant and still not render "matching" other browsers.
Two browsers can have 100% perfect support for all the W3C specifications and still render differently. It's a feature, not a bug. That's the way the web was designed.
ACID2 tests the "edges" of the specs, not how regular complex pages act.
Which isn't at all the same thing as saying that Acid2 just tests error handling. Rather than admit what you said wasn't true, you immediately skip to another reason why you think the Acid tests are bad. It seems you're just looking for an excuse to bash the Acid tests for some reason, no matter how wrong you are.
Acid2 doesn't test the "edges" of the specifications. It tests the edges of current implementations of the specifications. Things like display: table; are not on the "edges" of the specifications, they are a central part of a major section of the CSS 2 specification. But they aren't implemented very well by browsers, which is why they are in the Acid2 test.
You have a really lopsided view of the Acid tests. Please stop spreading FUD.
Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!
What are you talking about? Firefox has never been the undisputed browser feature champion. Have you ever heard of Opera or Safari? You know, Safari, the browser based on WebKit, which is the rendering engine that gives Chrome most of its features?
Where did this myth come from that Firefox is so far ahead? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Firefox lauded for being so progressive by including a feature that other browsers have had for years. And that's not just the tech-illiterate, I'm talking about here on Slashdot where people presumably know that Internet Explorer isn't the only other browser.
It really was that bad back then. Pre-Google, it wasn't unusual to go to the second results page even for common queries. These days, I almost never have to go past the first results page. I suspect the effect is magnified due to the growth of the web though. It's easier to find relevant pages when there's so many more of them.
As for me, I started using Google back when it was google.stanford.edu, so that's 1997 or earlier.
Funny, but anybody who has tried to post code, logs, or something atypical of normal prose on Slashdot has probably run into the lameness filter at one point or another and had to either "massage" it to sneak it past the filter, or simply delete that part of their comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Next thing you know, Bush will end the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity, and Gillette will make a five bladed razor with two lubricating strips.
jQuery is entirely contained within its own namespace. Multiple versions of jQuery can coexist on the same page, so upgrades wouldn't be a problem, sites could just include the latest version if the version shipped with browsers wasn't suitable.
If you are looking for science t-shirts, these ones are pretty cool. They have a teach the controversy section that's pretty relevant to this discussion too.
I tried that once, but apparently being grounded does not legally count as false imprisonment.
I'll get you one day, Parent Degenerate! Shakes fist at basement ceiling.
That's not true. Did you know that paedophiles can make computer keyboards emit noxious fumes in order to subdue children?
History lesson for people tempted to fall for this troll:
Once upon a time, people sold browsers just like they sold any other piece of software. Netscape were making money licensing their browser for corporate environments. The web, and consequently its leader, Netscape, threatened Microsoft's desktop monopoly. So Microsoft used all the cash they had from selling desktop operating systems, bought a web browser (defrauding that company in the process) and spent lots of money developing it further. Then they gave it away for free, at a massive loss to themselves, to "cut off Netscape's air supply". Still, that wasn't enough to unseat Netscape, so Microsoft went further and bundled it into their operating system too. Now all of a sudden 95% of the people on the planet had Microsoft's browser whether they liked it or not - and Netscape were basically dead.
Microsoft were able to eliminate the competition not because they offered a better product, but because they had a dominant position in another market and were willing to dump their product on the market no matter the cost, to put another company out of business. This is not how capitalism is supposed to work. The free market cannot deal with this situation well. The invisible hand is tied behind its invisible back. So in many countries, abusing a monopoly position in this way is illegal. And that's why Microsoft is vilified here - because they acted like bullies, took something dear to geeks, and shat all over it to make money.
Now that browsers are a commodity, how are Apple and Google harming the browser market with anticompetitive actions? Answer - they aren't. They are actually competing by providing better products. And that's why it's completely different to what Microsoft did.
I used to recommend his books too, but he has a bad reputation among many developers:
Being "the source of all good bits" is neither feasible nor optimal. If the question being asked is how to use a particular function, then a search engine should take you to the API reference page for that function, not a bunch of squabbling wannabes giving bad advice. If the question being asked is "is there a Firefox extension for [x]?", then a search engine should take you to the website for that extension, not a page with ten different people supplying the same link to the same place.
I've been using it for the past day or so, and although there are lots of decent questions, there are also a lot of people who post things that could easily be answered by with Google or RTFM, a lot of students posting homework questions (and getting answers!), and a lot of people posting bad code as answers. Time will tell whether they can build a community that can resolve these problems, but in my experience, the quality of these types of communities only goes down.
