And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?
By nailing those floorboards in place very thoroughly?
I was kind of hoping that IE8 would at least be more compatible with CSS as I possess only basic HTML skills and find it a huge pain to try and make things look similar in multiple browsers by using javascript hacks and other crap. Just assume ie* needs special treatment. The way I see it, the more ie8 is 'ms standards compliant' the more work I'll have updating the hacks that made any page look ok in ie7.
Whenever I work on a personal project though, I check it's standard compliant, and don't care if it doesn't look so good in ie. If it looks the same in firefox, safari and opera, passes the validator and is readable in ie, I'm not going to bother with any ie-specific code.(haven't really encountered any page ie breaks hard enough to make it unusable in ie so far)
See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he pointed out the same problems (which definitely do exist!) in the other two major Abrahamic religions. However, he doesn't. So any film that doesn't point out problems in all religions should be banned? Or are Abrahamic religions special somehow?
(Pointing out that you assume to know what the content of this film is before anybody has even seen it would be too obvious)
What is there to stop for example an oppressive husband from forcing his wife to vote the way he wants to while voting online? She can change her vote later.
Also, she can still vote the 'old' way, and if she does so it overrides any online votes.
By the time I read your comment someone already fixed the Wikipedia entry:
This is often misunderstood to be a security device, used in an attempt to sandbox an untrusted, untested or otherwise dangerous program, as if chroot was a working jail mechanism.
Now, instead of sending in soldiers to clear out buildings filled with insurgents, the job can be done by a robot. Showing soldiers running up some stairs might not have been the best example...
If you're new to Windows, and you want to do something but can't remember the name of the program you're supposed to use, just look around in your Start menu or Programs directory. The names will probably clue you in.
If you're new to computers and you can find the right program in the windows' start menu I think you might be able to figure out entries like the Ubuntu menu comes with:
Bugs happen less and are easier to fix on projects that are completely free. Why would there be less or easier fixable bugs in code if someone wrote it with the intention of making it open source?
The reason open source works so well is because user-testers can point out bugs more precisely(not only the buggy behavior, but also what code they think is causing it), and with a lot of people looking at a reported bug there's a much better chance of someone seeing a good solution.
I'd say this works because there are instructions to parse about filling in the field, if you omitted the image and just made people type in six random numbers it would work just as well.
On my site, people are asked to enter the current year, and all spam stopped immediately. Later I added some javascript that fills in the correct year and hides the question, still no spam and "real" people (with javascript enabled) aren't even bothered.
Of course 'objective' information sources like wikipedia ahould be accessible to africans, but I doubt there are much africans reading african wikipedia pages. If they've got internet access, and they know about wikipedia, and they are interested in reading encyclopedia articles, chances are they know enough english to understand wikipedia anyway.
I simply don't believe people would figure out how to use the internet _and_ discover wikipedia, without some basic knowledge about the english language. Putting the english page through a translator would probably give them more information (side-by-side with the original) than those three-sentence translated pages
Also, I think people writing non-english wikipedia pages are pretty much wasting their time: just compare the dutch and the english wikipedia, while you were writing the second of those three paragraphs in dutch, your children were already agreeing that 'reposts leave the impression of incompetence.' in the english wikipedia article.
If you really want some information you shouldn't go looking on the internet unless you know (how to read) english.
Feel free to point out speelng/grammar errors, tomorrow I'll just blame my drunkiness, if I bother to read <4 replies at all(which I probably will):p
Slashdot Mirror
And also you keep your laptop hidden in a good place (I'm assuming under the floor boards - that kind of thing). How exactly am I supposed to "enjoy" my stolen Britney Spears collection?
By nailing those floorboards in place very thoroughly?
Obviously, there are countries out there that would like the US&As reputation damaged, and this may help do that.
I'd say the USA is doing that just fine, they don't need any help.
I bet they are allergic to dihydrogen monoxide as well, someone should warn these people about its dangers.
I propose removing all electronic devices from their houses first though, for their own protection of course.
You mean people actually RTFS before posting?
Can't think of any witty comments, so I'll just link to a related webcomic.
Whenever I work on a personal project though, I check it's standard compliant, and don't care if it doesn't look so good in ie. If it looks the same in firefox, safari and opera, passes the validator and is readable in ie, I'm not going to bother with any ie-specific code.(haven't really encountered any page ie breaks hard enough to make it unusable in ie so far)
(Pointing out that you assume to know what the content of this film is before anybody has even seen it would be too obvious)
You're obviously not feeling lucky enough to use it.
You should at least pretend to do so, that way you'll have more volunteers.
Don't worry, this will be fixed with SP2
I Think there are too many options, apart from those boring old-fashioned religions you'd also have to include Pastafarianism, Jedi Knight, Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Church of the SubGenius. And then people would still spend most of their time complaining about missing options. Picking 'Pastafarianism' because "it's the nearest option" probably wouldn't feel right for a true follower of The Great Pumpkin.
I know that, but obviously Mr. Escher has short_open_tag enabled, or the original waterfall wouldn't work.
Sure: Copy code, promise you might fix the 'undesired features' in the next release.
Also, she can still vote the 'old' way, and if she does so it overrides any online votes.
I think he meant something like this.
If you're new to computers and you can find the right program in the windows' start menu I think you might be able to figure out entries like the Ubuntu menu comes with:
Applications
The reason open source works so well is because user-testers can point out bugs more precisely(not only the buggy behavior, but also what code they think is causing it), and with a lot of people looking at a reported bug there's a much better chance of someone seeing a good solution.
Try peeling the sticker off your monitor and duct taping it to your computer case.
It would come in a lot more handy during boring meetings though
Does people believing it's hooked up to voice recognition mean the operator failed his Turing test?
I'd say this works because there are instructions to parse about filling in the field, if you omitted the image and just made people type in six random numbers it would work just as well.
On my site, people are asked to enter the current year, and all spam stopped immediately. Later I added some javascript that fills in the correct year and hides the question, still no spam and "real" people (with javascript enabled) aren't even bothered.
Of course 'objective' information sources like wikipedia ahould be accessible to africans, but I doubt there are much africans reading african wikipedia pages. If they've got internet access, and they know about wikipedia, and they are interested in reading encyclopedia articles, chances are they know enough english to understand wikipedia anyway.
:p
I simply don't believe people would figure out how to use the internet _and_ discover wikipedia, without some basic knowledge about the english language. Putting the english page through a translator would probably give them more information (side-by-side with the original) than those three-sentence translated pages
Also, I think people writing non-english wikipedia pages are pretty much wasting their time: just compare the dutch and the english wikipedia, while you were writing the second of those three paragraphs in dutch, your children were already agreeing that 'reposts leave the impression of incompetence.' in the english wikipedia article.
If you really want some information you shouldn't go looking on the internet unless you know (how to read) english.
Feel free to point out speelng/grammar errors, tomorrow I'll just blame my drunkiness, if I bother to read <4 replies at all(which I probably will)