How? The only thing Ubuntu would lose is the brand name. The functionality is still there. And as far as the value of branding is concerned, simply by putting an Ubuntu CD in the drive, they have shown a willingness to choose something other than the big brand.
Not in Linux distributions it isn't.
Yeah, right, as if the LHC has enough horsepower to run Vista!
Yes, but while that may be a problem for the individuals involved, it's not a problem in the context of this article. If 10 wacky cults spring up and 9 of them are harmful while one is beneficial, the individuals who join the beneficial one outcompete everybody else and raise their more numerous children in the cult too. Over a number of generations, the size of the beneficial cult grows while the others fade. It may not be in the genes, but it's evolution, nonetheless. In fact, this is where the word 'meme' comes from.
Not any more. Internet Explorer 6+ has included a popup blocker since Windows XP Service Pack 2. In any case, I doubt popups run in their own process, as it would complicate the implementation of window.opener for no good reason.
It's not a story. It's stupid fearmongering perpetuated by blazing fuckwits who like to hop on the hate bandwagon.
These kinds of terms are necessary for services where copyrighted material is hosted. Otherwise, they don't have permission to serve your content to other users, which is the whole point of the service.
From Slashdot's terms of use :
Everybody who thinks this is some kind of evil scheme by Google to rob content should now leave Slashdot, for they are doing exactly the same thing.
You certainly have the right to that opinion, but that is an entirely different thing to telling people that it only tests error handling. The two aren't even at odds with each other. The better a browser does on the Acid tests, the more likely it is to render the same as another browser.
And you don't think testcases help with that?
So things like :hover, margins, positioning, generated content, they all aren't real then? Even though they are significant parts of the specifications you have just said browsers need to follow much more closely?
It is a compatibility tool. It demonstrates a selection of areas where browsers do not follow the specifications. Browsers following the specifications is a fundamental part of compatibility.
Look, just go and read the documentation for the Acid2 test. You are woefully misinformed about it.
Now there's a sentence I didn't expect to see on Slashdot.
An account for that... on MSN. Accounts on those networks are tied to the operator of the network. XMPP is decentralised, like email, so ISPs can provide their own servers, or you can use your own server.
XMPP supports voice and video through the Jingle extension, which originally came from and is supported by GTalk, if I recall correctly.
The summary makes it sound like this is some major advantage over Google. GTalk is also based on XMPP.
But hey, Slashdot needs to pay the bills, and this makes a great Slashvertisment for Yandex.
That's just what I'd expect a monkey like you to say.
Two browsers can have 100% perfect support for all the W3C specifications and still render differently. It's a feature, not a bug. That's the way the web was designed.
Which isn't at all the same thing as saying that Acid2 just tests error handling. Rather than admit what you said wasn't true, you immediately skip to another reason why you think the Acid tests are bad. It seems you're just looking for an excuse to bash the Acid tests for some reason, no matter how wrong you are.
Acid2 doesn't test the "edges" of the specifications. It tests the edges of current implementations of the specifications. Things like display: table; are not on the "edges" of the specifications, they are a central part of a major section of the CSS 2 specification. But they aren't implemented very well by browsers, which is why they are in the Acid2 test.
You have a really lopsided view of the Acid tests. Please stop spreading FUD.
What are you talking about? Firefox has never been the undisputed browser feature champion. Have you ever heard of Opera or Safari? You know, Safari, the browser based on WebKit, which is the rendering engine that gives Chrome most of its features?
Where did this myth come from that Firefox is so far ahead? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Firefox lauded for being so progressive by including a feature that other browsers have had for years. And that's not just the tech-illiterate, I'm talking about here on Slashdot where people presumably know that Internet Explorer isn't the only other browser.
It really was that bad back then. Pre-Google, it wasn't unusual to go to the second results page even for common queries. These days, I almost never have to go past the first results page. I suspect the effect is magnified due to the growth of the web though. It's easier to find relevant pages when there's so many more of them.
As for me, I started using Google back when it was google.stanford.edu, so that's 1997 or earlier.
You won't find the mother of his children with that. ls -A skips listing parents (..). The police should have used ls -a instead.
Funny, but anybody who has tried to post code, logs, or something atypical of normal prose on Slashdot has probably run into the lameness filter at one point or another and had to either "massage" it to sneak it past the filter, or simply delete that part of their comment.
Django already runs on Jython.